Circumcision Case to Proceed to Trial. It's highly likely now that US doctors will routinely be sued due to the routine of infant circumcision.

Court cases are mounting against US doctors who perform/inflict the senseless, violent, medically contraindicated, non-therapeutic, involuntary, mutilating, and lifelong harmful US routine of infant circumcision surgery, a euphemism for male sexual mutilation.

Attorneys for the Rights of the Child
2961 Ashby Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705
Fax/Phone 510-595-5550
arc@post.harvard.edu www.arclaw.org

Circumcision Case to Proceed to Trial

Berkeley, CA (31 July 02) ­ This month, North Dakota District Judge
Cynthia Rothe-Seeger denied a motion for summary judgment by defendants in
the Flatt v. Kantak circumcision case, and decided it will proceed to trial
on 3 February 2003. The precedent setting decision confirms that a baby who
is circumcised can sue his doctor when he reaches age of majority, even if
there was parental consent for the circumcision, and even if the results are
considered to be 'normal. "This is the latest in a series of warnings to
doctors who still circumcise: proceed at your peril, because even if you get
parental consent and do a standard job of the circumcision, the child can
still grow up and sue you for taking away part of his penis," says lawyer J.
Steven Svoboda, executive director of Attorneys for the Rights of the Child
(ARC).

Like the on-going William Stowell case in New York, this case would be a
breakthrough in establishing that circumcision is litigious even where there
is no "botch" and "consent" is given, but there are problems with the
"consent." In this case, the mother was not informed about the procedure
prior to signing the "consent" form. Plaintiff Flatts attorney Zenas Baer
says, "There will be a nine-person jury hearing this precedent setting case.
I am optimistic we will be able to have the "informed consent" issue decided
by the jury. "

Svoboda said, This is the second significant legal victory this year, after
the case of William Stowell also survived summary judgment and is proceeding
to trial. Both cases will establish that, even where the procedure is
performed at the professional standard, a circumcision is litigious if the
consent is not informed."

Baer added, The court also observed that, in an informed consent case, the
type of information to be disclosed to a parent is a 'standard set by law
for physicians rather than one which physicians may or may not impose upon
themselves. This is a huge statement and will put the physicians in their
place if we can convince nine reasonable people that the physicians failed
to give adequate information."

Marilyn Milos, Director of NOCIRC, an organization that seeks to end routine
infant circumcision in North America, says, Female genital mutilation has
been outlawed, and we need the law to set the standard here, too, followed
by aggressive educational programs. Parents and doctors need to know that
this is a harm that lasts a lifetime."

Svoboda stated The foundation is well laid for lawsuits. Doctors who are
still doing circumcisions are already investing in a lot of trouble, and
this case will make their troubles worse. They just have to wait 18 years
until that baby grows up, and theyre in for a lawsuit. An army of lawyers
will be there with this precedent and many more in their arsenal."

This landmark case brings into question whether a physician can remove
healthy, normal tissue from unconsenting minors for non-therapeutic reasons,
and whether a parent can legally consent to a medically non-indicated
surgery for a minor child. Svoboda is convinced that this case will have a
major impact on circumcision in the US. Doctors ignore a lot of medical
literature," he said, and they ignore the screams of the babies, but they
listen when they hear the word 'malpractice. As a lawyer willing to sue, Ive
never had a doctor not listen to me."

Arizona and Missouri have recently dropped Medicaid funding for
circumcision, joining six states, and other states are considering similar
steps. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) first acknowledged that
there was no medical justification for routine circumcision in 1971. In
1999, the AAP reaffirmed that it does not recommend routine circumcision.
The American Medical Association concurred in 2000, calling routine
circumcision non-therapeutic." No national or international medical
organization recommends routine circumcision. The US is the only
country that continues to circumcise the majority of its newborns for
non-religious reasons. As parents have become more educated about the
surgery, the circumcision rate in the US has fallen to 57%.

-xxx-

For More Information Contact:

Zenas Baer, J.D., Attorney for Joshiah Flatt, 218-483-3372, zbaer@zbaer.com

J. Steven Svoboda, J.D., Executive Director, Attorneys for the Rights of the
Child
510-595-5550 arc@post.harvard.edu www.arclaw.org

Marilyn Milos, RN, Director, NOCIRC, 415-488-9883
nocirc@cris.com www.nocirc.org/