Mothering › Forums › Health › The Case Against Circumcision › parents didn't consent--can't sue
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

parents didn't consent--can't sue - Page 2  

post #21 of 26
I am not sure; my read was that the parents consented and the lawyer is the one who dedicates time to the cause. I think they sued because they didn't get the 'pretty' job they wanted. Here is another link to the story.
post #22 of 26
The news reports on this case leave a lot of questions unanswered and leave us with virtually no knowledge about what happened in the case.

The attorney, Zenas Baer is the same attorney that brought the Flatt vs. Kantak case involving informed consent just a couple of years ago. Baer lost that case. Baer is an experienced lawyer and it is not likely that he would bring a case that did not have merit such as the mother being simply not satisfied with the first circumcision.

We don't know if the check-off form was a "yes/no" or just a "yes" type form that could have been changed after she signed it. If it was only "yes" a nurse or other worker could have checked yes later "to do what's best for the child."

We don't know if the mother changed her mind about circumcision after signing the form and thought there would be a formal informed consent form at the hospital.

We don't know if the first circumcision was done in a sloppy manner or if it was just a loose circumcision that did not leave the glans completely bare as she expected.

The articles did state that there had been a settlememt reached with the doctor and that the plaintiff intends to appeal the case against the hospital which indicates there is some validity to the complaint.

The judge in the case might be highly biased toward circumcision. In the Flatt vs. Kantak case, the judge ruled that Dr. Kantak only had to answer very specific and pointed questions to satisfy the informed part of informed consent and did not have to provide any information that was not specifically requested in a question. I personally think she would have ruled quite differently if the case had been about something other than circumcision but never the less, that case set the standard for informed consent in all surgeries in North Dakota. I will not be having surgery in North Dakota for fear that I would be deprived vital information about the risks of the procedure.

We just haven't gotten enough information about this case to come to any conclusions about whether it was a valid complaint or a good judgement by the judge. Hopefully, more information will come out.

.
post #23 of 26
I felt quite some unease with the presumption of litigiousness on the parents' part, but Rising just expressed it far better than I could ever hope to.

So all I have to say is: seconded.
post #24 of 26
From what little I was able to find about this..I see no reason that the boy can't sue when he reaches age of consent...I think we might see more and more of these cases coming around the bend. I certainly hope so. Hitting them in the wallet might be the only way to stop this nonsense!!
post #25 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeidiAnn67 View Post
I'm confussed by something. If these parents are really "anti-circ" WHY would they consent to a SECOND one a few days later???

It says they did this because they didn't like the "looks" of the first one. Shoudn't that not matter??? WHY would they put their poor son through this TWICE.

I'm sorry, but I can't help but wonder if they just didn't LIKE the first one and decided to claim they were against it to get some money (as they did from the doctor).

I'm not saying what happened is right, I just don't understand how someone who is against circ would consent to it happening again, especially so soon after the first, when he's so young you know they didn't use any good pain relief. Why not let son decide later if he like the looks of it or not (I'm assuming it was a "loose circ" that so many parents seem to be against these day, meaning pro-circ parents)
I don't know - the article didn't say it was a 'second circ'. The procedure could have been a more restorative one - but maybe that's just wishful thinking..
post #26 of 26
I would also say don't judge the parents too harshly based on what this author of the article wrote. A story can sound very different just by leaving out a few details or adding a couple of comments. News media does tend to spin a story to fit an agenda or pre-conceived opinion.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Case Against Circumcision
This thread is locked  
Mothering › Forums › Health › The Case Against Circumcision › parents didn't consent--can't sue