Betsy
09-03-04, 07:46 PM
^BC-ND--Supco-Circumcision,590
^N.D. Supreme Court rejects appeal of circumcision lawsuit
^bissmk
^By CURT WOODWARD= ^Associated Press Writer=
BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) A Fargo doctor properly informed a Minnesota woman of surgical risks before her infant son was circumcised, the North Dakota Supreme Court ruled Friday.
Doctors must disclose surgical risks most likely to affect a patient's health, but they are not required to list every possible complication before getting consent from a minor patient's guardian, the justices said.
Josiah Flatt and his mother, Anita Flatt, of Hawley, Minn., argued that Dr. Sunita Kantak should have told Josiah's parents of all potential risks of the circumcision because it was not medically required and was performed on a child.
Flatt ``has not cited any case law to support that claim,'' the court said.
Josiah Flatt was born in 1997 at MeritCare hospital in Fargo. After his birth, Kantak said, she discussed the risks and benefits of circumcision with Anita Flatt, who then signed a consent form for the procedure.
Circumcision involves removing sensitive skin from the penis. The American Academy of Pediatrics says most complications from the procedure, such as bleeding, are minor, and that circumcision reduces the risk of urinary tract infections. However, a policy statement from the group says the procedure's benefits do not justify routine circumcisions of newborns.
Flatt's parents did not claim the circumcision was botched, but said they would not have agreed to the procedure if they had known about all possible medical risks.
The boy is now 7. His father, James, died in a traffic accident three years ago.
A jury concluded in 2003 that Kantak was not negligent, and Fargo Judge Cynthia Rothe-Seeger ordered the Flatts to pay $58,506 in defense costs. The Flatts also had sued Fargo's MeritCare Hospital, but Rothe-Seeger dismissed that claim before sending the case to a jury.
The Flatts' attorney, Zenas Baer, asked the North Dakota Supreme Court to grant a new trial, saying Rothe-Seeger should have allowed his expert witnesses to testify about a doctor's duty to inform parents.
He also objected to the judge's disqualification of circumcision tools and videos of a circumcision as evidence in the case.
The Supreme Court ruled that Baer was not prevented from presenting evidence of the ``accepted medical practice for a physician in obtaining informed consent.''
The circumcision video and other evidence did not apply to a parent's informed consent about risks of circumcision, the court said.
The ruling was written by Chief Justice Gerald VandeWalle, and was signed by justices William Neumann and Mary Muehlen Maring, and Everett Olson, filling in for Justice Carol Ronning Kapsner.
In a separate opinion, Justice Dale Sandstrom said he agreed with the court's ruling but worried that Rothe-Seeger may have gone too far in limiting Baer's evidence.
Despite those reservations, Sandstrom wrote, ``I cannot say that my concern rises to a conviction that a new trial need be ordered.''
Baer also objected to a North Dakota law that forbids female genital mutilation, arguing that it did not give equal legal protection to both sexes. Rothe-Seeger dismissed that claim before trial, saying the Flatts did not have legal standing to make it.
MeritCare attorney Jane Voglewede applauded the Supreme Court's decision Friday. Baer's law firm said he was in Italy attending a conference on circumcision and could not be reached for comment.
(Copyright 2004 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
^N.D. Supreme Court rejects appeal of circumcision lawsuit
^bissmk
^By CURT WOODWARD= ^Associated Press Writer=
BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) A Fargo doctor properly informed a Minnesota woman of surgical risks before her infant son was circumcised, the North Dakota Supreme Court ruled Friday.
Doctors must disclose surgical risks most likely to affect a patient's health, but they are not required to list every possible complication before getting consent from a minor patient's guardian, the justices said.
Josiah Flatt and his mother, Anita Flatt, of Hawley, Minn., argued that Dr. Sunita Kantak should have told Josiah's parents of all potential risks of the circumcision because it was not medically required and was performed on a child.
Flatt ``has not cited any case law to support that claim,'' the court said.
Josiah Flatt was born in 1997 at MeritCare hospital in Fargo. After his birth, Kantak said, she discussed the risks and benefits of circumcision with Anita Flatt, who then signed a consent form for the procedure.
Circumcision involves removing sensitive skin from the penis. The American Academy of Pediatrics says most complications from the procedure, such as bleeding, are minor, and that circumcision reduces the risk of urinary tract infections. However, a policy statement from the group says the procedure's benefits do not justify routine circumcisions of newborns.
Flatt's parents did not claim the circumcision was botched, but said they would not have agreed to the procedure if they had known about all possible medical risks.
The boy is now 7. His father, James, died in a traffic accident three years ago.
A jury concluded in 2003 that Kantak was not negligent, and Fargo Judge Cynthia Rothe-Seeger ordered the Flatts to pay $58,506 in defense costs. The Flatts also had sued Fargo's MeritCare Hospital, but Rothe-Seeger dismissed that claim before sending the case to a jury.
The Flatts' attorney, Zenas Baer, asked the North Dakota Supreme Court to grant a new trial, saying Rothe-Seeger should have allowed his expert witnesses to testify about a doctor's duty to inform parents.
He also objected to the judge's disqualification of circumcision tools and videos of a circumcision as evidence in the case.
The Supreme Court ruled that Baer was not prevented from presenting evidence of the ``accepted medical practice for a physician in obtaining informed consent.''
The circumcision video and other evidence did not apply to a parent's informed consent about risks of circumcision, the court said.
The ruling was written by Chief Justice Gerald VandeWalle, and was signed by justices William Neumann and Mary Muehlen Maring, and Everett Olson, filling in for Justice Carol Ronning Kapsner.
In a separate opinion, Justice Dale Sandstrom said he agreed with the court's ruling but worried that Rothe-Seeger may have gone too far in limiting Baer's evidence.
Despite those reservations, Sandstrom wrote, ``I cannot say that my concern rises to a conviction that a new trial need be ordered.''
Baer also objected to a North Dakota law that forbids female genital mutilation, arguing that it did not give equal legal protection to both sexes. Rothe-Seeger dismissed that claim before trial, saying the Flatts did not have legal standing to make it.
MeritCare attorney Jane Voglewede applauded the Supreme Court's decision Friday. Baer's law firm said he was in Italy attending a conference on circumcision and could not be reached for comment.
(Copyright 2004 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)