No takebacks

When you're filling out forms at the hospital, it's generally a good idea to pay attention to what you're doing. Case in point:

The Minnesota Court of Appeals has ruled that a mother who didn't like the way her baby's circumcision looked cannot sue a Fridley hospital for medical malpractice.

Dawn Nelson sued Unity Hospital and Dr. Steven Berestka, claiming the doctor removed "the most erogenous tissue" after the boy was born on Jan. 21, 2000 — without consulting either parent. Nelson and the boy's father, David Nelson, were unhappy with the result.

But the Appeals Court noted in its Tuesday decision that the mother indicated on a prenatal form that the baby should be circumcised.

Attorney Zenas Baer, who is representing the mother and son, said he was disappointed with the court ruling.

He said federal regulations say there has to be a signed informed consent form before any surgery — and he argued that a checked-off box on a form regarding circumcision is beside the point, saying "isn't the mom allowed to change her mind?"

Um, no, in that situation, not really. That's the kind of thing you really can't change your mind about.

Oh, and that attorney, Baer? Well...

According to Baer's Web site, he "contributes substantial amounts of time to ending the barbaric practice of routine infant male circumcision worldwide, insuring genital integrity for all citizens of the world."

Uhhhhh...okay.