September 1994 Complaint from Romona Goheen against Manuel Neto.
February 1996 Complaint from Jody
McLaughlin against Richard Dormont.
Ramona T. Goheen
Rolf Sletten, Executive Director
ND Board of Medical Examiners
418 East Broadway Suite C10
Bismark, ND 58501
am registering a complaint against the injury caused to my infant son's
genitals by Dr. Manuel Neto, MD (FACS) at the Centennial Medical Center
in Minot, ND on August 22. I brought my son in to get Dr. Neto's opinion
on surgery regarding his hypospadias. He said that my son did not need
reconstructive surgery to the urinary hole, but should be circumcised so
he, "Doesn't get picked on by other boys because he won't be
urinating straight". He also stated that "He won't learn as
well in school if he doesn't get circumcised". Not only is routine
circumcision medically unnecessary, but it is contraindicated when a
condition such as hypospadias exists.
forcibly retracted the foreskin without my permission
causing it to redden, bleed, and swell, causing extreme pain to my son.
I said to him, "I thought you were suppose to leave it (the
foreskin) alone," while he was doing this but he still proceeded to
force it back even after I said this. He gave no explanation for
forcibly retracting the foreskin from the glans. If anyone else would
have done that to my son, I would have them arrested.
enclosed information regarding infant genital care. All clearly state to
leave the foreskin alone and not to retract it.
see that Dr. Neto, and all other North Dakota doctors, are also informed
on infant genital care so that he and other doctors do not put other
children, along with their parents through this excruciating pain. I
look forward to your prompt response. Thank you.
cc Manuel Neto, MD
Rice, MD, [State Health Officer]
Hoff, Trinity Medical Center
Mattern, St. Joseph's Hospital
action was taken on this complaint.]
February 11, 1996
PO Box 209
Minot, North Dakota
ND Board of Medical Examiners
418 East Broadway, Suite 12
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501
Mr. Sletten, North Dakota Board of Medical Examiners and the
Commission on Medical Competency:
this as a formal complaint about Dr. Richard Dormont and any other
doctors your investigation shows are also performing unnecessary,
painful genital alterations on infants and children. Parents of male
and female children have told me about Dr. Dormont and other
physicians disregard for the normal anatomical development and health
of their children's genitals.
though one Minot mother's reasons for taking her son to Dr. Dormont
had nothing to do with the baby's genitals, during the examination he
forcibly retracted the child's foreskin, causing the baby considerable
pain. He appears to knows nothing about the gradual separation which
occurs as the inner surface of the prepuce gradually separates itself
from the glans. Either Dr. Dormont is painfully misinformed regarding
the normal physiological changes taking place during the gradual
developmental maturation of childrens' genitals, or he is perverting
his practice of pediatrics.
mother brought her 15 month old daughter to Dr. Dormont for a
condition which, again, had nothing to do with her genital area.
During the examination he said "Oh, she has labial adhesions.* I
can take care of that." Over the mothers explicit objections, he
grabbed a long swab (the kind on a wooden stick), stuck it in her
vagina and slit her open "like a ziplock storage bag."
Seeing the look of disbelief on the mother's face Dr. Dormont said
this was very common. Her daughter bled into her diaper for three
she found out he had done this to a friend's daughter as well. She
contacted a medical professional who asked a second pediatrician about
labial adhesions,* he said, "Is Dr. Dormont still doing that?
Labial adhesions should never be forcibly torn apart. Our experience
has been that under the hormonal influence of puberty, labial
adhesions Just naturally separate on their own. We don't recommend any
intervention." I will remind the Board this act is prohibited by
ND Criminal Code as of July 1, 1995, any person who knowingly
separates or surgically alters normal, healthy, functioning genital
tissue of a female minor is guilty of a class C felony. Last December,
in South Dakota, a man was sentenced to 40 years in prison for
digitally penetrating the vagina of a 16 month-old child, (see
enclosed Minot Daily News, December 2, 1995 pg 134). From the child's
perspective, what is the difference between what happened to the
at the hands of her mother's boyfriend, or the little girl at the
hands of a licensed physician?
Dormont and other physicians have used their hands or devices to
separate temporarily fused, normal genital structures, this is wrong
and it must stop.
will this complaint be placed on the meeting schedule? Your timely
response indicating what procedures the Board of Medical Examiners and
the Commission on Medical Competency will take to resolve this pattern
of practice regarding the genital integrity of children is expected.
month you indicated you would be contacting Robert Van Howe, MD** for
medical information regarding infant circumcision practices. He has
not been contacted by your office. When will you get in touch with Dr.
office has not sent me the NDBME Newsletter which includes the
reference to the circumcision issue. When can I expect to receive it?
[It eventually did arrive.]
The midline surface of the labia in young females and the inner mucosa
of the prepuce in young male children continue to share a common
membrane, synechia, which gradually and painlessly separates over a
period of time. These temporary, connecting membranes are not
adhesions. Adhesions are scar tissue, not normal developmental
**Robert Van Howe, MD
PO Box 1390
Minocqua, Wisconsin 54548-1390
American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines for the care of the
to Governor Schaefer
Dr. Jon Rice
Attorney General, Heidi Heitkamp
Century Code 43-17-3 1. Grounds for disciplinary action.
Disciplinary action may be
imposed against a physician upon any of the following grounds:
The making of false or misleading statements about the efficacy of any
treatment, or remedy.
The performance of any unethical conduct likely to deceive, defraud,
or harm the public.
Obtaining any fee by fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
Sexual abuse, misconduct, or exploitation related to the licensed
practice of medicine.
A continued pattern of inappropriate care as a physician, including
The use of any false fraudulent or deceptive statement in any document
connected with the practice of medicine.
[No action was taken on this complaint.]