15,635
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Informed consent for non-therapeutic circumcision of minor boys: Add quote.
Infant boys are born with a healthy foreskin. No disease or deformity is present to be diagnosed or treated. Circumcision of an infant boy is neither a diagnostic procedure nor a treatment for disease. The limited parental surrogate powers to grant informed permission recognized by the Bioethics Committee do not extend to the granting of permission or consent for the non-therapeutic circumcision of a minor child.<ref name="aap1995" /> If the medical industry had actually followed this sound ethical guidance, then the circumcision of male infants would have ended abruptly. The medical industry has chosen to ignore this advice and allow parents to grant consent for non-therapeutic circumcision of male children, so that the physician income derived from circumcision may be maintained.
Svoboda ''et al''. (2002) examined the validity ethics and legality of informed consent for non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision.They concluded:<blockquote>Consent to neonatal circumcision has not been directly considered by the the courts; therefore our analysis, out of necessity, relies on established legal precedents of cases that share common elements with neonatal circumcision. With near uniformity, these precedents indicate that any consent given for neonatal circumcision would not be valid. Court decisions are in part influenced by the culture in which they occur. However, circumcision has been gradually falling out of favor in the last few decades. When the balance of public opinion shifts to opposing the practice, the legal system will become more accepting of lawsuits and lobbying for the protection of baby boys. Consequently, the legal system will no longer be able to ignore the conflict between the practice and the legal and ethical duties of medical professionals. In the meantime, the medical community should personally reexamine the ethics of the practice.</blockquote>