Difference between revisions of "Routine Infant Circumcision"
m (wikify) |
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) m |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | '''RIC''' is an acronym for '''R'''outine '''I'''nfant '''C'''ircumcision. | + | '''{{FULLPAGENAME}}''' is the name for a surgical procedure that was outlawed by court decisions in the [[United States]] more than 1/2 century age. '''RIC''' is an acronym for '''R'''outine '''I'''nfant '''C'''ircumcision. |
| − | Mainly in the United States, boys were circumcised in many hospitals immediately after birth. Very often, this was done without informing or asking the parents previously | + | Mainly in the [[United States]], boys formerly were [[circumcised]] without [[Informed consent]] in many hospitals immediately after birth. Very often, this was done without informing or asking the parents previously. |
| − | The word ''routine'', when applied to non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] of boys is outmoded. Circumcision has not been 'routine' since court rulings started to require [[informed consent]] in 1972.<ref>[https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/250 Canterbury v. Spence], 464 F.2d 772, 782 (D.C. Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1064 (1972)</ref> | + | The word ''routine'', when applied to non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] of boys is outmoded. Circumcision has not been 'routine' (done automatically as a standard practice) since court rulings started to require [[informed consent]] in 1972.<ref>[https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/250 Canterbury v. Spence], 464 F.2d 772, 782 (D.C. Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1064 (1972)</ref> Anyone who uses the term ''routine infant circumcision'' today is displaying their ignorance. |
Routine infant circumcision (i. e. non-therapeutic circumcision without consent) is an unlawful procedure for which damages may be recovered.<ref name="llewellnyn1995">{{REFjournal | Routine infant circumcision (i. e. non-therapeutic circumcision without consent) is an unlawful procedure for which damages may be recovered.<ref name="llewellnyn1995">{{REFjournal | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
| − | Routine infant circumcision no longer exists in the United States, except when a hospital or doctor makes an error for which they can be sued. The phrase is outmoded and inaccurate so it should not be used to refer to non-therapeutic circumcision of boys. The [[American Academy of Pediatrics]] declared non-therapeutic infant circumcision to be an ''elective'' surgery decades ago (1989).<ref name="aap1989">{{REFjournal | + | Routine infant circumcision no longer exists in the [[United States]], except when a hospital or doctor makes an error for which they can be sued. The phrase is outmoded and inaccurate so it should not be used to refer to non-therapeutic circumcision of boys. The [[American Academy of Pediatrics]] declared non-therapeutic infant circumcision to be an ''elective'' surgery decades ago (1989).<ref name="aap1989">{{REFjournal |
|last=Schoen | |last=Schoen | ||
|first=Edgar J. | |first=Edgar J. | ||
| Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
}}</ref> Use of the phrase "routine infant circumcision" or "RIC" is a sign of ignorance on the part of the user. | }}</ref> Use of the phrase "routine infant circumcision" or "RIC" is a sign of ignorance on the part of the user. | ||
| − | [[Circumcision]] of a minor boy currently requires the consent of | + | [[Circumcision]] of a minor boy currently requires the surrogate consent of one parent in the [[United States]], while in the [[United Kingdom]], the surrogate consent of both parents is required, so it cannot be done automatically or "routinely". |
| − | The right of a parent to consent to a non-therapeutic, non-diagnostic surgical [[amputation]] of functional tissue has been questioned.<ref name="bioethics">{{REFjournal | + | The alleged right of a parent to consent to a non-therapeutic, non-diagnostic surgical [[amputation]] of functional tissue from a boy's [[penis]] has been questioned.<ref name="bioethics">{{REFjournal |
|last=Committee on Bioethics | |last=Committee on Bioethics | ||
|title=Informed consent, parental permission, and assent in pediatric practice | |title=Informed consent, parental permission, and assent in pediatric practice | ||
| Line 92: | Line 92: | ||
* [[Informed consent]] | * [[Informed consent]] | ||
* [[NNMC]] | * [[NNMC]] | ||
| + | * [[United States of America]] | ||
{{LINKS}} | {{LINKS}} | ||
| Line 120: | Line 121: | ||
[[Category:Acronym]] | [[Category:Acronym]] | ||
[[Category:Law]] | [[Category:Law]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Category:USA]] | ||
[[de:Routinemäßige Jungen-Beschneidung]] | [[de:Routinemäßige Jungen-Beschneidung]] | ||
Latest revision as of 13:46, 7 May 2024
Routine Infant Circumcision is the name for a surgical procedure that was outlawed by court decisions in the United States more than 1/2 century age. RIC is an acronym for Routine Infant Circumcision.
Mainly in the United States, boys formerly were circumcised without Informed consent in many hospitals immediately after birth. Very often, this was done without informing or asking the parents previously.
The word routine, when applied to non-therapeutic circumcision of boys is outmoded. Circumcision has not been 'routine' (done automatically as a standard practice) since court rulings started to require informed consent in 1972.[1] Anyone who uses the term routine infant circumcision today is displaying their ignorance.
Routine infant circumcision (i. e. non-therapeutic circumcision without consent) is an unlawful procedure for which damages may be recovered.[2]
Routine infant circumcision no longer exists in the United States, except when a hospital or doctor makes an error for which they can be sued. The phrase is outmoded and inaccurate so it should not be used to refer to non-therapeutic circumcision of boys. The American Academy of Pediatrics declared non-therapeutic infant circumcision to be an elective surgery decades ago (1989).[3] Use of the phrase "routine infant circumcision" or "RIC" is a sign of ignorance on the part of the user.
Circumcision of a minor boy currently requires the surrogate consent of one parent in the United States, while in the United Kingdom, the surrogate consent of both parents is required, so it cannot be done automatically or "routinely".
The alleged right of a parent to consent to a non-therapeutic, non-diagnostic surgical amputation of functional tissue from a boy's penis has been questioned.[4] [5]
See also
External links
Svoboda JS, Van Howe RS, Dwyer JG. Informed Consent for Neonatal Circumcision: An Ethical and Legal Conundrum. J Contemporary Health Law Policy. 2000; 167(61) Retrieved 12 November 2021.
References
- ↑ Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772, 782 (D.C. Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1064 (1972)
- ↑ Llewellyn DJ. Legal remedies for penile torts. The Compleat Mother. 1995; 40: 16. Retrieved 4 January 2020.
- ↑ Schoen EJ, Anderson G, Bohon C, Hinman F, Poland R, Wakeman EM. Report of the Task Force of Circumcision.. Pediatrics. November 1989; 84(4): 388-91. PMID. Retrieved 3 August 2021.
- ↑ Committee on Bioethics. Informed consent, parental permission, and assent in pediatric practice. Pediatrics. 1995; 95(2): 314-317. PMID. Reaffirmed May 2011.
- ↑ Adler PW. Is circumcision legal?. Richmond Journal of Law and the Public Interest. 2013; 16(3): 439-86. Retrieved 8 May 2020.