Changes

'''{{FULLPAGENAME}}''' is regulated by law. In the [[United States]], surrogate Surrogate consent is regulated by state law, which varies from state to state.<ref>{{REFweb

The [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3012582275354260465&hl=en&as_sdt=8000003&scfhb=1 Prince v Massachusetts], 21 U.S. 158, 159-60 (1944) decision said:

One should note that these guidances from the Bioethics Committee of the American Academy of Pediatrics apply to the granting of "informed permission" by surrogates for the "diagnosis and treatment of diseasechildren", and do <i>NOT</i> apply to non-therapeutic procedures such as medically non-indicated, non-therapeutic [[circumcision]], which is neither diagnosis nor treatment. ==Video=====Circumcision — Your Legal Rights===<youtube>v=8GT03orcHWM</youtube>==Conclusion==Patient autonomy is an important principle of medical ethics.<ref>{{REFbook |last=Beauchamp |first=Tom L. |init=TL |last2=Childress |first2=James F. |init2=JF |title=Principles of Biomedical Ethics |publisher=New York: {{UNI|Oxford University|Oxon}} Press |date=2001}}</ref> Consent for a non-therapeutic operation offends the principle of autonomy, when granted by a surrogate. A surrogate's powers to grant consent are more circumscribed than the powers granted to a competent individual acting on his own behalf.<ref name="svoboda2000" /> A surrogate's power to grant consent for treatment is dependent upon the existence of a medical condition in need of diagnosis and/or treatment. In the absence of such a condition, the surrogate lacks the power to consent.  A surrogate must:* Act in the best interests of the patient.* Protect the rights of the patient under Constitutional law, statute law, common law, and international human rights law.* Receive [[informed consent]] prior to granting consent. A circumcision for religious reasons is not medical treatment, so a surrogate may not consent to a religious circumcision. Furthermore, consent for a religious circumcision would violate the boy's religious right to chose his religion when he is of age. A non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] exposes the patient to the surgical risks of [[infection]], [[bleeding]], and [[Documented severe complications of circumcision| surgical mishap]] without any health treatment or benefit, so it is not in the best interests of the patient. Furthermore, a surrogate may only consent to therapeutic procedures. As explained above and we reiterate, bioethicists Myers & Earp (2020) exhaustively reviewed the evidence for and against the alleged health benefits to a healthy person claimed for non-therapeutic circumcision of a neonate, infant or child. They balanced this against the [[pain]], [[trauma]], and loss of body tissue and function. They concluded the claimed health benefits are insufficient to support surrogate consent for non-therapeutic circumcision. Given this, only the subject can grant consent for a non-therapeutic circumcision, after he reaches the right age for circumcision, which does not occurs until a male reaches the age of consent in his jurisdiction which may vary from 16 to 18 years of age.<ref name="myers2020" />The present practice in the [[United States]] and elsewhere of parental surrogate consent for non-therapeutic circumcision is entirely unethical<ref name="myers2020" /> and may also be unlawful.<ref name="povenmire1998" /> <ref name="adler2013" />  The only person who can ethically and legally grant consent for a non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] is the owner of the [[penis]] when he has reached the legal age for consent.