Surrogate consent: Difference between revisions

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

Hill (2002) raised the question of who can grant effective consent for such an injurious operation.

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. The present practice in the [[United States]] and elsewhere of parental consent for non-therapeutic circumcision is entirely unethical.

Professor Peter W. Adler, J.D., (2013) argues strongly that child [[circumcision]] is unlawful:

Legal scholars, foreign medical associations, intactivist organizations, and increasing numbers of menis claim the opposite, namely that circumcision is painful, risky, harmful, irreversible surgery that benefits few men, if any. These opponents of circumcision argue that, in any event, boys have a right to be left genitally intact, like girls under federal law, and to make the circumcision decision for themselves as adults.  

  |date=2026-08

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 treatment of disease, and do <i>NOT</i> apply to non-therapeutic procedures such as medically non-indicated, non-therapeutic [[circumcision]].

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 treatment. In the absence of such a condition, the surrogate lacks the power to 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.

* Protect the rights of the patient under Constitutional law, common law, and international human rights law.

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.

As explained above, 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 only person who can ethically grant consent for a non-therapeutic circumcision is the owner of the [[penis]] when he has reached the age for consent.