Ethics of non-therapeutic child circumcision: Difference between revisions

Line 465:

}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{REFjournal

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.<ref name-"myers2020">{{REFjournal

|last=Myers

|first=

@@ Line 465: / Line 465: @@
 }}</ref>
-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.<ref>{{REFjournal
+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.<ref name-"myers2020">{{REFjournal
   |last=Myers
   |first=