Difference between revisions of "Routine Infant Circumcision"
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) (Revise text; Wikify.) |
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) (Add category.) |
||
| Line 120: | Line 120: | ||
[[Category:Acronym]] | [[Category:Acronym]] | ||
[[Category:Law]] | [[Category:Law]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Category:USA]] | ||
[[de:Routinemäßige Jungen-Beschneidung]] | [[de:Routinemäßige Jungen-Beschneidung]] | ||
Revision as of 16:54, 28 December 2023
RIC is an acronym for Routine Infant Circumcision.
Mainly in the United States, boys formerly were circumcised in many hospitals immediately after birth. Very often, this was done without informing or asking the parents previously at all.
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]
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 consent of a parent in the United States, while in the United Kingdom, the 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.