Informed consent: Difference between revisions

Line 512:

Infant boys are born with a healthy [[foreskin]]. No disease or deformity is present to be diagnosed or treated. [[Circumcision]] of an infant boy is neither a diagnostic procedure nor a treatment for disease. The limited parental surrogate powers to grant informed permission recognized by the Bioethics Committee do not extend to the granting of permission or consent for the non-therapeutic circumcision of a minor child.<ref name="aap1995" />

If the [[circumcision industry]] had actually followed this sound ethical guidance, then the [[circumcision]] of male infants would have ended abruptly. The medical industry has chosen to ignore this advice and allow parents to grant surrogate consent for non-therapeutic circumcision of male children, so that the physician income derived from circumcision may be maintained.

If the [[circumcision industry]] had actually followed this sound ethical guidance, then the [[circumcision]] of male infants would have ended abruptly. The medical industry has chosen to ignore this advice and allow parents to grant surrogate consent for non-therapeutic circumcision of male children, so that the physician income derived from circumcision may be maintained.<ref>{{REFweb

|url=https://intactamerica.org/ethical-debate-behind-circumcision/

|title=Are We Sacrificing Newborns for Tradition? The Ethical Debate Behind Circumcision

|last=Alissa

|first=

|init=K

|author-link=Kristel Alissa

|publisher=Intact America

|date=2025-03-25

|accessdate=2025-03-29

}}</ref>

Svoboda et al. (2000) examined the ethics and legality of informed consent for non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision. With regard to ethics, they concluded:

@@ Line 512: / Line 512: @@
 Infant boys are born with a healthy [[foreskin]]. No disease or deformity is present to be diagnosed or treated. [[Circumcision]] of an infant boy is neither a diagnostic procedure nor a treatment for disease. The limited parental surrogate powers to grant informed permission recognized by the Bioethics Committee do not extend to the granting of permission or consent for the non-therapeutic circumcision of a minor child.<ref name="aap1995" />
-If the [[circumcision industry]] had actually followed this sound ethical guidance, then the [[circumcision]] of male infants would have ended abruptly. The medical industry has chosen to ignore this advice and allow parents to grant surrogate consent for non-therapeutic circumcision of male children, so that the physician income derived from circumcision may be maintained.
+If the [[circumcision industry]] had actually followed this sound ethical guidance, then the [[circumcision]] of male infants would have ended abruptly. The medical industry has chosen to ignore this advice and allow parents to grant surrogate consent for non-therapeutic circumcision of male children, so that the physician income derived from circumcision may be maintained.<ref>{{REFweb
+ |url=https://intactamerica.org/ethical-debate-behind-circumcision/
+ |title=Are We Sacrificing Newborns for Tradition? The Ethical Debate Behind Circumcision
+ |last=Alissa
+ |first=
+ |init=K
+ |author-link=Kristel Alissa
+ |publisher=Intact America
+ |date=2025-03-25
+ |accessdate=2025-03-29
+}}</ref>
 Svoboda et al. (2000) examined the ethics and legality of informed consent for non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision. With regard to ethics, they concluded: