Obstetricians and the American circumcision scandal: Difference between revisions
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) →ACOG information for parents: Add citation. |
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) →Human rights and medical ethics issues: Add citation. |
||
| Line 168: | Line 168: | ||
==Human rights and medical ethics issues== | ==Human rights and medical ethics issues== | ||
Baby boys have rights under both international [[human rights]] law and domestic law from the instant they are born alive. [[Medical ethics]] requires medical doctors to respect those rights. | Baby boys have rights under both international [[human rights]] law and domestic law<ref>[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12998230422916570030&q=Union+Pacific+Railway+Company+v.+Botsford,+141+U.S.+250+(1891)&hl=en&as_sdt=8000003 Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford], 141 US 250 - Supreme Court 1891.</ref> from the instant they are born alive. [[Medical ethics]] requires medical doctors to respect those rights. | ||
* The ACOG practice of having a parent provide [[surrogate consent]] for a medically-unnecessary genital mutilation violates the boy's right to ''autonomy''. | * The ACOG practice of having a parent provide [[surrogate consent]] for a medically-unnecessary genital mutilation violates the boy's right to ''autonomy''. | ||