American Academy of Pediatrics: Difference between revisions

Line 202:

|DOI=10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61042-2

|accessdate=2011-09-27

}}</ref> Palfrey reiterated this stance in an interview with The Lancet, saying “we want to make it clear to the international community we are opposed to any form of female genital cutting, and that includes the ritual nick.”<ref>{{REFjournal

}}</ref> Palfrey reiterated this stance in an interview with ''The Lancet'', saying “we want to make it clear to the international community we are opposed to any form of female genital cutting, and that includes the ritual nick.”<ref>{{REFjournal

|last=MacReady

|first=Norra

Line 275:

|quote=

|accessdate=2011-10-09

}}</ref> as its source. While this document focuses primarily on sick children and not infants, it does go into much detail on the ethics surrounding autonomy and consent, particularly with respect to patient-centered vs. parent-centered medicine. That document says the following, which the AAP's "hands-off" position on circumcision might contradict:

}}</ref> as its source. The Fleishman article addresses the ethics of caring for gravely ill and dying children. It is totally irrelevant to the care and non-therapeutic circumcision of well-babies.  That document says the following, which the AAP's "hands-off" position on circumcision might contradict:

{{Citation

@@ Line 202: / Line 202: @@
   |DOI=10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61042-2
   |accessdate=2011-09-27
-}}</ref> Palfrey reiterated this stance in an interview with The Lancet, saying “we want to make it clear to the international community we are opposed to any form of female genital cutting, and that includes the ritual nick.”<ref>{{REFjournal
+}}</ref> Palfrey reiterated this stance in an interview with ''The Lancet'', saying “we want to make it clear to the international community we are opposed to any form of female genital cutting, and that includes the ritual nick.”<ref>{{REFjournal
   |last=MacReady
   |first=Norra
@@ Line 275: / Line 275: @@
   |quote=
   |accessdate=2011-10-09
-}}</ref> as its source. While this document focuses primarily on sick children and not infants, it does go into much detail on the ethics surrounding autonomy and consent, particularly with respect to patient-centered vs. parent-centered medicine. That document says the following, which the AAP's "hands-off" position on circumcision might contradict:
+}}</ref> as its source. The Fleishman article addresses the ethics of caring for gravely ill and dying children. It is totally irrelevant to the care and non-therapeutic circumcision of well-babies. <!--While this document focuses primarily on sick children and not infants, it does go into much detail on the ethics surrounding autonomy and consent, particularly with respect to patient-centered vs. parent-centered medicine.--> That document says the following, which the AAP's "hands-off" position on circumcision might contradict:
 {{Citation