Informed consent: Difference between revisions
m using initials for REFjournal AMA notation |
m normalize et al. (AMA) |
||
| Line 70: | Line 70: | ||
If the medical 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 consent for non-therapeutic circumcision of male children, so that the physician income derived from circumcision may be maintained. | If the medical 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 consent for non-therapeutic circumcision of male children, so that the physician income derived from circumcision may be maintained. | ||
Svoboda | Svoboda et al. (2000) examined the ethics and legality of informed consent for non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision. With regard to ethics, they concluded: | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
Amputating a highly sensitive and functional part of the body is extremely intrusive and should be undertaken only in situations of extreme urgency. Neonatal circumcision as it is routinely performed in this country clearly does not satisfy this criterion. It is therefore unethical and unlawful, and no parental permission should be effective.<ref name="svoboda2002">{{REFjournal | Amputating a highly sensitive and functional part of the body is extremely intrusive and should be undertaken only in situations of extreme urgency. Neonatal circumcision as it is routinely performed in this country clearly does not satisfy this criterion. It is therefore unethical and unlawful, and no parental permission should be effective.<ref name="svoboda2002">{{REFjournal | ||
| Line 159: | Line 159: | ||
}}</ref> part of the penis amputated. For all of these reasons, their statements should not be used as a basis for informed consent. | }}</ref> part of the penis amputated. For all of these reasons, their statements should not be used as a basis for informed consent. | ||
Svoboda | Svoboda et al. {2000) commented: | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
Even more troubling in the common occurrence of parents being presented with the circumcision question for the first time when a mother is in labor at a hospital. Surgeon George Kaplan notes that "all too often the consent to circumcise is included in a sheaf of papers that the mother signs hurriedly on her way to the delivery room. No discussion has been held regarding the merits of the procedure or of the inherent risks." Kaplan characterizes this practice as "inexcusable". Raising the circumcision issue for the first time upon the mother's arrival at the hospital to give birth amounts to manipulation and coercion. Because the physician and the hospital benefit financially from the parent's decision, such a practice raises grave concerns about unethical profiteering.<ref name="svoboda2002" /> | Even more troubling in the common occurrence of parents being presented with the circumcision question for the first time when a mother is in labor at a hospital. Surgeon George Kaplan notes that "all too often the consent to circumcise is included in a sheaf of papers that the mother signs hurriedly on her way to the delivery room. No discussion has been held regarding the merits of the procedure or of the inherent risks." Kaplan characterizes this practice as "inexcusable". Raising the circumcision issue for the first time upon the mother's arrival at the hospital to give birth amounts to manipulation and coercion. Because the physician and the hospital benefit financially from the parent's decision, such a practice raises grave concerns about unethical profiteering.<ref name="svoboda2002" /> | ||