Surrogate consent: Difference between revisions

Line 402:

}}</ref> Consent for a non-therapeutic operation offends the principle of autonomy, when granted by a surrogate.

A surrogate's powers to grant consent are more circumscribed than the powers granted to a competent individual acting on his own behalf.<ref name="svoboda2000" /> A surrogate's power to grant consent for treatment is dependent upon the existence of a medical condition in need of treatment. In the absence of such a condition, the surrogate lacks the power to consent. A circumcision for religious reasons is not medical treatment, so a surrogate may not consent to a religious circumcision.

A surrogate's powers to grant consent are more circumscribed than the powers granted to a competent individual acting on his own behalf.<ref name="svoboda2000" /> A surrogate's power to grant consent for treatment is dependent upon the existence of a medical condition in need of treatment. In the absence of such a condition, the surrogate lacks the power to consent.

A circumcision for religious reasons is not medical treatment, so a surrogate may not consent to a religious circumcision. Furthermore, consent for a religious circumcision would violate the boy's religious right to chose his religion when he is of age.

A surrogate must:

Line 408:

Line 410:

* Protect the rights of the patient under Constitutional law, common law, and international human rights law.

A non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] exposes the patient to the surgical risks of [[infection]], [[bleeding]], and surgical mishap without any health treatment or benefit, so it is not in the best interests of the patient.

A non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] exposes the patient to the surgical risks of [[infection]], [[bleeding]], and [[Documented severe complications of circumcision| surgical mishap]] without any health treatment or benefit, so it is not in the best interests of the patient.

Bioethicists Myers & Earp (2020) exhaustively reviewed the evidence for and against the alleged health benefits to a healthy person claimed for non-therapeutic circumcision of a neonate, infant or child. They balanced this against the [[pain]], [[trauma]], and loss of body tissue and function. They concluded the claimed health benefits are insufficient to support surrogate consent for non-therapeutic circumcision. Given this, only the subject can grant consent for a non-therapeutic circumcision, after he reaches the right age for circumcision, which does not occurs until a male reaches the age of consent in his jurisdiction which may vary from 16 to 18 years of age~~. The present practice in the [[United States]] and elsewhere of parental consent for non-therapeutic circumcision is entirely unethical~~.<ref name="myers2020">{{REFjournal

Bioethicists Myers & Earp (2020) exhaustively reviewed the evidence for and against the alleged health benefits to a healthy person claimed for non-therapeutic circumcision of a neonate, infant or child. They balanced this against the [[pain]], [[trauma]], and loss of body tissue and function. They concluded the claimed health benefits are insufficient to support surrogate consent for non-therapeutic circumcision. Given this, only the subject can grant consent for a non-therapeutic circumcision, after he reaches the right age for circumcision, which does not occurs until a male reaches the age of consent in his jurisdiction which may vary from 16 to 18 years of age.<ref name="myers2020">{{REFjournal

|last=Myers

|first=

Line 438:

Line 440:

|format=PDF

|accessdate=2025-05-05

}}</ref>

The present practice in the [[United States]] and elsewhere of parental consent for non-therapeutic circumcision is entirely unethical<ref name="myers2020"> and may also be unlawful.

@@ Line 402: / Line 402: @@
 }}</ref> Consent for a non-therapeutic operation offends the principle of autonomy, when granted by a surrogate.
-A surrogate's powers to grant consent are more circumscribed than the powers granted to a competent individual acting on his own behalf.<ref name="svoboda2000" /> A surrogate's power to grant consent for treatment is dependent upon the existence of a medical condition in need of treatment. In the absence of such a condition, the surrogate lacks the power to consent. A circumcision for religious reasons is not medical treatment, so a surrogate may not consent to a religious circumcision.
+A surrogate's powers to grant consent are more circumscribed than the powers granted to a competent individual acting on his own behalf.<ref name="svoboda2000" /> A surrogate's power to grant consent for treatment is dependent upon the existence of a medical condition in need of treatment. In the absence of such a condition, the surrogate lacks the power to consent.
+A circumcision for religious reasons is not medical treatment, so a surrogate may not consent to a religious circumcision. Furthermore, consent for a religious circumcision would violate the boy's religious right to chose his religion when he is of age.
 A surrogate must:
@@ Line 408: / Line 410: @@
 * Protect the rights of the patient under Constitutional law, common law, and international human rights law.
-A non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] exposes the patient to the surgical risks of [[infection]], [[bleeding]], and surgical mishap without any health treatment or benefit, so it is not in the best interests of the patient.
+A non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] exposes the patient to the surgical risks of [[infection]], [[bleeding]], and [[Documented severe complications of circumcision| surgical mishap]] without any health treatment or benefit, so it is not in the best interests of the patient.
-Bioethicists Myers & Earp (2020) exhaustively reviewed the evidence for and against the alleged health benefits to a healthy person claimed for non-therapeutic circumcision of a neonate, infant or child. They balanced this against the [[pain]], [[trauma]], and loss of body tissue and function. They concluded the claimed health benefits are insufficient to support surrogate consent for non-therapeutic circumcision. Given this, only the subject can grant consent for a non-therapeutic circumcision, after he reaches the right age for circumcision, which does not occurs until a male reaches the age of consent in his jurisdiction which may vary from 16 to 18 years of age. The present practice in the [[United States]] and elsewhere of parental consent for non-therapeutic circumcision is entirely unethical.<ref name="myers2020">{{REFjournal
+Bioethicists Myers & Earp (2020) exhaustively reviewed the evidence for and against the alleged health benefits to a healthy person claimed for non-therapeutic circumcision of a neonate, infant or child. They balanced this against the [[pain]], [[trauma]], and loss of body tissue and function. They concluded the claimed health benefits are insufficient to support surrogate consent for non-therapeutic circumcision. Given this, only the subject can grant consent for a non-therapeutic circumcision, after he reaches the right age for circumcision, which does not occurs until a male reaches the age of consent in his jurisdiction which may vary from 16 to 18 years of age.<ref name="myers2020">{{REFjournal
   |last=Myers
   |first=
@@ Line 438: / Line 440: @@
   |format=PDF
   |accessdate=2025-05-05
 }}</ref>
+The present practice in the [[United States]] and elsewhere of parental consent for non-therapeutic circumcision is entirely unethical<ref name="myers2020"> and may also be unlawful.
 {{SEEALSO}}