Difference between revisions of "Routine Infant Circumcision"
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) (Revise text.) |
m (adjusted REFjournal) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
Routine infant circumcision (i. e. non-therapeutic circumcision without consent) is an unlawful procedure for which damages may be recovered.<ref name="llewellnyn1995">{{REFjournal | Routine infant circumcision (i. e. non-therapeutic circumcision without consent) is an unlawful procedure for which damages may be recovered.<ref name="llewellnyn1995">{{REFjournal | ||
|last=Llewellyn | |last=Llewellyn | ||
| − | |first=David | + | |first=David J. |
| + | |init=DJ | ||
|author-link=David J. Llewellyn | |author-link=David J. Llewellyn | ||
|title=Legal remedies for penile torts | |title=Legal remedies for penile torts | ||
| Line 22: | Line 23: | ||
{{LINKS}} | {{LINKS}} | ||
| − | + | * {{REFjournal | |
| − | + | |last=Svobody | |
| + | |firat=J. Steven | ||
| + | |init=JS | ||
| + | |last2=Van Howe | ||
| + | |first2=Robert S. | ||
| + | |init2=RS | ||
| + | |last3=Dwyer | ||
| + | |first3=James G. | ||
| + | |init3=JG | ||
| + | |url=https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1166&context=facpubs | ||
| + | |title=Informed Consent for Neonatal Circumcision: An Ethical and Legal Conundrum | ||
| + | |#publisher=Faculty Publications | ||
| + | |volume=167 | ||
| + | |journal=J Contemporary Health Law Policy | ||
| + | |issue=61 | ||
| + | |date=2000 | ||
| + | |accessdate=2020-12-29 | ||
| + | }} | ||
{{REF}} | {{REF}} | ||
Revision as of 00:10, 30 December 2020
RIC is an acronym for Routine Infant Circumcision.
Mainly in the United States, boys were circumcised in many hospitals immediately after birth. Very often, this was done without informing or asking the parents previously at all.
The word routine, when applied to non-therapeutic circumcision of boys is outmoded. Circumcision has not been 'routine' since court rulings started to require informed consent in 1972.[1]
Routine infant circumcision (i. e. non-therapeutic circumcision without consent) is an unlawful procedure for which damages may be recovered.[2]
Routine infant circumcision no longer exists in the United States, except when a hospital or doctor makes an error for which they can be sued. The phrase is outmoded and inaccurate so it should not be used to refer to non-therapeutic circumcision of boys.
External links
Svobody JS, Van Howe RS, Dwyer JG. Informed Consent for Neonatal Circumcision: An Ethical and Legal Conundrum. J Contemporary Health Law Policy. 2000; 167(61) Retrieved 29 December 2020.
References
- ↑ Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772, 782 (D.C. Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1064 (1972)
- ↑ Llewellyn DJ. Legal remedies for penile torts. The Compleat Mother. 1995; 40: 16. Retrieved 4 January 2020.