22,335
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
no edit summary
Richards (1996) argues that parents only have power to consent to therapeutic procedures.<ref name="richards"/>
[[Margaret A. Somerville |Somerville]] (2000) argues that the nature of the medical benefits cited as a justification for infant circumcision are such that the potential medical problems can be avoided or, if they occur, treated in far less invasive ways than circumcision. She states that the removal of healthy genital tissue from a minor should not be subject to parental discretion, or that physicians who perform the procedure are not acting in accordance with their ethical duties to the patient, regardless of parental consent.<ref name="Somerville2000">{{REFbook
|last=Somerville
|first=Margaret
|authorlinkauthor-link=Margaret A. Somerville
|title=The ethical canary: science, society, and the human spirit
|accessdate=2007-02-12
}}</ref>
[[Margaret A. Somerville |Somerville]] argues that because of a lack of credible information about male circumcision in some societies, the ability for the caregiver to grant informed consent on behalf of their child is compromised. This may be especially true of caregivers from a religious or cultural tradition that is particularly biased towards or against circumcising infants.<ref name="somerville2000Somerville2000">Somerville M. ''The Ethical Canary: Science, Society and the Human Spirit.'' Toronto: Penguin, 2000: pp. 202-19. (ISBN 0-670-89971-2)</ref>
Canning (2002) commented that "[i]f circumcision becomes less commonly performed in North America ... the legal system may no longer be able to ignore the conflict between the practice of circumcision and the legal and ethical duties of medical specialists."<ref name="Canning">{{REFjournal