17,052
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Early twenty-first century: Add text and citation.
|first1=J.S.
}}</ref> He stated that this decision should be considered in the context of benefit vs risk of harm, rather than simply risk-benefit due to the non-therapeutic nature of the procedure.<ref name="svoboda2017"/> He states that benefits do not outweigh the risks, and also claims that foreskin removal should be considered a sexual harm.<ref name="svoboda2017"/> He also went on to conclude that non-therapeutic circumcision largely violates the physician's duty to respect a patient's autonomy since many procedures take place before a patient is able to freely give consent himself.<ref name="svoboda2017"/>
Reis-Dennis & Reis (2017) asked if physicians should be blamed for harm resulting from unnecessary genital surgeries, including infant circumcision.<ref name="reis-dennis2017">{{REFjournal
|last=Reis-Dennis
|first=
|init=
|author-link=
|last2=Reis
|first2=
|init2=
|author2-link=
|etal=no
|title=Are Physicians Blameworthy for Iatrogenic Harm Resulting from Unnecessary Genital Surgeries?
|trans-title=
|language=
|journal=AMA Journal of Ethics
|location=
|date=2017
|volume=19
|issue=8
|article=
|page=
|pages=825-833
|url=
|archived=
|quote=
|pubmedID=28846522
|pubmedCID=
|DOI=10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.8.msoc3-1708
|accessdate=2021-10-14
}}
Example</ref>
Adler, Van Howe, Wisdom & Daase (2020) examined male non-therapeutic circumcision as fraud.<ref name="adler2020">{{REFjournal