17,052
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Add text and citation.
|accessdate=2024-07-09
}}</ref> An infant circumcision neither diagnoses nor treats disease because no disease exists, so a surrogate consent for infant circumcision may be invalid.
== Historical background ==
The United States Supreme Court (1891) ruled:
<blockquote>
No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law.<ref>[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12998230422916570030&q=Union+Pacific+Railway+Company+v.+Botsford,+141+U.S.+250+(1891)&hl=en&as_sdt=8000003 Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford], 141 US 250 - Supreme Court 1891.</ref>
</blockquote>
== Damages ==
The [[foreskin]] is the primary erogenous functional part of the [[penis]]. The functions are classified as <b>protective functions</b> that provide physical protection, <b>immunological functions</b> that provide protection from disease, <b>sensory functions</b> that provide stimulation, and <b>sexual functions</b> that aid sexual intercourse. The excision and [[amputation]] of the foreskin by wrongful circumcision irreversibly destroys these functions.