20,855
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Consent for circumcision of minors: Add blockquote.
If a boy is to be [[circumcised]], then someone must grant effective consent. The boy may not do it for himself because of his minority status. [[Circumcision]] of boys is a medically-unnecessary, non-therapeutic, harmful excision of functional tissue that causes loss of various functions.
Ross Povenmire (1998-9) argued strongly that parents lack the authority to grant surrogate consent for circumcision where there is no medical indication.<blockquote>The Supreme Court has sharply curtailed parental discretion, even in the exercise of First Amendment rights, when the exercise of such rights may adversely affect the health of a minor. <i>Prince v. Massachusetts</i> involved the prosecution of the guardian of a minor child under child labor laws. The Court held that "[p]arents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow that they are free to, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of full and legal discretion when they can make that choice for themselves." Subsequent cases tested and sustained the Prince reasoning.<ref name="povenmire1998">{{REFjournal
|last=Povenmire
|init=R
|accessdate=2025-05-03
}}</ref>
</blockquote>
Svoboda, Van Howe & Dwyer (2000) discussed the ethical and legal issues of consent for non-therapeutic circumcision.<ref>{{REFjournal
|last=Svoboda