As an infant, are circumcisions a violation of their rights as a patient?

  • How could it not be?

    Circumcision removes sensual nerve endings, causing sex for many circumcised men to be far less pleasurable than it could be. No parent, regardless of their personal preferences, has the right to take these away from an infant.
    Any talk of reduced STD's, fitting in, etc. are all issues that arise AFTER an individual is old enough to talk about circumcision and give input into what he wants done with his penis. It's not a parent's or the doctor's penis, and it's not a parent's choice. Only the owner of the penis should say whether he wants to keep all of it or not. Circumcision forever takes away a man's right to be whole.

  • Human rights infringement.

    Circumcision on any non-consenting child is an infringement of his/her rights to bodily integrity. There is no sound medical reason for cutting healthy tissue off children. It is not preventive medically. We have plenty of ways to treat UTIs and prevent STDs without cutting into children. This has to stop.

  • Circumcision violates rights of infant boys.

    Every person has rights to maintain their property, isn't a natural, intact body of the infant his property? Parents, you must chose the best for your child, surgery can be done only in the life and death situation and if other more conservative treatment methods failed. Circumcision accomplishes nothing, except of mutilating a natural healthy body of the boy, leaving scars and confusion behind, why do it? I read, the origin of circumcision goes to ancient Egypt, where military captive were first castrated, but later the actual castration was replaced by the symbolic castration - circumcision. The main purpose of which was nothing, but to inflict pain. Perhaps, each parent before making a final decision of mutilating own baby boy should be required to wart a video of circumcision? Or may be even be present and required to watch a mutilation of their own child? There is no sufficient statistical data to prove beyond the shadow of the doubt so called "medical benefits". Parents, you must think hard, if foreskin didn't fall off during 65 billing years of evolution, it's needed. Nature is not overly generous, doesn't give anything unnecessary.

  • It IS mutilation

    I believe that circumcision is a complete violation of a patients rights 100%. I think that the patient should be the one consenting for the procedure NOT the parents because they may see an infant as a infant at first but, it is best to view the child as an adult and say "Would I strap down that man on the bus and mutilate him?" No! Leave your sons as it was intended and don't take away their rights to a full and complete body!

  • Foreskin is Awesome

    Circumcisions destroys the brain of the males who have it done as babies. They didn't ask to be born let alone tortured by having their most sensitive area cut without anesthetics being used. A lot of males reconstruct their foreskin. Why should they have to go through 2 surgeries in their life time? They didn't even ask for the first one.

  • Of course it is!

    Any operation that is not necessary (ie not performed for an immediate and compelling reason that would otherwise affect the individuals immediate health) that is performed on an individual who cannot give consent is a violation of their rights as a patient. Why this is even a question is surprising.

  • Unless the surgery is unavoidable and lifesaving,

    The parents have no right to give the child what is essentially a cosmetic procedure.
    If the child was born with some kind of life-threatening defect life a dead conjoined twin growing out of the heart or something similar, where the removal of the growth would save the child's life, then it is safe to say that the operation IS in the best interests of the child.
    Whereas a circumcision is rarely in the child's best interests unless the frenulum is too short, or if it is evident that the foreskin will lead to Phimosis.
    And as for those who say that it is God's will etc etc, if that was truly the case, then the child would be born with no foreskin at all. A rare condition called Aposthia.

  • Childhood circumcision takes away the child's ability to choose.

    I have nothing against circumcision. If that's what you want, it's your body.
    Whether you've chosen to do so due to social peer pressure, religious indoctrination, or because you've simply decided that's what you want for reasons of vanity sexuality; if that's what you consent to, then that's up to you.
    But no one should be able to deny their child that choice. There are always risks involved during surgery as well as the potential drawbacks of that may follow. For an individual to give their consent to such a procedure, he should be aware of the risks involved and be able to show his understanding.

  • Pre-emptive amputation of a body part is never justified

    This is self-evident. You don't remove a body part because something might happen to it in the future. If something happens to it in the future like an infection, amputation is usually the last option that medical professionals opt for. Before amputating they do everything they can to save it! Doing it preemptively is insane and an abuse of the patient, especially while they're awake!

  • It violates the most fundamental clause doctors abide by; "do no harm"

    Many countries - including Finland, Germany, and the Netherlands, for instance, openly condemn the practice of non-therapeutic on non-consenting infants. The reasoning is sound; the procedure amputates tens of thousands of sensory nerve endings, without any informed consent from the child. Parents do not own the rights to their children's bodies. Female genital mutilation - to any extent - would never be considered acceptable in any capacity, medical, or religious. It's about time our baby boys were treated in the same way.

  • I don't believe that as an infant circumcisions are a violation of their rights as patients, because they're unable to make their own decisions.

    Infants cannot make their own decisions. Therefore, the adult has to act in their best interests as a doctor/nurse/parent. I believe that circumcisions are in their best interest, because they prevent infection, are more attractive overall, and prevent problems later on in life. I believe that the infant's rights are not violated in any way, as they can not make their own decisions. Doctors and parents are acting in the child's best interest when performing a circumcision.

    Posted by: boobop
  • I disagree because circumcision of infants is a very common procedure.

    I disagree that circumcision is a violation of an infant's rights as a patient. Circumcision was a very common procedure among the Jewish people, as mentioned in the Bible. If God commanded it, then it must not be wrong. I'm not really sure about the benefits of circumcision, but I hardly believe that being circumcised will emotionally damage an infant.

    Posted by: echagina
  • I do not have an opinion on circumcisions, however, it is the responsibility of the caregiver to deem what is right and wrong.

    An infant cannot possibly communicate what it feels is a violation of its' rights... therefore it is the responsibility of the caregiver to what is or isn't a violation on the infant's behalf.

    Posted by: K_Levy
  • Legally speaking, a parent has full authority to deny or authorize any medical operation upon their child.

    That's the legal side of it. On a more personal aspect, I am circumcised and I am quite happy my parents made the decision to do so. Not being circumcised can easily lead to hygiene issues, prostate health problems, and an overwhelmingly large amount of extra "maintenance". In today's society, circumcisions are mainly preformed as a deterrent to possible medical issues at a later time.

    Posted by: BrianDj
  • As a baby we don't really have patient rights these rights are given to our parents until we are older.

    If a parent wishes to have their baby circumcised than this is something they feel is best for their child. The baby obviously cannot make a decision for itself at that age so the parent has to step in and decide with the best intent and care for their baby. It isn't like they are being cruel or taking any right away from the child to be mean.

    Posted by: B3rkIffy
  • I believe that circumcision is in the best interest of the patient, and therefore is not a violation of rights.

    Because of the health benefits to circumcision, I believe it is completely moral and right to circumcise a male at birth. Obviously, circumcision is much more painful as an adult, and it is much better to have it taken care of as a child. Due to uncleanliness and disease, this is a necessary part of human life.

    Posted by: OIi0IymPic
  • no

    Infant circumcision is not a violation of patient rights because the parents have the right to consent.

    Infant circumcision is a controversial issue, but the parents of the infant have the right to choose. Children cannot give consent to medical procedures, to the parents have complete control over whatever procedures are done. Male circumcision is practiced as part of a set of religious beliefs and is not shown to be harmful. As such, it should remain legal.

  • Infant circumcision is not a violation of patient rights because the parents have the right to consent.

    Infant circumcision is a controversial issue, but the parents of the infant have the right to choose. Children cannot give consent to medical procedures, to the parents have complete control over whatever procedures are done. Male circumcision is practiced as part of a set of religious beliefs and is not shown to be harmful. As such, it should remain legal.

    Posted by: babyuniqh
  • A circumcision has medical reasons, as well as religious ones, and parents have the right to chose those things.

    A child is influenced by many things in their life, and the greatest are their parents. Many religions promote or require circumcision, and it should be up to the parents to decide. Underage children have few rights as a patient, so why would circumcision be any different? It's up to the parent as to how their child is treated.

    Posted by: HumdrumMilo83
  • I feel it is the parents' right to chose what is best for their child.

    Not only is it a religious choice people have, I feel it is also a medical decision that prevents infections, and should also be considered a medical choice. When an infant is born, they are guaranteed rights, but I also feel that those rights are the parents' responsibility, until the child reaches an age where they are considered a responsible person to know what decisions are meant.

    Posted by: SlipArnal

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.