MotherNurture
18-02-2007, 07:09
We're all in agreement that circumcising male child is currently a legal parental choice.
The truth is, removing any part of the body not necessary to sustain life has potential medical benefits; for instance, cutting off my pinky fingers reduces the risk of hangnails by a whopping 20%, and hangnails can become infected and an infected finger may require antibiotics, hospitalization, surgery, etc.
Diabetes is virtually an epidemic, and if left unmanaged, especially later in life, it can interfere with healing, expecially in extremeties like the feet and toes. Even the tiniest injury to a toe can progress to infection, necrosis, and amputation; many diabetics eventually loose one or both of their legs for this reason. I'm sure we all know someone who's a diabetic, right? Would it be just or reasonable to remove the toes of infants routinely to prevent such complications later in life? What if you have a family history of diabetes? What if you have a diabetic relative in long-term care who became an amputee?
What makes a surgery ethical, on medical grounds, is whether the potential benefits outweigh the known risks. Purely cosmetic surgery, on healthy minors, in the absence of a birth defect, disease, or injury (like severe burns, or scarring from a car accident) seems no more ethical to me than tattooing a child against their will, subjecting a toddler to liposuction to remove 'baby fat', or forcing breast implants on an adolescent.
How much more personal, intimate, and sacred are the genitals of a non-consenting minor?
In another thread, I used the example of taking an infant's temperature, rectally. If there's concern regarding an illness/potential fever, we can all agree such an act would be just. However, inserting a similarly-sized object, without a medical purpose or cause, for an adult's 'personal reasons' would be considered by most of us to be unnecessarily violating and for many, clearly abusive.
Should messing with a minor's genitals, in any way that doesn't directly relate to medical or hygienic necessity be considered a valid parental choice? Why or why not? (Can you think of any situation, other than male circumcision, where this might be considered acceptable?)
Jen
The truth is, removing any part of the body not necessary to sustain life has potential medical benefits; for instance, cutting off my pinky fingers reduces the risk of hangnails by a whopping 20%, and hangnails can become infected and an infected finger may require antibiotics, hospitalization, surgery, etc.
Diabetes is virtually an epidemic, and if left unmanaged, especially later in life, it can interfere with healing, expecially in extremeties like the feet and toes. Even the tiniest injury to a toe can progress to infection, necrosis, and amputation; many diabetics eventually loose one or both of their legs for this reason. I'm sure we all know someone who's a diabetic, right? Would it be just or reasonable to remove the toes of infants routinely to prevent such complications later in life? What if you have a family history of diabetes? What if you have a diabetic relative in long-term care who became an amputee?
What makes a surgery ethical, on medical grounds, is whether the potential benefits outweigh the known risks. Purely cosmetic surgery, on healthy minors, in the absence of a birth defect, disease, or injury (like severe burns, or scarring from a car accident) seems no more ethical to me than tattooing a child against their will, subjecting a toddler to liposuction to remove 'baby fat', or forcing breast implants on an adolescent.
How much more personal, intimate, and sacred are the genitals of a non-consenting minor?
In another thread, I used the example of taking an infant's temperature, rectally. If there's concern regarding an illness/potential fever, we can all agree such an act would be just. However, inserting a similarly-sized object, without a medical purpose or cause, for an adult's 'personal reasons' would be considered by most of us to be unnecessarily violating and for many, clearly abusive.
Should messing with a minor's genitals, in any way that doesn't directly relate to medical or hygienic necessity be considered a valid parental choice? Why or why not? (Can you think of any situation, other than male circumcision, where this might be considered acceptable?)
Jen