Eugene: Without regard to what "adult subjects" generally think of the procedure having been done (or not done) to them? Shouldn't we defer to parents at least until such time as there are many adults who are outraged that the state didn't step in?
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Volokh, Eugene <vol...@law.ucla.edu> wrote: > From what I understand, think the health arguments for > circumcision are substantial, and, as I've noted before, to the extent that > parents are making a medical choice in favor of circumcision, I think it > makes sense to defer to their judgment, just as it does for other medical > choices. Likewise, I'm inclined to say that if there was reason to think > (though also reason to doubt) that circumcision would enhance sexual > function, parents could also reasonable choose that as a medical matter.** > ** > > ** ** > > The interesting question, I think, is how we should > resolve the matter if (1) the medical consensus comes to be that there was > no medical benefit of circumcision and no sexual function benefits, but (2) > there comes to be no consensus on whether there is a sexual function cost. > My inclination would be to say that the uncertainty should *not* be > resolved in favor of parental choice, but rather resolved in favor of > patient choice: the principle that – absent medical need – practically > irreversible and potentially harmful surgery should not be undertaken > without the actual consent of the adult subject of the surgery.**** > > ** ** > > Eugene**** > > ** ** > > Eric Rassbach writes:**** > > ** ** > > > I am not sure that you can even rely on a claim that the sexual function > was > > > necessarily reduced; I know that some proponents of circumcision claim > that > > > circumcision actually enhances sexual function. Would you agree that if > the > > > evidence on that point is ambiguous or equivocal, then circumcision falls > > > within the realm of things that parents can decide? That is reinforced > by the > > > fact that there are health reasons offered for circumcision; if those > rationales > > > are true (or perhaps just plausible?) then it is less like having an ear > cut off > > > and more like having an unsightly mole excised or an extra toe removed, > > > both of which are easier at a younger age. > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are > posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or > wrongly) forward the messages to others. >
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
