[QUOTE=alphaboi867]
I assume you mean in case the patient decided to stalk, kill, or commit other crimes of violence against them, not in case the patient decided to sue them. Though f legally all that matters is the parents’ consent then wouldn’t the patient lack grounds to sue the medical staff .
[/QUOTE]
I was implying exactly that. I would imagine somebody in the business of routinely performing circumcisions on people capable of protesting and remembering everything would have an incredibly short life expectancy. I can’t comment on the legal matters.
[QUOTE=groman]
I am having trouble imagining any doctor trying to perform a circumcision on an unwilling 17 year old boy. I think you’d need a very brave anesthesiologist with a tranq gun and some means of obscuring faces and names of all of the staff. Something I learned very quickly as a child is that while your parents can force you to do a lot of things, and doctors will often disregard your wishes, doctors are also not nannies or correctional officers and will not go above and beyond of what would reasonably be expected of them to perform any elective or even non-elective routine procedure.
I mean, I think your hypothetical is flawed. It came up a few times in my family, I said no, and that’s where it would end. If you feel strongly about not having a piece of your manhood cut off, there’s very few things that somebody can threaten you with that would make you comply against your wishes. And if you want to threaten me with penile cancer or HIV, I am going to need a causative link, not a correlation, because without a causation your claim that foreskins cause penis cancer holds about as much water as my claim that dirty wang causes penis cancer and people with foreskins are more likely to have dirty wang because of socioeconomic issues.
[/QUOTE]
The fact of the matter is that circumcised men don’t get penile cancer. Now it’s an extraordinarily rare cancer, but being circ’d prevents it. That’s a lot different from saying “foreskins cause penis cancer”.
[QUOTE=Weirddave]
The fact of the matter is that circumcised men don’t get penile cancer. Now it’s an extraordinarily rare cancer, but being circ’d prevents it. That’s a lot different from saying “foreskins cause penis cancer”.
[/QUOTE]
Foreskins cause penile cancer is about as strong (and unfounded) statement as circumcision prevents penile cancer. There might be a strong correlation between not getting penile cancer and being circumcised, but that doesn’t mean there is a causal link. For example, virgin women are probably significantly less likely to get cervical cancer than non-virgins of same age, and had such a study been done prior to the established link between HPV and cervical cancer, using your logic one might hypothesize that intercourse causes cervical cancer.
I am not claiming voluntary circumcision is not a valid personal or religious choice, but my guess is that in a few generations you will find prophylactic circumcision considered in the ranks of trepanation, prefrontal lobotomy, ECT, prophylactic appendectomy, bloodletting, leeches, etc. While none of these things can be considered always unquestionably incorrect, and all have some sort of a valid medical application even today, performing these procedures indiscriminantly, non-consensually or prophylactically is considered barbaric.
[QUOTE=alphaboi867]
But would you have circumcised a 17 year old boy who’s parents did give writen authorization against his will? If not then how old would the boy have to be before you wouldn’t do it against his will?
[/QUOTE]
No…In general an obgyn will do desired circumcision on newborns. Older babies or young adults would be better off having the circ done by a urologist.
In answer to the question, when the child is able cognitively to understand what is going on and does not wish to have a circ…I doubt a gyn, family practice MD or a Urologist would do the circ…I will stick to newborns to perform the surgery.
.