I don't think it changes my analysis, since I've all along acknowledged that there are plausible medical arguments in favor of circumcision. I'm hesitant to treat the AAP statement as materially changing that, since I take it that there's some disagreement among pediatric groups - especially internationally -- even now. (The statement does make it even more unlikely that any U.S. jurisdiction would ban infant circumcision - and likely makes it morally and practically unjustifiable for the jurisdiction to make that decision - but any such ban was unlikely even before this statement.)
Given this situation, what is the right result? As I mentioned in my July 4 message, http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/2012-July/026058.html, my view is generally this: (1) People should generally have the power to make medical decisions for themselves. (2) Infants and children can't make such decisions. (3) Yet some such medical decisions must be made quickly, before the child becomes mature enough to decide. (4) We therefore delegate this power to make medical decisions to the parents. (Indeed, Parham v. J.R. states, whether or not correctly, that this is a constitutional mandate.) Circumcision was a reasonable medical decision before the AAP statement - precisely because the matter was uncertain - and it is a reasonable medical decision now; I think parents who make such a medical decision should indeed be free to do that. The interesting question is what happens if the medical evidence eventually ends up being contrary, or if the parents make a decision for nonmedical reasons. I will say that focusing on the views of pediatricians here is good, because it focuses on what I think is the right question: what is in the best interest of the child whose body is being pretty much irreversibly altered, and not what the parents prefer or on what is in the interest of religious communities. Eugene > -----Original Message----- > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw- > boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Eric Rassbach > Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 4:26 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: New circumcision policy statement from the AAP > > > http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/110165/leading-pediatric-group-endorses-<http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/110165/leading-pediatric-group-endorses-circumcision> > circumcision<http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/110165/leading-pediatric-group-endorses-circumcision> > > > Eugene -- > > Would this change your legal analysis with respect to this issue? > > Eric > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to > Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> To subscribe, > unsubscribe, > change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-<http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw> > bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw<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.
