It seems like people aren't reasoning very carefully in this thread.
Why should the standard be what you personally would consent to?
Did you even look at the pictures I provided a link to?
But surely with age comes greater capacity for self-determination and informed choice, yes? Generally, the older a patient who undergoes the procedure is, the less the "they can't consent to it" argument applies.
Every medical procedure will have failed examples. That doesn't mean they shouldn't ever be performed.
So is a lot of plastic surgery. Should that be outlawed, as well?
It seems like you're coming close to imposing your own personal decisions about elective medical procedures onto others.
Your reasoning seems to be, "If an adolescent doesn't have a choice in the matter, the medical procedure shouldn't be performed." But it seems that there are counterexamples to this principle: a young child who is knocked unconscious by some physical trauma (say, being hit by a car) might require medical attention. Should surgery not be performed because the adolescent doesn't have a choice in the matter?
So it seems to me that "If an adolescent doesn't have a choice in the matter, the medical procedure shouldn't be performed" is a bad principle to argue.
Instead, I'd argue something like, "Only medically necessary procedures should be performed without the consent of the patient undergoing the procedure," where 'medically necessary' would be defined in terms of the likelihood of a good outcome should the procedure not be performed--the higher the chance of a good outcome without the procedure, the less medically necessary it is.
But that's just my two cents.
Quote:My point was that someone would have to tie me down because I would not consent to such a thing.
Why should the standard be what you personally would consent to?
Did you even look at the pictures I provided a link to?
Quote:Which actually makes it worse! At least a baby will have no recollection of the procedure.
But surely with age comes greater capacity for self-determination and informed choice, yes? Generally, the older a patient who undergoes the procedure is, the less the "they can't consent to it" argument applies.
Quote:And how would you feel if you were one of those "failed examples"?
Every medical procedure will have failed examples. That doesn't mean they shouldn't ever be performed.
Quote:It doesn't matter how "commonplace" botched circumcisions are. The procedure is completely unnecessary and the risks are great.
So is a lot of plastic surgery. Should that be outlawed, as well?
It seems like you're coming close to imposing your own personal decisions about elective medical procedures onto others.
Quote:And does this adolescent have any choice in the matter? Or is he just told to drop his drawers so the smelly old man can take a knife to his privates?
Your reasoning seems to be, "If an adolescent doesn't have a choice in the matter, the medical procedure shouldn't be performed." But it seems that there are counterexamples to this principle: a young child who is knocked unconscious by some physical trauma (say, being hit by a car) might require medical attention. Should surgery not be performed because the adolescent doesn't have a choice in the matter?
So it seems to me that "If an adolescent doesn't have a choice in the matter, the medical procedure shouldn't be performed" is a bad principle to argue.
Instead, I'd argue something like, "Only medically necessary procedures should be performed without the consent of the patient undergoing the procedure," where 'medically necessary' would be defined in terms of the likelihood of a good outcome should the procedure not be performed--the higher the chance of a good outcome without the procedure, the less medically necessary it is.
But that's just my two cents.
“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”
