You are right, but it’s complicated. State laws defer to parents wishes unless ‘great harm’. Back then (even now) this is the law. NYC tried to ban the practice of Rabbis sucking blood by mouth at circs and lost, only recently. It was Religious effing and parental freedom.
-
-
"State laws defer to parents wishes unless ‘great harm’."? State laws compel doctors to perform an operation contrary to their ethics and medical judgement? Please cite some of these laws. That is surely none of the states' business.
2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
I don’t have the exact quote. My understanding is that parents the right to make decisions for their children. However, if parents make the wrong decision that cause great harm, then the state has an ‘overriding interest in the welfare of a minor’. Eg. Pentecostals.
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Oh, I see. No "exact quote" but you're going to just make stuff up in a futile effort to justify your past unethical & abhorrent conduct. Funny how genital-cutting physicians never seem to have the "exact quote" for the supposed legal authority for what they do.
#i2@ACOG#meded1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @cooney21 @intactive and
NYC? Let's see what NY Family Court Act Section 1012(e) has to say: “'Abused child' means a child less than eighteen years of age whose parent or other person legally responsible for his care [that's you!] ...(cont'd)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cooney21 @intactive and
"(i) inflicts ... upon such child physical injury by other than accidental means which causes ... serious or protracted disfigurement, or protracted impairment of physical or emotional health or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ."
#i2@ACOG#meded1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @cooney21 @intactive and
Let's start w/what this doesn't say: there's nothing about "great" harm. The words are "physical injury by other than accidental means." No threshold of "greatness" (whatever that means) need be met. All that matters is that it wasn't accidental.
#i2@ACOG#meded#ethics1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @cooney21 @intactive and
Inflicting such a non-accidental physical injury on a child means that child is an "abused child" under the statute if the injury causes "serious or protracted disfigurement." The use of the disjunctive makes clear that ANY protracted disfigurement is sufficient.
#i2@ACOG#meded1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @cooney21 @intactive and
Amputating a child's
#foreskin causes disfigurement that isn't just "protracted" - it's permanent. And to what he is likely to consider one of the most valuable parts of his body.1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @cooney21 @intactive and
Inflicting such a non-accidental physical injury on a child means that child is an "abused child" under the statute if the injury causes "protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ."
#i2@ACOG#meded#ethics@ACOGAction@ACOGPregnancy#tweetiatrician1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Again, the "loss or impairment" of functions like sensation & self-lubrication would make #foreskin amputation child abuse under the statute even if those results were just "protracted." In fact, they are permanent & irreversible. #i2 @ACOG #meded #ethics @ACOGAction
-
-
Replying to @cooney21 @intactive and
So based on the "exact quotes" from the legal authority defining child abuse that you conveniently couldn't find, doctors who amputate foreskins from healthy children violate the law as well as their ethical duties, rendering their patients "abused children"
#i2@ACOG#meded0 replies 0 retweets 2 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.