This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2001;155:618.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

The study undertaken by Taddio et al¹ raises a number of troubling ethical and legal issues. Since neonatal circumcision is not medically required,^{2, 3} and since newborns are people, the study involved performing nonessential surgery on nonconsenting people. Such research violates the principles enunciated in a number of human rights instruments, including a policy statement governing research on human subjects in Canada. This policy statement specifies among other things that "respect for human dignity entails high ethical obligations towards vulnerable persons," and "research subjects must not be subjected to unnecessary risks of harm.⁴ If neonatal circumcision is not medically required treatment, then were the research subjects of Taddio et al not exposed to unnecessary risks of harm?

Moreover, a 1986 Supreme Court of Canada decision called Re Eve has created an important precedent in Canadian law that limits parents' ability to give medical consent on behalf of children.⁵ In Re Eve. . . [Full Text of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Neonatal pain relief and the helsinki declaration.
Van Howe and Svoboda
J Law Med Ethics 2008;36:803-823.