Welcome! Sign in to access your account. New user?

what is ethical or legal

a questionaire of what people think it is legal and ethical for parents and doctors to do
does a child have the rights to their own body, as in should a parent be able to perform unnecessary irreeversible procedures on a child without an immediate need
yes the child has rights
parents have ultimate say
If doctors said a procedure was recommended but offered no detail to back it up, and the procedure had been hailed for numerous cures in the past but never panned out and was now being pushed as a cure for the current health problem of the time but it resulted in obvious damage that only negatively impacted sexual enjoyment would you do it
considering the hippocratic oath states Never to do deliberate harm to anyone for anyone else's interest. and we know from the Sorrell study that circumcision removes tissue that is 4 times more sensitive then what is left, is it right for a doctor to do circumcision?
the hippocratic oath states "To practice and prescribe to the best of my ability for the good of my patients, and to try to avoid harming them." however circumcision was originally done and is still done today without painkillers, the reasoning was that the boy would associate pain with the penis, we know infants are affected by what happens to them so we know this is psychologically harmful. circumcised baby boys don't breastfeed as well as intact ones
yes - the doctor should be allowed to
no - the doctor should not be allowed to
the current push is that circumcision prevents aids, however no statistical or observational study has shown that, the only study that did was when doctors intervened and circumcised men later in life which creates many variables which could not be determined including the possiblity of sexual education (studies were done in africa).
I did not know that
I knew that
If you believe in evolution - do you believe evolution got it wrong and left such a vulnerable part on the body If you believe in god - do you believe god got it wrong and left such a vulnerable part on the body, despite being made in god's image
It can be argued that since it female circumciion the flap of skin covering the clitoris is removed, and thus since that skin is the same skin that forms the foreskin in boys that there is no difference in male verse female circumcision (we are not talking about female genital mutilation where they damage the clitoris)
males should not have protection from circumcision, females should be protected
males and females should have protection from circumcision
males should have protection from circumcision, females should not
males and females should not have protection from circumcision
This poll was created on 2008-02-06 20:01:01 by cloud70