Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T07:28:10.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Determinants of Decision Making for Circumcision

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2009

Chris Ciesielski-Carlucci ,
Nancy Milliken  and
Neal H. Cohen
Chris Ciesielski-Carlucci
Affiliation:
Recent graduate of the University of California at Berkeley/San Francisco Joint Medical Program, and is now a medical resident at Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Nancy Milliken
Affiliation:
Assistant professor in the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences at the University of California at San Francisco.
Neal H. Cohen
Affiliation:
Professor of Anesthesia and Medicine, Vice Chairman of the Department of Anesthesia, and Director of Critical Care Medicine, University of California, San Francisco.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Research is ongoing concerning the medical risks and benefits of routine neonatal male circumcision. Interpretation of the data, however, is controversial. Circumcision presents a number of challenges in obtaining informed consent because of a variety of interesting issues. It is a nonemergent, elective procedure that allows for evaluation and discussion over time. In this respect, observation of the informed consent process for circumcision is relevant to other medical decisions, such as advance directives, discussed between primary care providers and patients. Obtaining informed consent for circumcision has its constraints. The process generally occurs over a brief hospital stay. There have been recent changes in the official position regarding the procedure by professional medical societies, and it raises considerable psychologic issues for the provider and may Impact the way in which Information is provided.

Type
Special Section: Issues in Consent
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , Spring 1996 , pp. 228 - 236
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Wiswell, T, Hachey, W. Urinary tract infections and the uncircumcised state: an update. Clinical Pediatrics 1993;32(3):130–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

2. Kreiss, J, Hopkins, S. The association between circumcision status and the human immunodeficiency virus infection among homosexual men. Journal of Infectious Diseases 1993;168(6):1404–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

3. Tsang, T, Tarn, P. Complications of circumcision. British Journal of Surgery 1994;81(3):473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. Persad, R, Sharma, S, McTavish, J, Imber, C, Mouriquand, P. Clinical presentation and pathophysiology of meatal stenosis following circumcision. British Journal of Urology 1995;75(1):91–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

5. Schoen, E. Urologists and circumcision of newborns. Urology 1992;40(2):99–101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

6. Robson, W, Leung, A. The circumcision question. Postgraduate Medicine 1992;91(6):237–42, 244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7. Wiswell, T. Routine neonatal circumcision: a reappraisal. American Family Physician 1990;41(3):859–63.Google ScholarPubMed

8. Lund, M. Perspectives on newborn male circumcision. Neonatal Network 1990;9(3):7–12.Google ScholarPubMed

9. Poland, R. The question of routine neonatal circumcision. New England Journal of Medicine 1990;322(18):1312–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10. Milos, M, Marcis, D. Circumcision. A medical or a human rights issues? Journal of Nurse-Midwifery 1992;37(Suppl 2):87S–96S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

11. Schoen, E, Anderson, G, Bohon, C, Hinman, F, Poland, R, Wakeman, E. Report of the task force on circumcision. Pediatrics 1989;84(4):388–91.Google Scholar

12. Annas, G. The Rights of Hospital Patients—The Basic A.C.L.U. Guide to a Hospital Patient's Rights. New York: Discus Books, 1975.Google Scholar

13. Weatherstone, K, Rasmussen, I, Erenberg, A,. Jackson, E, Claflin, E, Leff, R. Safety and efficacy of a topical anesthetic for neonatal circumcision. Pediatrics 1993;92(5):710–4.Google ScholarPubMed

14. Snellman, L, Stang, H. Prospective evaluation of complications of dorsal penile nerve block for neonatal circumcision. Pediatrics 1995;95(5):705–8.Google ScholarPubMed

15. Lovell, J, Cox, J. Maternal attitudes toward circumcision. The Journal of Family Practice 1979;9(5):811–3.Google ScholarPubMed

16. Christensen-Szalanski, J, Boyce, T, Harrell, H, Gardner, M. Circumcision and informed consent: is more information always better? Medical Care 1987;25(9):856–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

17. Enzenauer, R, Powell, J, Wiswell, T, Bas, J. Decreased circumcision rate with videotaped counseling. Southern Medical Journal 1986;79(6):717–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

18. Spinelli, T. The circumcision decision: a plea for informed consent. Henry Ford Hospital Medical Journal 1988;36(4):209–11.Google ScholarPubMed