Georgetown Law Journal
November, 2003
Westlaw ©2003 cite as 92 GEO L.J. 129 reprinted with permission of the author

Note

*129 WHO DECIDES? GENITAL-NORMALIZING SURGERY ON INTERSEXED INFANTS
Alyssa Connell Lareau [FNa1]

page 22

[FN129]. Id.

[FN130]. See Hermer, supra note 116, at 223 ("There undoubtedly have been, and may still be, serious informed consent issues with many intersex surgeries on infants. This is not, however, a basis on which one can reasonably call for a moratorium on the surgeries, particularly when one can take the less drastic step of offering more complete information (e.g., indicating gaps in information, such as those concerning long-term outcomes).").

[FN131]. See id. at 231-32, 235.

[FN132]. See Martin. supra note 112, at 168.

[FN133]. See Ford, supra note 113, at 487-88.

[FN134]. Id. at 488.

[FN135]. See, e.g., Emily Nussbaum, supra note 52, at 92 (quoting a pediatric urologist).

[FN136]. See Anne Cote, Telling the Truth? Disclosure, Therapeutic Privilege and Intersexuality in Children, 8 HEALTH L.J. 199, 202 (2000) (noting that physicians view "informed consent as risk management" and "want the law to provide 'a clear and predictable legal framework"'); Letter from Julie Greenberg to Chai Feldblum, supra note 9 (quoting language of draft ABA resolution that "physicians who practice in this area are also concerned about being exposed to potential legal liability if they continue their current practices" and that "although a majority of physicians would support continuation of the current medical practice of early surgical alteration, they likely would support adoption of an informed consent form that would shield them from potential liability").

END OF DOCUMENT

<<     previous 22/22