Could I medically or surgically modify my own child?
<p>Keep in mind this is a hypothetical scenario.</p>

<p>I was recently very surprised to find out that many males in the United States are circumcised shortly after birth. No one had ever told me (it's not a subject I've spoken at length with anyone about), and certainly no one asked my permission before the procedure was performed on me. And yet it happens all the time, probably still to this day. </p>

<p>So this got me thinking, what are the legal limits to which a parent can physically modify a child? Could they turn a girl into a boy, or vice versa (I assume hormone therapy would work best when started at an early age)? Could they give them elf ears or vampire fangs? Could they replace all their limbs with state-of-the-art prostheses in an effort to create a Baby Robocop? As far as I know, all of these things can be legally done to oneself, but children aren't old enough to consent, and there are definitely cases where things are done to them <em>against</em> their consent by parents, with the law supporting the parents. </p>

<p>Let's assume that any modification has no perceived detriment to the child (for instance, in the limb-chopping scenario, assume prosthesis are advanced enough to match the abilities of natural limbs). Also assume that the procedure is painless, performed by a certified medical professional, and does not impede the mental and physical development of the child. </p>

<p>Are there any laws that specifically prevent these sorts of modifications? Or are there more general parenting laws that apply? </p>

<p>At least one court has found that unnecessary surgeries are child abuse.</p>

<p>Quoting from <a href="http://rjolpi.richmond.edu/archive/Adler_Formatted.pdf">Is Circumcision Legal?</a> by Peter W Adler (I recommend this article to you, it goes into common law and Constitutional law around surgeries). I think that we should not be distracted by the definition of abuse adopted by the court (risk of death, impairment of function etc) because even with your caveats about wonderful bionic legs, the replacements are not members of the body. Arguably.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>A 2010 Tex as appellate case, <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2539488/williamson-v-state/">Williamson v.  State</a> , confirms that any
  unnecessary surgery on children constitutes statutory child abuse. The
  Williamson court held a mother criminally liable for unnecessary
  surgery that caused serious bodily injury to her son, defined in Texas
  as “an injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes
  death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or
  impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.” A physician
  testified that unnecessary surgery does not constitute reasonable
  medical care. The court also found a scalpel to meet the
  definition of a “deadly weapon” as it can cause death or serious
  bodily injury. Circumcision, whether male or female, is thus criminal
  child abuse.</p>
</blockquote>

united-states child-abuse