15,797
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Other views
}}</ref>
Fox and Thomson (2005) state that in the absence of "unequivocal evidence of medical benefit", it is "ethically inappropriate to subject a child to the acknowledged risks of infant male circumcision." Thus, they believe, "the emerging consensus, whereby parental choice holds sway, appears ethically indefensible".<ref name="fox-thomson">{{REFjournal |last=Fox |init=M |last2=Thomson |init2=M |title=A covenant with the status quo? Male circumcision and the new BMA guidance to doctors |journal=Journal of Medical Ethics |date=2005 |volume=31 |issue=8 |pages=463-469 |url=http://jme.bmj.com/content/31/8/463.full |DOI=10.1136/jme.2004.009340 |pubmedID=16076971 |pubmedCID=1734197}}</ref>
<!--[[Brian J. Morris|Morris]] et al. (2014) argued that "...failure to circumcise a baby boy may be unethical because it diminishes his right to good health."<ref>{{REFjournal
|pubmedID=24702735
}}</ref>-->
The Belgian Federal Consultative Committee for Bioethics (''[[:fr:Comité consultatif de Bioéthique de Belgique|Comité Consultatif de Bioéthique de Belgique]]'') (2017), after a three-year study, has ruled that circumcision of male children for non-therapeutic purposes is unethical in Belgium.<ref> {{REFweb
|last=Comité Consultif de Bioéthique de Belgique