IntactiWiki

Ethics of non-therapeutic child circumcision: Difference between revisions

← Older editNewer edit →
WikiAdmin (talk | contribs)
administrator, administrators, Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators
22,834 edits
Add category.
WikiAdmin (talk | contribs)
administrator, administrators, Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators
22,834 edits
m adjusted REFjournal
Line 1: Line 1:
Male [[circumcision]] is the surgical removal of the [[foreskin]] (prepuce) from the human penis.<ref name=sawyer_2011>{{REFbook
Male [[circumcision]] is the surgical removal of the [[foreskin]] (prepuce) from the human penis.<ref name=sawyer_2011>{{REFbook
  |last=Sawyer
  |last=Sawyer
  |first=?S
  |first=S
  |title=Pediatric Physical Examination & Health Assessment
  |title=Pediatric Physical Examination & Health Assessment
  |pages=555-556
  |pages=555-556
Line 10: Line 10:
}}</ref> The foreskin has protective, immunological, sensory, and sexual functions. The '''ethics of non-therapeutic child circumcision''' being imposed on unconsenting minors (babies and children) has been a source of ongoing controversy.<ref>{{REFjournal
}}</ref> The foreskin has protective, immunological, sensory, and sexual functions. The '''ethics of non-therapeutic child circumcision''' being imposed on unconsenting minors (babies and children) has been a source of ongoing controversy.<ref>{{REFjournal
  |last=Boyle
  |last=Boyle
  |first=G.J.
  |init=GJ
  |author-link=Gregory Boyle
  |author-link=Gregory Boyle
  |last2=Svoboda
  |last2=Svoboda
  |first2=J.S.
  |init2=JS
  |author2-link=J. Steven Svoboda
  |author2-link=J. Steven Svoboda
  |last3=Price
  |last3=Price
  |first3=C.P.
  |init3=CP
  |author3-link=Christopher P. Price
  |author3-link=Christopher P. Price
  |last4=Turner
  |last4=Turner
  |first4=J.N.
  |init4=JN
  |author4-link=J. Neville Turner
  |author4-link=J. Neville Turner
  |year=2000
  |date=2000
  |title=Circumcision of healthy boys: Criminal assault?
  |title=Circumcision of healthy boys: Criminal assault?
  |url=http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/boyle1/
  |url=http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/boyle1/
Line 67: Line 67:
The [[Canadian Paediatric Society]] (CPS) issued a position statement on September 8, 2015, which highlighted the ethical issue surrounding the child's inability to give consent.<ref name="CPS2015">{{REFjournal
The [[Canadian Paediatric Society]] (CPS) issued a position statement on September 8, 2015, which highlighted the ethical issue surrounding the child's inability to give consent.<ref name="CPS2015">{{REFjournal
  |last=Sorakan
  |last=Sorakan
  |first=ST..
  |init=ST
  |last2=Finla
  |last2=Finla
  |first2=J.C.
  |init2=JC
  |last3=Jefferies
  |last3=Jefferies
  |first3=A.L.
  |init3=AL
  |title=Newborn male circumcision
  |title=Newborn male circumcision
  |journal=Paediatr Child Health
  |journal=Paediatr Child Health
Line 143: Line 143:
Commenting on the development of the 2003 British Medical Association guidance on circumcision, Mussell (2004) reports that debate in society is highly polarized, and he attributes it to the different faiths and cultures that make up BMA.<ref name="mussell2004">{{REFjournal
Commenting on the development of the 2003 British Medical Association guidance on circumcision, Mussell (2004) reports that debate in society is highly polarized, and he attributes it to the different faiths and cultures that make up BMA.<ref name="mussell2004">{{REFjournal
  |last=Mussell
  |last=Mussell
  |first=R.
  |init=R
  |authorlink=
  |authorlink=
  |date=2004-06
  |date=2004-06
Line 161: Line 161:
The BMA statement of 2003 took the position that non-therapeutic circumcision of children is lawful in the United Kingdom.<ref name="BMA2003"/>  British law professors Fox & Thomson (2005), citing the House of Lords case of R v Brown, challenged this statement. They argued that consent cannot make an unlawful act lawful.<ref name="fox-thomson">{{REFjournal
The BMA statement of 2003 took the position that non-therapeutic circumcision of children is lawful in the United Kingdom.<ref name="BMA2003"/>  British law professors Fox & Thomson (2005), citing the House of Lords case of R v Brown, challenged this statement. They argued that consent cannot make an unlawful act lawful.<ref name="fox-thomson">{{REFjournal
  |last=Fox
  |last=Fox
  |first=M.
  |init=M
  |last2=Thomson
  |last2=Thomson
  |first2=M.
  |init2=M
  |title=A covenant with the status quo? Male circumcision and the new BMA guidance to doctors
  |title=A covenant with the status quo? Male circumcision and the new BMA guidance to doctors
  |journal=Journal of Medical Ethics
  |journal=Journal of Medical Ethics
Line 209: Line 209:
  |last=Van Howe
  |last=Van Howe
  |first=Robert S.
  |first=Robert S.
|init=RS
  |last2=Svoboda
  |last2=Svoboda
  |first2=J. Steven
  |first2=J. Steven
|init2=JS
  |date=2013-07-01
  |date=2013-07-01
  |title=Out of step: fatal flaws in the latest AAP policy report on neonatal circumcision
  |title=Out of step: fatal flaws in the latest AAP policy report on neonatal circumcision
Line 226: Line 228:
Frisch ''et al''. (2013) pointed out the difference of the AAP's statements in comparison to other Western countries, such as Canada, Australia, and various European countries.<ref name="frisch2013">{{REFjournal
Frisch ''et al''. (2013) pointed out the difference of the AAP's statements in comparison to other Western countries, such as Canada, Australia, and various European countries.<ref name="frisch2013">{{REFjournal
  |last=Frisch
  |last=Frisch
  |first=M.
  |init=M
  |last2=Aigrain
  |last2=Aigrain
  |first2=Y.
  |init2=Y
  |last3=Barauskas
  |last3=Barauskas
  |first3=V.
  |init3=V
  |last4=Bjarnason
  |last4=Bjarnason
  |first4=R.
  |init4=R
  |last5=Boddy
  |last5=Boddy
  |first5=S.-A.
  |init5=SA
  |last6=Czauderna
  |last6=Czauderna
  |first6=P.
  |init6=P
  |last7=de Gier
  |last7=de Gier
  |first7=R.P.E.
  |init7=RPE
  |last8=de Jong
  |last8=de Jong
  |first8=T.P.V.M.
  |init8=TPVM
  |last9=Fasching
  |last9=Fasching
  |first9=G.
  |init9=G
  |date=2013-04-01
  |date=2013-04-01
  |title=Cultural Bias in the AAP's 2012 Technical Report and Policy Statement on Male Circumcision
  |title=Cultural Bias in the AAP's 2012 Technical Report and Policy Statement on Male Circumcision
Line 319: Line 321:
"It is therefore very interesting that the piece of evidence we really need to have in order to be able to assess the status of circumcision is singularly lacking. We simply do not have valid comparative data concerning the effects of early circumcision on adult sexual function and satisfaction. Until such data become available, the circumcision debate cannot be brought to a satisfactory conclusion, and there will always be a lingering suspicion that the sometimes rather strident opposition to circumcision is partly driven by cultural prejudices, dressed up as ethical arguments."<ref name="holm">{{REFjournal
"It is therefore very interesting that the piece of evidence we really need to have in order to be able to assess the status of circumcision is singularly lacking. We simply do not have valid comparative data concerning the effects of early circumcision on adult sexual function and satisfaction. Until such data become available, the circumcision debate cannot be brought to a satisfactory conclusion, and there will always be a lingering suspicion that the sometimes rather strident opposition to circumcision is partly driven by cultural prejudices, dressed up as ethical arguments."<ref name="holm">{{REFjournal
  |last=Holm
  |last=Holm
  |first=S.
  |init=S
  |title=Irreversible bodily interventions in children
  |title=Irreversible bodily interventions in children
  |journal=Journal of Medical Ethics
  |journal=Journal of Medical Ethics
Line 336: Line 338:
"The most fundamental principle of surgery is that no operation should be done if there is no disease, as it cannot be justified if the risk of the procedure is not balanced by the risk of a disease. Even when patients have significant disease, potentially dangerous operations can hardly be justified if their risks are much greater than the disease itself. The problem for routine circumcision is that since there is no disease, no complication whatsoever can be tolerated, since the risks of the procedure are not being balanced against the risks of any present disease."<ref name="hutson">{{REFjournal
"The most fundamental principle of surgery is that no operation should be done if there is no disease, as it cannot be justified if the risk of the procedure is not balanced by the risk of a disease. Even when patients have significant disease, potentially dangerous operations can hardly be justified if their risks are much greater than the disease itself. The problem for routine circumcision is that since there is no disease, no complication whatsoever can be tolerated, since the risks of the procedure are not being balanced against the risks of any present disease."<ref name="hutson">{{REFjournal
  |last=Hutson
  |last=Hutson
  |first=J.M.
  |init=JM
  |title=Circumcision: a surgeon’s perspective
  |title=Circumcision: a surgeon’s perspective
  |journal=Journal of Medical Ethics
  |journal=Journal of Medical Ethics
Line 355: Line 357:
"If we believe in evidence based medicine, then there can be no debate about male circumcision; it has become a desirable option for the whole world. Paradoxically, this simple procedure is a life saver; it can also bring about major improvements to both male and female reproductive health. Rather than condemning it, we in the developed world have a duty to develop better procedures that are neither physically cruel nor potentially dangerous, so that male circumcision can take its rightful place as the kindest cut of all."<ref name="short">{{REFjournal
"If we believe in evidence based medicine, then there can be no debate about male circumcision; it has become a desirable option for the whole world. Paradoxically, this simple procedure is a life saver; it can also bring about major improvements to both male and female reproductive health. Rather than condemning it, we in the developed world have a duty to develop better procedures that are neither physically cruel nor potentially dangerous, so that male circumcision can take its rightful place as the kindest cut of all."<ref name="short">{{REFjournal
  |last=Short
  |last=Short
  |first=R.V.
  |init=RV
  |title=Male circumcision: a scientific perspective
  |title=Male circumcision: a scientific perspective
  |journal=Journal of Medical Ethics
  |journal=Journal of Medical Ethics
Line 370: Line 372:
Viens (2004) contends that "we do not know in any robust or determinate sense that infant male circumcision is harmful in itself, nor can we say the same with respect to its purported harmful consequences." He suggests that one must distinguish between practices that are grievously harmful and those that enhance a child's cultural or religious identity. He suggests that medical professionals, and bioethicists especially, "must take as their starting point the fact that reasonable people will disagree about what is valuable and what is harmful."<ref name="viens">{{REFjournal
Viens (2004) contends that "we do not know in any robust or determinate sense that infant male circumcision is harmful in itself, nor can we say the same with respect to its purported harmful consequences." He suggests that one must distinguish between practices that are grievously harmful and those that enhance a child's cultural or religious identity. He suggests that medical professionals, and bioethicists especially, "must take as their starting point the fact that reasonable people will disagree about what is valuable and what is harmful."<ref name="viens">{{REFjournal
  |last=Viens
  |last=Viens
  |first=A.M.
  |init=AM
  |title=Value judgment, harm, and religious liberty
  |title=Value judgment, harm, and religious liberty
  |journal=Journal of Medical Ethics
  |journal=Journal of Medical Ethics
Line 385: Line 387:
Hellsten (2004), however, describes arguments in support of circumcision as "rationalisations",  and states that infant circumcision can be "clearly condemned as a violation of children’s rights whether or not they cause direct pain." He argues that, to question the ethical acceptability of the practice, "we need to focus on child rights protection." Hellsten concludes, "Rather, with further education and knowledge the cultural smokescreen around the real reasons for the maintenance of the practice can be overcome in all societies no matter what their cultural background.<ref name="hellsten">{{REFjournal
Hellsten (2004), however, describes arguments in support of circumcision as "rationalisations",  and states that infant circumcision can be "clearly condemned as a violation of children’s rights whether or not they cause direct pain." He argues that, to question the ethical acceptability of the practice, "we need to focus on child rights protection." Hellsten concludes, "Rather, with further education and knowledge the cultural smokescreen around the real reasons for the maintenance of the practice can be overcome in all societies no matter what their cultural background.<ref name="hellsten">{{REFjournal
  |last=Hellsten
  |last=Hellsten
  |first=S.K.
  |init=SK
  |title=Rationalising circumcision: from tradition to fashion, from public health to individual freedom—critical notes on cultural persistence of the practice of genital mutilation
  |title=Rationalising circumcision: from tradition to fashion, from public health to individual freedom—critical notes on cultural persistence of the practice of genital mutilation
  |journal=Journal of Medical Ethics
  |journal=Journal of Medical Ethics
Line 405: Line 407:
The BMA produced a document that set forth legal and ethical concerns but left the final decision on whether or not to perform a non-therapeutic circumcision to the attending physician.<ref name="mussell2">{{REFjournal
The BMA produced a document that set forth legal and ethical concerns but left the final decision on whether or not to perform a non-therapeutic circumcision to the attending physician.<ref name="mussell2">{{REFjournal
  |last=Mussell
  |last=Mussell
  |first=R.
  |init=R
  |title=The development of professional guidelines on the law and ethics of male circumcision
  |title=The development of professional guidelines on the law and ethics of male circumcision
  |journal=Journal of Medical Ethics
  |journal=Journal of Medical Ethics
Line 442: Line 444:
}}</ref> The numerous articles represent a diverse variety of views.<ref>{{REFjournal
}}</ref> The numerous articles represent a diverse variety of views.<ref>{{REFjournal
  |last=Foddy
  |last=Foddy
  |first=B.
  |init=B
  |title=The concise argument: Medical, religious and social reasons for and against an ancient rite
  |title=The concise argument: Medical, religious and social reasons for and against an ancient rite
  |journal=Journal of Medical Ethics
  |journal=Journal of Medical Ethics
Line 454: Line 456:
}}</ref><ref>{{REFjournal
}}</ref><ref>{{REFjournal
  |last=Earp
  |last=Earp
  |first=B.D.
  |init=BD
|author-link=Brian D. Earp
  |title=The ethics of infant male circumcision
  |title=The ethics of infant male circumcision
  |journal=Journal of Medical Ethics
  |journal=Journal of Medical Ethics
Line 491: Line 494:
Canning (2002) commented that "[i]f circumcision becomes less commonly performed in North America ... the legal system may no longer be able to ignore the conflict between the practice of circumcision and the legal and ethical duties of medical specialists."<ref name="Canning">{{REFjournal
Canning (2002) commented that "[i]f circumcision becomes less commonly performed in North America ... the legal system may no longer be able to ignore the conflict between the practice of circumcision and the legal and ethical duties of medical specialists."<ref name="Canning">{{REFjournal
  |last=Canning
  |last=Canning
  |first=D.A.
  |init=DA
  |title=Informed consent for neonatal circumcision: an ethical and legal conundrum
  |title=Informed consent for neonatal circumcision: an ethical and legal conundrum
  |journal=J Urol
  |journal=J Urol
Line 515: Line 518:
<!--[[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
<!--[[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
  |last=Morris
  |last=Morris
  |first=B.J.
  |init=BJ
  |authorlink=Brian J. Morris
  |authorlink=Brian J. Morris
  |last2=Bailis
  |last2=Bailis
  |first2=S.A.
  |init2=SA
  |last3=Wiswell
  |last3=Wiswell
  |first3=T.E.
  |init3=TE
  |title=Circumcision rates in the United States: rising or falling? What effect might the new affirmative pediatric policy statement have?
  |title=Circumcision rates in the United States: rising or falling? What effect might the new affirmative pediatric policy statement have?
  |journal=Mayo Clinic Proceedings
  |journal=Mayo Clinic Proceedings
Line 560: Line 563:
  |last=Rennie
  |last=Rennie
  |first=Stuart
  |first=Stuart
|init=S
  |authorlink=
  |authorlink=
|last2=Muula
  |first2=Adamson S.
  |first2=Adamson S.
  |last2=Muula
  |init2=AS
|last3=Westreich
  |first3=Daniel
  |first3=Daniel
  |last3=Westreich
  |init3=D
  |date=2007-06
  |date=2007-06
  |title=Male circumcision and HIV prevention: ethical, medical and public health tradeoffs in low-income countries
  |title=Male circumcision and HIV prevention: ethical, medical and public health tradeoffs in low-income countries
Line 596: Line 602:
  |last=Harmon
  |last=Harmon
  |first=Katherine
  |first=Katherine
|init=K
  |title=Can male circumcision stem the AIDS epidemic in Africa?
  |title=Can male circumcision stem the AIDS epidemic in Africa?
  |url=http://www.nature.com/news/can-male-circumcision-stem-the-aids-epidemic-in-africa-1.9520
  |url=http://www.nature.com/news/can-male-circumcision-stem-the-aids-epidemic-in-africa-1.9520
Line 622: Line 629:


Since children, and especially infants, are legally incompetent to grant [[informed consent]] for medical or surgical treatment, that consent must be granted by a surrogate — someone designated to act on behalf of the child-patient, if treatment is to occur.<ref name="conundrum">{{REFjournal
Since children, and especially infants, are legally incompetent to grant [[informed consent]] for medical or surgical treatment, that consent must be granted by a surrogate — someone designated to act on behalf of the child-patient, if treatment is to occur.<ref name="conundrum">{{REFjournal
|last=Svoboda
  |first=J. Steven
  |first=J. Steven
  |last=Svoboda
  |init=JS
|last2=Van Howe
  |first2=Robert S.
  |first2=Robert S.
  |last2=Van Howe
  |init2=RS
|last3=Dwyer
  |first3=James G.
  |first3=James G.
  |last3=Dwyer
  |init3=JG
  |author3-link=James G. Dwyer
  |author3-link=James G. Dwyer
  |title=Informed Consent for Neonatal Circumcision: An Ethical and Legal Conundrum
  |title=Informed Consent for Neonatal Circumcision: An Ethical and Legal Conundrum
Line 655: Line 665:
There is an unresolved question whether surrogates may grant effective consent for non-therapeutic child circumcision.<ref name="povenmire">{{REFjournal
There is an unresolved question whether surrogates may grant effective consent for non-therapeutic child circumcision.<ref name="povenmire">{{REFjournal
  |last=Povenmire
  |last=Povenmire
  |first=R.
  |init=R
  |authorlink=
  |authorlink=
  |date=
  |date=
Line 668: Line 678:
  |accessdate=2013-11-25
  |accessdate=2013-11-25
}}</ref><ref name="conundrum"/><ref name="Adler">{{REFjournal
}}</ref><ref name="conundrum"/><ref name="Adler">{{REFjournal
|last=Adler
  |first=Peter W.
  |first=Peter W.
  |last=Adler
  |init=PW
  |author-link=Peter W. Adler
  |author-link=Peter W. Adler
  |url=http://rjolpi.richmond.edu/archive/Adler_Formatted.pdf
  |url=http://rjolpi.richmond.edu/archive/Adler_Formatted.pdf
Line 680: Line 691:
}}</ref> Richards (1996) argues that parents may only consent to medical care, so are not empowered to grant consent for non-therapeutic circumcision of a child because it is not medical care.<ref name="richards">{{REFjournal
}}</ref> Richards (1996) argues that parents may only consent to medical care, so are not empowered to grant consent for non-therapeutic circumcision of a child because it is not medical care.<ref name="richards">{{REFjournal
  |last=Richards
  |last=Richards
  |first=D.
  |init=D
  |authorlink=
  |authorlink=
  |date=1996-05
  |date=1996-05
Line 692: Line 703:
}}</ref> <!--The Canadian Paediatric Society (2015) recommends that circumcisions done in the absence of a medical indication or for personal reasons "should be deferred until the individual concerned is able to make their own choices."<ref name="CPS2015">{{REFjournal
}}</ref> <!--The Canadian Paediatric Society (2015) recommends that circumcisions done in the absence of a medical indication or for personal reasons "should be deferred until the individual concerned is able to make their own choices."<ref name="CPS2015">{{REFjournal
  |last=Sorakan
  |last=Sorakan
  |first=S.T.
  |init=ST
  |last2=Finlay
  |last2=Finlay
  |first2=J.C.
  |init2=JC
  |last3=Jefferies
  |last3=Jefferies
  |first3=A.L.
  |init3=AL
  |title=Newborn male circumcision
  |title=Newborn male circumcision
  |journal=Paediatr Child Health
  |journal=Paediatr Child Health
Line 716: Line 727:


{{SEEALSO}}
{{SEEALSO}}
* [[Human rights]]
* [[Human rights]]


{{LINKS}}
{{LINKS}}
* {{REFjournal
* {{REFjournal
  |last=Freeman
  |last=Freeman
  |first=M.D.
  |init=MD
  |authorlink=
  |authorlink=
  |date=1999
  |date=1999
Line 736: Line 745:
* {{REFjournal
* {{REFjournal
  |last=Goodman
  |last=Goodman
  |first=J.
  |init=J
  |title=[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1022.x Jewish circumcision: an alternative perspective]
  |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1022.x
|title=Jewish circumcision: an alternative perspective
  |journal=BJU Int
  |journal=BJU Int
  |date=1999
  |date=1999
Retrieved from "https://en.intactiwiki.org/wiki/Ethics_of_non-therapeutic_child_circumcision"