Ethics of non-therapeutic child circumcision: Difference between revisions
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) |
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) Revise text. |
||
| Line 229: | Line 229: | ||
|pubmedID=23509170 | |pubmedID=23509170 | ||
|issn=0031-4005 | |issn=0031-4005 | ||
}}</ref> They attribute this to cultural bias since non-therapeutic male circumcision is prevalent in the United States. They also criticized the strength of the health benefits the statement had claimed, such as protection from [[HIV]] and other STIs.<ref name="frisch2013"/> The American Academy of Pediatrics responded that because about half of American males are circumcised and half are not, there may be a more tolerant view concerning circumcision in the US, but that if there is any cultural “bias” among the AAP task force who wrote the Circumcision Policy statement, it is much less important than the bias Frisch et al. may hold because of clear prejudices against the practice that can be found in Europe. The AAP elaborately explained why they reached conclusions regarding the health benefits of circumcision that are different from the ones reached by some of their European counterparts.<ref>{{REFjournal | }}</ref> They attribute this to cultural bias since non-therapeutic male circumcision is prevalent in the United States. They also criticized the strength of the health benefits the statement had claimed, such as protection from [[HIV]] and other STIs.<ref name="frisch2013"/> The American Academy of Pediatrics responded that because about half of American males are [[circumcised]] and half are not, there may be a more tolerant view concerning circumcision in the US, but that if there is any cultural “bias” among the AAP task force who wrote the Circumcision Policy statement, it is much less important than the bias Frisch et al. may hold because of clear prejudices against the practice that can be found in Europe. The AAP elaborately explained why they reached conclusions regarding the health benefits of circumcision that are different from the ones reached by some of their European counterparts.<ref>{{REFjournal | ||
|last=Task Force On Circumcision | |last=Task Force On Circumcision | ||
|date=2013-04-01 | |date=2013-04-01 | ||
| Line 479: | Line 479: | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
The Committee on Medical Ethics of the British Medical Association (2003) published a paper to guide doctors on the law and ethics of circumcision. It advises medical doctors to proceed on a case by case basis to determine the best interests of the child before deciding to perform a circumcision. The doctor must consider the child's legal and [[human rights]] in making his or her determination. It states that a physician has a right to refuse to perform a non-therapeutic circumcision.<ref name="bma2006"/> The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia took a similar position.<ref name="cpsbc">{{REFweb | The Committee on Medical Ethics of the [[British Medical Association]] (2003) published a paper to guide doctors on the law and ethics of circumcision. It advises medical doctors to proceed on a case by case basis to determine the best interests of the child before deciding to perform a circumcision. The doctor must consider the child's legal and [[human rights]] in making his or her determination. It states that a physician has a right to refuse to perform a non-therapeutic circumcision.<ref name="bma2006"/> The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia took a similar position.<ref name="cpsbc">{{REFweb | ||
|last=College of Physicians & Surgeons of British Columbia | |last=College of Physicians & Surgeons of British Columbia | ||
|title=Circumcision (Infant Male) | |title=Circumcision (Infant Male) | ||
| Line 488: | Line 488: | ||
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"/> | 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"/> | ||
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 | 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 | ||
| Line 610: | Line 592: | ||
|url=http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/richards/ | |url=http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/richards/ | ||
|accessdate=2008-04-11 | |accessdate=2008-04-11 | ||
}}</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" | }}</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" /> | ||
Regardless of these issues, the general practice of the medical community in the United States is to receive surrogate informed consent or permission from parents or legal guardians for non-therapeutic circumcision of children.<ref name="bma2006"/><ref name="povenmire"/> | Regardless of these issues, the general practice of the medical community in the United States is to receive surrogate informed consent or permission from parents or legal guardians for non-therapeutic circumcision of children.<ref name="bma2006"/><ref name="povenmire"/> | ||
| Line 647: | Line 613: | ||
== The emerging consensus on surrogate consent for non-therapeutic newborn, infant, and child circumcision == | == The emerging consensus on surrogate consent for non-therapeutic newborn, infant, and child circumcision == | ||
The power of parents and other surrogates to grant consent is dependent upon the existence of a physical or medical condition in a minor child that requires diagnostic and/or treatment. The right to grant surrogate consent cannot exist in the absence of such a condition. | The power of parents and other surrogates to grant consent is dependent upon the existence of a physical or medical condition in a minor child that requires diagnostic and/or treatment.<ref name="richards"/> The right to grant surrogate consent cannot exist in the absence of such a condition. | ||
{{SEEALSO}} | {{SEEALSO}} | ||