22,208
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
wikify
}}[] Tuesday, 1 October 2013</ref>
The Nordic Association of Clinical Sexologists supports the position of the Nordic Association of Ombudsmen who reason that circumcision violates the individual's [[human rights ]] by denying the male child his ability to make the decision for himself.<ref>[http://nacs.eu/data/press_release001.pdf Statement on Non-Therapeutic Circumcision of Boys.]. Nordic Association of Clinical Sexologists, Helsinki, 10 October 2013.</ref>
The medical doctors at Sørland Hospital in Kristiansand, Southern Norway have all refused to perform circumcisions on boys, citing reasons of conscience.<ref>{{REFnews
}}</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
|last=College of Physicians & Surgeons of British Columbia
|title=Circumcision (Infant Male)
Supporters of circumcision argue that using circumcision and other available means to halt the spread of [[HIV]] is in the common good (but overlook the fact that [[HIV]] is transmitted in the seminal fluid). Rennie et al. argue that "it would be unethical to not seriously consider one of the most promising—although also one of the most controversial—new approaches to [[HIV]]-prevention in the 25-year history of the epidemic."<ref name="rennie"/> However, there clearly remains a risk of transmitting or acquiring [[HIV]] while engaging in unprotected sex and other high risk behaviors (circumcised or not).
The [[World Health Organization]] (2007) states that provision of circumcision should be consistent with "medical ethics and [[human rights ]] principles." They state that "[i]nformed consent, confidentiality and absence of coercion should be assured. ... Parents who are responsible for providing consent, including for the circumcision of male infants, should be given sufficient information regarding the benefits and risks of the procedure in order to determine what is in the best interests of the child."<ref>WHO/UNAIDS Technical Consultation. [http://www.who.int/entity/hiv/mediacentre/MCrecommendations_en.pdf Male Circumcision and [[HIV]] Prevention: Research Implications for Policy and Programming]. Montreux, 6–8 March 2007</ref> However, since babies and children are not sexually active, sexually-transmitted [[HIV]] infection is not a relevant concern. Critics of non-therapeutic circumcision argue that advocating circumcision to prevent [[HIV]] infection may detract from other efforts to prevent the spread of the virus such as using condoms. If the adult chooses to remain celibate or if a couple remain monogamous, or if [[HIV]] is eliminated by the time the child is an adult, the sexual reduction surgery would not have been needed. Moreover, they argue that circumcising a child purportedly to partially protect him from [[HIV]] infection in adulthood may be seen as granting permission to engage in dangerous sexual practices. Obviously baby boys do not need such protection and can choose for themselves as consenting adults if they want a circumcision.<ref name="Somerville"/> This stance, however, does not take into account the fact that adult men may already have contracted [[HIV]] before getting circumcised.<ref>{{REFjournal
|last=Harmon
|first=Katherine