15,317
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The medical ethics committee of the [https://www.bma.org.uk/ British Medical Association] also reviewed the ethics behind circumcision. Since circumcision has associated medical and psychological risks with no unequivocally proven medical benefits, they advise physicians to keep up with clinical evidence and only perform this procedure if it's in the child best interest.<ref name="bma2006" /> However, they acknowledge the procedure as a cultural and religious practice, which may be an important ritual for the child's incorporation into the group.<ref name="bma2006"/> They recognize that parents have the authority to make choices for their child, and they emphasize it is important for parents to act in their child's best interest.<ref name="bma2006"/> They ultimately report that views vary in their community about the benefits and risks of the procedure, and there is no clear policy for this situation.<ref name="bma2006"/>
====Adult circumcision====
In a paper published June 2006, the [https://www.bma.org.uk/ British Medical Association] Committee on Medical Ethics does not consider circumcision of an adult male to be controversial, provided that the adult is of sound mind and grants his personal consent after receiving all material information regarding the known risks, disadvantages, and potential benefits to be derived from the surgical operation.<ref name="bma2006" />
====Child circumcision====
In the same British Medical Association paper, circumcision of a child to treat a clear and present [[medical indication]] after a trial of conservative treatment also is not considered to be ethically questionable, provided that a suitable surrogate has granted surrogate consent after receiving all material information regarding the known risks, disadvantages, and potential benefits to be derived from the surgical operation.<ref name="bma2006"/>
====Criticism and revision of BMA statement====
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
|init=R
|authorlink=
|date=2004-06
|title=The development of professional guidelines on the law and ethics of male circumcision
|url=http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/30/3/254
|journal=Journal of Medical Ethics
|volume=30
|issue=3
|pages=254-258
|DOI=10.1136/jme.2004.008615
|pubmedCID=1733857
|pubmedID=15173358
|accessdate=
|quote=
}}</ref> He identifies this as a difficulty in achieving consensus within the medical ethics committee. Arguments put forward in discussions, according to Mussell, included the social and cultural benefits of circumcision, the violation of the child's rights, and the violation of the child's autonomy.<ref name="mussell2004"/>
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
|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> The BMA issued a revised statement in 2006 and now reports the controversy regarding the lawfulness of non-therapeutic child circumcision and recommends that doctors obtain the consent of ''both'' parents before performing non-therapeutic circumcision of a male minor. The revised statement now mentions that male circumcision is generally assumed to be lawful provided that it is performed competently, is believed to be in the child's best interests, and there is valid consent from both parent or the child if it is capable of expressing a view.<ref name="bma2006" />
→United Kingdom: Revise section, Wikify.
===United Kingdom===
[[File:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|thumb|upright=0.3]]
====2019 revision of BMA guidance====
The [[British Medical Association]], being cognizant of the [[Re B and G (children) (No 2) EWFC 3]] (2015) and [[Re L and B (CHILDREN)]] (2016) family court decisions, issued a new guidance to its member physicians in 2019. The new guidance urges its member physicians to take an extremely cautious approach to parental requests for the performance of non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] on minor boys and to ascertain that the requested non-therapeutic circumcision is in the boy's best interests.<ref name="bma2019">{{REFdocument
|title=Non-therapeutic male circumcision (NTMC) of children – practical guidance for doctors
|url=https://www.bma.org.uk/media/1847/bma-non-therapeutic-male-circumcision-of-children-guidance-2019.pdf
|contribution=
|last=Anonymous
|first=
|publisher=British Medical Association