Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Ethics of non-therapeutic child circumcision

56 bytes added, 17:09, 24 November 2021
m
wikify HIV
The expired American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) position statement on male circumcision (2012) has attracted significant critical comment, including from the AAP itself.
In a dissenting paper, Frisch et al. (2013) point out "Circumcision fails to meet the criteria to serve as a preventive measure for UTI [...] As a preventive measure for penile cancer, circumcision also fails to meet the criteria for preventive medicine [...] circumcision for [[HIV ]] protection in Western countries fails to meet the criteria for preventive medicine [...] Circumcision fails to meet the commonly accepted criteria for the justification of preventive medical procedures in children."
Frisch et al. conclude that "The AAP report lacks a serious discussion of the central ethical dilemma with, on one side, parents’ right to act in the best interest of the child on the basis of cultural, religious, and health-related beliefs and wishes and, on the other side, infant boys’ basic right to physical integrity in the absence of compelling reasons for surgery. Physical integrity is one of the most fundamental and inalienable rights a child has. Physicians and their professional organizations have a professional duty to protect this right, irrespective of the gender of the child."
|pubmedID=23509170
|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
|last=Task Force On Circumcision
|date=2013-04-01
{{Main|Circumcision and HIV}}
Rennie et al. (2007) remark that the results of three randomised controlled trials in sub-Saharan Africa, showing reduced risk of [[HIV ]] among circumcised men, "alter the terms of the debate over the ethics of male circumcision."<ref name="rennie2007">{{REFjournal
|last=Rennie
|first=Stuart
|quote=
|DOI=10.1136/jme.2006.019901
}}</ref> However, the methodology of the African RCTs has been severely criticised, thereby invalidating claims that circumcision reduces the sexual transmission of [[HIV]].<ref>{{REFbook
|last=Boyle
|first=G.J.
}}</ref>
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
administrator, administrators, Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators
22,226
edits

Navigation menu