20,864
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
====American Medical Association Journal of Ethics====
In August 2017, the American Medical Association ''Journal of Ethics'' featured two separate articles challenging the morality of performing non-therapeutic infant circumcision.
Svoboda argues against non-therapeutic circumcision.<ref name="svoboda2017">{{REFjournal
|date=2017-08-01
|title=Nontherapeutic Circumcision of Minors as an Ethically Problematic Form of Iatrogenic Injury
|journal=AMA Journal of Ethics
|language=en
|volume=19
|issue=8
|pages=815-824
|DOI=10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.8.msoc2-1708
|pubmedID=28846521
|issn=2376-6980
|last1=Svoboda
|first1=J.S.
}}</ref> He states that this decision should be considered in the context of benefit vs risk of harm, rather than simply risk-benefit due to the non-therapeutic nature of the procedure.<ref name="svoboda2017"/> He states that benefits do not outweigh the risks, and also claims that foreskin removal should be considered a sexual harm.<ref name="svoboda2017"/> He also goes on to conclude that non-therapeutic circumcision largely violates the physician's duty to respect a patient's autonomy since many procedures take place before a patient is able to freely give consent himself.<ref name="svoboda2017"/>
Reis and Reis's article explore the role physicians play in neonatal circumcision.<ref name="reis-reis2017">{{REFjournal
|date=2017-08-01
|title=Are Physicians Blameworthy for Iatrogenic Harm Resulting from Unnecessary Genital Surgeries?
|journal=AMA Journal of Ethics
|language=en
|volume=19
|issue=8
|pages=825-833
|DOI=10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.8.msoc3-1708
|pubmedID=28846522
|issn=2376-6980
|last=Reis-Dennis
|first=S.
|last2=Reis
|first2=E.
}}</ref> They state that if physicians outline all the currently known risks and benefits of the procedure to the parents and believes the procedure is indeed medically indicated, they cannot be held accountable for any harm from the procedure.<ref name="reis-reis2017"/> However, they still advise against physicians recommending unnecessary, irreversible surgeries, which is a category circumcision falls in frequently.<ref name="reis-reis2017"/>
== Journal of Medical Ethics ==
<!--
===JME symposium on circumcision, June 2004===
The ''Journal of Medical Ethics'' published a "symposium on circumcision" in its June 2004 issue.<ref name="symposium2004">{{REFjournal
|title=Symposium on Circumcision
|journal=Journal of Medical Ethics
|date=2004
|volume=30
|issue=3
|pages=237-263
|url=http://jme.bmj.com/content/30/3.toc#Symposiumoncircumcision Symposium on circumcision
}}</ref> The symposium published the original version (2003) of the BMA policy statement and six articles by various individuals with a wide spectrum of views on the ethicality of circumcision of male minors. In the introduction, Holm (2004) states:
===Journal of Medical Ethics circumcision issue, July 2013===
The ''Journal of Medical Ethics'' devoted the entire July 2013 issue to the controversial issue of non-therapeutic circumcision of male children.<ref>{{REFjournal
|title=The issue of male circumcision
|journal=Journal of Medical Ethics
|date=2013
|volume=39
|issue=7
|url=http://jme.bmj.com/content/39/7.toc
}}</ref> The numerous articles represent a diverse variety of views.<ref>{{REFjournal
|last=Foddy
|init=B
|title=The concise argument: Medical, religious and social reasons for and against an ancient rite
|journal=Journal of Medical Ethics
|date=2013
|volume=39
|issue=7
|page=415
|url=http://jme.bmj.com/content/39/7/415.full
|DOI=10.1136/medethics-2013-101605
|pubmedID=23781076
}}</ref><ref>{{REFjournal
|last=Earp
|init=BD
|author-link=Brian D. Earp
|title=The ethics of infant male circumcision
|journal=Journal of Medical Ethics
|date=2013
|volume=39
|issue=7
|pages=418-420
|url=https://www.academia.edu/3430963/The_ethics_of_infant_male_circumcision
|DOI=10.1136/medethics-2013-101517
|pubmedID=23781078
}}</ref>
Relocate text. Comment out large section.
|trans-title=
|language=
|journal= Bioethics
|location=
|date=2020
|date=2013
}}</ref> if a court should accept Adler's arguments.
==Ethics journals ==
<!--
===JME symposium on circumcision, June 2004===
The ''Journal of Medical Ethics'' published a "symposium on circumcision" in its June 2004 issue.<ref name="symposium2004">{{REFjournal
|title=Symposium on Circumcision
|journal=Journal of Medical Ethics
|date=2004
|volume=30
|issue=3
|pages=237-263
|url=http://jme.bmj.com/content/30/3.toc#Symposiumoncircumcision Symposium on circumcision
}}</ref> The symposium published the original version (2003) of the BMA policy statement and six articles by various individuals with a wide spectrum of views on the ethicality of circumcision of male minors. In the introduction, Holm (2004) states:
-->
===Journal of Medical Ethics circumcision issue, July 2013===
The ''Journal of Medical Ethics'' devoted the entire July 2013 issue to the controversial issue of non-therapeutic circumcision of male children.<ref>{{REFjournal
|title=The issue of male circumcision
|journal=Journal of Medical Ethics
|date=2013
|volume=39
|issue=7
|url=http://jme.bmj.com/content/39/7.toc
}}</ref> The numerous articles represent a diverse variety of views.<ref>{{REFjournal
|last=Foddy
|init=B
|title=The concise argument: Medical, religious and social reasons for and against an ancient rite
|journal=Journal of Medical Ethics
|date=2013
|volume=39
|issue=7
|page=415
|url=http://jme.bmj.com/content/39/7/415.full
|DOI=10.1136/medethics-2013-101605
|pubmedID=23781076
}}</ref><ref>{{REFjournal
|last=Earp
|init=BD
|author-link=Brian D. Earp
|title=The ethics of infant male circumcision
|journal=Journal of Medical Ethics
|date=2013
|volume=39
|issue=7
|pages=418-420
|url=https://www.academia.edu/3430963/The_ethics_of_infant_male_circumcision
|DOI=10.1136/medethics-2013-101517
|pubmedID=23781078
}}</ref>
===American Medical Association Journal of Ethics===
In August 2017, the American Medical Association ''Journal of Ethics'' featured two separate articles challenging the morality of performing non-therapeutic infant circumcision.
Svoboda argues against non-therapeutic circumcision.<ref name="svoboda2017">{{REFjournal
|date=2017-08-01
|title=Nontherapeutic Circumcision of Minors as an Ethically Problematic Form of Iatrogenic Injury
|journal=AMA Journal of Ethics
|language=en
|volume=19
|issue=8
|pages=815-824
|DOI=10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.8.msoc2-1708
|pubmedID=28846521
|issn=2376-6980
|last1=Svoboda
|first1=J.S.
}}</ref> He states that this decision should be considered in the context of benefit vs risk of harm, rather than simply risk-benefit due to the non-therapeutic nature of the procedure.<ref name="svoboda2017"/> He states that benefits do not outweigh the risks, and also claims that foreskin removal should be considered a sexual harm.<ref name="svoboda2017"/> He also goes on to conclude that non-therapeutic circumcision largely violates the physician's duty to respect a patient's autonomy since many procedures take place before a patient is able to freely give consent himself.<ref name="svoboda2017"/>
Reis and Reis's article explore the role physicians play in neonatal circumcision.<ref name="reis-reis2017">{{REFjournal
|date=2017-08-01
|title=Are Physicians Blameworthy for Iatrogenic Harm Resulting from Unnecessary Genital Surgeries?
|journal=AMA Journal of Ethics
|language=en
|volume=19
|issue=8
|pages=825-833
|DOI=10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.8.msoc3-1708
|pubmedID=28846522
|issn=2376-6980
|last=Reis-Dennis
|first=S.
|last2=Reis
|first2=E.
}}</ref> They state that if physicians outline all the currently known risks and benefits of the procedure to the parents and believes the procedure is indeed medically indicated, they cannot be held accountable for any harm from the procedure.<ref name="reis-reis2017"/> However, they still advise against physicians recommending unnecessary, irreversible surgeries, which is a category circumcision falls in frequently.<ref name="reis-reis2017"/>
<!--
==Medical trade association views==
[[Medical trade association| Medical trade associations]] are advocates for the business, financial, professional, and legal interests of medical doctors. When one issues a statement regarding [[circumcision]], in most but not all cases, it will exhibit [[bias]] in favor of [[financial incentive| fee-earning]] circumcision.
|pubmedID=23509171
}}</ref>
<blockquote>
}}</ref>
-->
==Other views==
Povenmire (1988) argued that parents should not have the power to consent to neonatal non-therapeutic circumcision.<ref name="povenmire"/>
== Observations ==
The non-therapeutic circumcision industry in the United States produces more than $2 3.6 billion annually.<ref name="bollinger2012">{{REFweb
|url=https://www.academia.edu/6442587/High_Cost_of_Circumcision_3.6_Billion_Annually
|title=High Cost of Circumcision: $3.6 Billion Annually
|format=
|quote=As the saying goes, follow the money. Now you know why neither the [[American Academy of Pediatrics]], American Medical Association, [[American Academy of Family Physicians]], or the [[American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists| American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists]] haven’t condemned this unnecessary surgery, and why their physician members are quick to recommend the procedure to expectant parents.
}}</ref> [[Third-party payment]] is a major support to the performance of this medically-unnecessary surgery. If parents could not grant consent for non-therapeutic circumcision, then no one could grant consent for the non-therapeutic circumcision of a child, so the $2 3.6 billion annual business would collapse. The American [[Medical trade association| medical trade associations]], more than those of other nations, have been unwilling to recognize the child's right to [[physical integrity]], to security of the person, and the right to personal autonomy.
{{SEEALSO}}