20,864
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Male circumcisions are usually performed by medical doctors for profit, so the more specific principles of <b>medical ethics</b> or <b>bioethics</b> are applicable to the practice of [[circumcision]].
Male [[circumcision]] is the surgical removal of the [[foreskin]] (prepuce) from the human [[penis]].<ref name=sawyer_2011>{{REFbook
|last=Sawyer
|init=S
|title=Pediatric Physical Examination & Health Assessment
|pages=555-556
|date=2011-11
|publisher=Jones & Bartlett Publishers
|isbn=978-1-4496-7600-1
|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=W6eRUtlujbkC&pg=PA555
}}</ref> The foreskin has [[Foreskin#Physiological_functions| protective, immunological, sensory, and sexual functions]], which are irreversibly destroyed and cease to function after the [[amputation]] of the foreskin by circumcision, imposing a lifetime loss of functional tissue and loss of function upon the patient. The '''ethics of non-therapeutic child circumcision''' being imposed on unconsenting minors (babies and children) has been a source of ongoing controversy.<ref name="bma2006">Committee on Medical Ethics. [https://www.bma.org.uk/advice/employment/ethics/children-and-young-people/non-therapeutic-male-circumcision-of-children-ethics-toolkit The law and ethics of male circumcision: Guidance for doctors]. London: British Medical Association 2006.</ref>
==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.
[[J. Steven Svoboda| 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"/>
Relocate material.
<b>Ethics</b> is defined as "the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group". <b>Medical ethics</b> or <b>bioethics</b> provide guidance on protecting the human dignity of patients in medical treatment.
Male circumcisions are usually performed by medical doctors for profit, so the more specific principles of <b>medical ethics</b> or <b>bioethics</b> are applicable to the practice of [[circumcision]].
Male [[circumcision]] is the surgical removal of the [[foreskin]] (prepuce) from the human [[penis]].<ref name=sawyer_2011>{{REFbook
|last=Sawyer
|init=S
|title=Pediatric Physical Examination & Health Assessment
|pages=555-556
|date=2011-11
|publisher=Jones & Bartlett Publishers
|isbn=978-1-4496-7600-1
|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=W6eRUtlujbkC&pg=PA555
}}</ref> The foreskin has [[Foreskin#Physiological_functions| protective, immunological, sensory, and sexual functions]], which are irreversibly destroyed and cease to function after the [[amputation]] of the foreskin by circumcision, imposing a lifetime loss of functional tissue and loss of function upon the patient. The '''ethics of non-therapeutic child circumcision''' being imposed on unconsenting minors (babies and children) has been a source of ongoing controversy.<ref name="bma2006">Committee on Medical Ethics. [https://www.bma.org.uk/advice/employment/ethics/children-and-young-people/non-therapeutic-male-circumcision-of-children-ethics-toolkit The law and ethics of male circumcision: Guidance for doctors]. London: British Medical Association 2006.</ref>
The concern about the ongoing practice of child circumcision has caused the publication of numerous articles in journals of medical ethics.
==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.
[[J. Steven Svoboda| 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"/>
==Principles of medical ethics==
The four main principles of medical ethics are:
}}
</ref>
There is no disease present in the newborn [[penis]] and no medical indication exists for [[circumcision of the newborn]].<ref>{{GairdnerDM 1949}}</ref> <ref>{{REFjournal
|date=2013
}}</ref> if a court should accept Adler's arguments.
<!--
==Medical trade association views==