17,052
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
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
|first=Solrun F.
|last=Faull
[[File:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|thumb|upright=0.3]]
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">Committee on Medical Ethics. [www.bma.org.uk/-/media/Files/PDFs/Practical advice at work/Ethics/Circumcision.pdf The law & ethics of male circumcision: guidance for doctors]; June 2006 [Retrieved 3 November 2019.].</ref> 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"/>
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
Arguments were put forward that non-therapeutic male circumcision is a net ''benefit'' for some because it helps them to integrate in the community.
Arguments were also put forward that non-therapeutic male circumcision is a net ''harm'' because it is seen as a breach of children's rights—the right of the child to be free from physical intrusion and the right of the child to choose in the future. This argument was given emphasis by Britain's incorporation of the [[European Convention on Human Rights]] (1950) into domestic law by the [[Human Rights Act 1998]].
The BMA produced a document that set forth legal and ethical concerns but left the final decision on whether or not to perform a non-therapeutic circumcision to the attending physician.<ref name="mussell2">{{REFjournal
}}</ref>-->
The Belgian Federal Consultative Committee for Bioethics (''[[:fr:Comité consultatif de Bioéthique de Belgique|Comité Consultatif de Bioéthique de Belgique]]'') (2017), after a three-year study, has ruled that circumcision of male children for non-therapeutic purposes is unethical in [[Belgium]].<ref>Statement in French: {{REFweb
|last=Comité Consultif de Bioéthique de Belgique
|website=SPF Santé Publique
|access-date=2019-06-14
}}
<!--
==HIV in southern and eastern Africa==
{{Main|Circumcision and HIV}}
}}</ref>
The UK National Health Service ([[NHS]]) has stated that the African studies have "important implications for the control of sexually transmitted infections in Africa", but that in the United Kingdom practising safe sex including [[condom]] use is the best way to prevent sexually-transmitted disease when having sex.<ref>{{REFweb
|url=https://www.nhs.uk/news/lifestyle-and-exercise/circumcision-and-stis/
|title=Circumcision and STIs
|date=2009-03-26
}}</ref>-->
==Surrogate consent==