Ethics of circumcision: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
OAbot (talk | contribs)
Bots
417,210 edits
m Open access bot: doi added to citation with #oabot.
Merging into views on circumcision article
Tags: New redirect Reverted Visual edit: Switched
Line 1: Line 1:
#REDIRECT [[Views on circumcision]]
{{short description|Variety of ethical positions around a controversial topic}}
Male [[circumcision]] is the surgical removal of the [[foreskin]] (prepuce) from the [[human penis]].<ref name=sawyer_2011>{{cite book |vauthors=Sawyer S |title=Pediatric Physical Examination & Health Assessment |pages=555–556 |date=November 2011 |publisher=Jones & Bartlett Publishers |isbn=978-1-4496-7600-1 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=W6eRUtlujbkC&pg=PA555 |access-date=2015-10-18 |archive-date=2020-07-29 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200729123021/https://books.google.com/books?id=W6eRUtlujbkC&pg=PA555 |url-status=dead }}</ref> The '''ethics of circumcision''' in [[children|neonates and children]] is a source of [[Circumcision controversies|much controversy]].<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Boyle JG, Svoboda JS, Price CP, Turner JN | year = 2000 | title = Circumcision of healthy boys: Criminal assault? | journal = Journal of Law and Medicine | volume = 7 | pages = 301–310 }}</ref><ref name="RACPSumm">{{cite web|url=http://www.racp.edu.au/download.cfm?DownloadFile=A453CFA1-2A57-5487-DF36DF59A1BAF527|title=Policy Statement On Circumcision|access-date=2007-02-28|date=September 2004|format=PDF|publisher=[[Royal Australasian College of Physicians]]|quote=The Paediatrics and Child Health Division, The [[Royal Australasian College of Physicians]] (RACP) has prepared this statement on routine circumcision of infants and boys to assist parents who are considering having this procedure undertaken on their male children and for doctors who are asked to advise on or undertake it. After extensive review of the literature the RACP reaffirms that '''there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision.''' Circumcision of males has been undertaken for religious and cultural reasons for many thousands of years. It remains an important ritual in some religious and cultural groups.…In recent years there has been evidence of possible health benefits from routine male circumcision. The most important conditions where some benefit may result from circumcision are urinary tract infections, HIV and later cancer of the penis.…The complication rate of neonatal circumcision is reported to be around 1% and includes tenderness, bleeding and unhappy results to the appearance of the penis. Serious complications such as bleeding, septicaemia and may occasionally cause death (1 in 550,000). The possibility that routine circumcision may contravene human rights has been raised because circumcision is performed on a minor and is without proven medical benefit. Whether these legal concerns are valid will be known only if the matter is determined in a court of law. If the operation is to be performed, the medical attendant should ensure this is done by a competent operator, using appropriate anaesthesia and in a safe child-friendly environment. In all cases where parents request a circumcision for their child the medical attendant is obliged to provide accurate information on the risks and benefits of the procedure. Up-to-date, unbiased written material summarizing the evidence should be widely available to parents. Review of the literature in relation to risks and benefits shows there is no evidence of benefit outweighing harm for circumcision as a routine procedure in the neonate. |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080720092409/http://www.racp.edu.au/download.cfm?DownloadFile=A453CFA1-2A57-5487-DF36DF59A1BAF527 |archive-date = 2008-07-20}}</ref><ref name="BMAGuide">{{cite web| url = http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/malecircumcision2006?OpenDocument&Highlight=2,circumcision| title = The law and ethics of male circumcision – guidance for doctors| access-date = 2006-07-01| author = Medical Ethics Committee|date=June 2006| publisher = [[British Medical Association]]|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20071112055050/http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/malecircumcision2006?OpenDocument&Highlight=2,circumcision |archive-date = 2007-11-12}}</ref>

There is substantial disagreement amongst [[economist]]s, [[Bioethics|bioethicists]], [[Theology|theologians]], [[philosopher]]s, [[Doctor of Medicine|doctors]], and [[Political science|political scientists]] over the practice, with little in the way of a general consensus beyond a belief that routine circumcision of neonates for health purposes is a [[Cost-effectiveness analysis|cost-ineffective]] and [[Ethics|ethically-problematic]] intervention in [[Developed country|developed countries]], and that circumcision on a consenting adult is a morally permissible action. Positions taken on the issue are heavily influenced by [[Prevalence of circumcision|prevalence in the given area]], [[religion]], and [[culture]].<ref>{{Cite web|date=July 31, 2019|title=Evidence and Ethics on: Circumcision|url=https://evidencebasedbirth.com/evidence-and-ethics-on-circumcision/|url-status=live|access-date=September 9, 2021|website=[[Evidence Based Birth]]|language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Bedzow|first=I.|date=July–September 2020|title=Male circumcision as an example of bioethics as (immaterial) social ethics|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jemep.2020.100519|journal=Ethics, Medicine and Public Health|volume=14|pages=100519|doi=10.1016/j.jemep.2020.100519|s2cid=225629172 |issn=2352-5525}}</ref> Some medical associations take the position that circumcision is an infringement of the child's autonomy and should be deferred until he is capable of making the decision himself. Others state that parents should be allowed to determine what is in their best interest.<ref>{{Cite book | veditors = Diekema DS, Mercurio MR, Adam MB |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=C1T6NrSPD_AC|title=Clinical Ethics in Pediatrics: A Case-Based Textbook |date=2011-09-08|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-1-139-50183-5|pages=43–48|language=en|access-date=2021-02-03|archive-date=2021-04-23|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210423000556/https://books.google.com/books?id=C1T6NrSPD_AC|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="AAP1999">{{cite journal|author=Task force on circumcision|date=March 1999|title=Circumcision policy statement. American Academy of Pediatrics. Task Force on Circumcision|url=http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/103/3/686|journal=Pediatrics|volume=103|issue=3|pages=686–93|doi=10.1542/peds.103.3.686|pmc=|pmid=10049981|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151229204510/http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/103/3/686|archive-date=2015-12-29|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref name="knmg.artsennet.nl2">[http://knmg.artsennet.nl/web/file?uuid=579e836d-ea83-410f-9889-feb7eda87cd5&owner=a8a9ce0e-f42b-47a5-960e-be08025b7b04&contentid=77976&elementid=771754 Non-Therapeutic Circumcision of Male Minors] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120513191812/http://knmg.artsennet.nl/web/file?uuid=579e836d-ea83-410f-9889-feb7eda87cd5&owner=a8a9ce0e-f42b-47a5-960e-be08025b7b04&contentid=77976&elementid=771754 |date=2012-05-13 }}. Utrecht: Royal Dutch Medical Association, 2010.</ref>

== Medical bodies ==
=== Australia and New Zealand ===
The [[Royal Australasian College of Physicians]] (2010) released a statement indicating that neonatal male circumcision is "generally considered an ethical procedure", provided that 1) the child's decision makers, typically the parents, are acting in the best interests of the child and are making an informed decision; and 2) the procedure is performed by a competent provider, with sufficient [[analgesia]], and does not unnecessarily harm the child or have substantial risks. They argue that parents should be allowed to be the primary decision-makers because providers may not understand the full psychosocial benefits of circumcision. Additionally, this procedure does not present substantial harm compared to its potential benefits, so parents should be allowed full decision-making capacity as long as they are educated properly. The statement also establishes that "the option of leaving circumcision until later, when the boy is old enough to make a decision for himself does need to be raised with parents and considered", and that "the ethical merit of this option is that it seeks to respect the child's physical integrity, and capacity for autonomy by leaving the options open for him to make his own autonomous choice in the future."<ref name=":0">[https://www.racp.edu.au/docs/default-source/advocacy-library/circumcision-of-infant-males.pdf Circumcision of Male Infants.] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200208044930/https://www.racp.edu.au/docs/default-source/advocacy-library/circumcision-of-infant-males.pdf |date=2020-02-08 }} [[Royal Australasian College of Physicians]]. September 2010.</ref>

=== Canada ===
The [[Canadian Paediatric Society]] (CPS) issued a position statement on September 8, 2015, which highlighted the ethical issue surrounding the child's inability to give consent.<ref name="CPS20152">{{cite journal | vauthors = Sorokan ST, Finlay JC, Jefferies AL | title = Newborn male circumcision | journal = Paediatrics & Child Health | volume = 20 | issue = 6 | pages = 311–20 | date = 2015 | pmid = 26435672 | pmc = 4578472 | doi = 10.1093/pch/20.6.311 | url = http://www.cps.ca/en/documents/position/circumcision | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20191030233347/https://www.cps.ca/en/documents/position/circumcision | archive-date = 2019-10-30 }}</ref> Since children require a substituted decision maker acting in their best interests, they recommend to hold off non-medically indicated procedures, such as circumcision, until children can make their own decisions. Yet the CPS also states that parents of male newborns must receive unbiased information about neonatal circumcision, so that they can weigh specific risks and benefits of circumcision in the context of their own familial, religious and cultural beliefs.<ref name="CPS20152" />

=== Denmark ===
The [[Danish Medical Association]] (''Lægeforeningen'') has released a statement (2016) regarding the circumcision of boys under the age of eighteen years. The organization says that the decision to circumcise should be "an informed personal choice" that men should make for themselves in adulthood.<ref>{{cite news| vauthors = McCann E |title=Danish Doctors' Group Wants to End Circumcision for Boys|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/08/world/europe/circumcision-boys-babies.html?_r=1|work=The New York Times|date=8 December 2016|access-date=4 May 2017|archive-date=11 September 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170911072932/https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/08/world/europe/circumcision-boys-babies.html?_r=1}}</ref> According to Dr. Lise Møller, the chairwoman of the Doctors' Association's Ethics Board, allowing the individual to make this decision himself when he is of age respects his right of self-determination.<ref>{{cite news |title=Danish doctors come out against circumcision. |url=https://www.thelocal.dk/20161205/danish-doctors-come-out-against-circumcision |location=The Local|edition= |date=5 December 2016 |access-date= |archive-date=6 January 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200106155315/https://www.thelocal.dk/20161205/danish-doctors-come-out-against-circumcision}}</ref>

The Danish College of General Practitioners has defined non-medical circumcision as mutilation.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://ugeskriftet.dk/dmj/male-circumcision-does-not-result-inferior-perceived-male-sexual-function-systematic-review|title=Male circumcision does not result in inferior perceived male sexual function – a systematic review|website=Ugeskriftet.dk|access-date=2020-08-21|archive-date=2020-07-15|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200715041353/https://ugeskriftet.dk/dmj/male-circumcision-does-not-result-inferior-perceived-male-sexual-function-systematic-review|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Netherlands ===
The [[Royal Dutch Medical Association]] (''Koninklijke Nederlandsche Maatschappij tot bevordering der Geneeskunst'') (KNMG) and several Dutch specialist medical societies published a statement of position regarding circumcision of male children on 27 May 2010. The KNMG argues against circumcising male minors due to lack of evidence the procedure is useful or necessary, its associated risks, and violate the child's autonomy.<ref name="knmg.artsennet.nl2" /> They recommend deferring circumcision until the child is old enough to decide for himself.<ref name="knmg.artsennet.nl2" /> The KNMG questions why the ethics regarding male genital alterations should be viewed any differently from female genital alterations, when there are mild forms of female genital alterations like pricking the [[clitoral hood]] without removing any tissue or removing the clitoral hood altogether. They have expressed opposition to both male circumcision and all forms of female circumcision; they do not advocate a prohibition of male circumcision, even though they argue that there are good reasons for it to be banned, and prefer that circumcisions be done by doctors instead of illegal, underground circumcisers.<ref name="knmg.artsennet.nl2" />

The Dutch Council on Public Health and Care does not agree with the Royal Dutch Medical Association and states that they wrongly do not distinguish between male and female circumcision and that they do not take into account the freedom of religion and the right of parents to raise their children according to their own beliefs or convictions.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://rvz.net/nieuws/bericht/de-ene-besnijdenis-is-de-andere-niet-reactie-op-knmg-standpunt-jongensbesn|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111203065953/http://rvz.net/nieuws/bericht/de-ene-besnijdenis-is-de-andere-niet-reactie-op-knmg-standpunt-jongensbesn|url-status=dead|archive-date=2011-12-03|title=De ene besnijdenis is de andere niet. Reactie op KNMG standpunt jongensbesnijdenis {{!}} RVZ – Raad voor Volksgezondheid & Zorg|date=2011-12-03|access-date=2019-06-14}}</ref>

=== Nordic countries ===
{{Further|Circumcision and law#2013 Nordic ombudsmen statement}}
In 2013, children's [[ombudsmen]] from [[Sweden]], [[Norway]], [[Finland]], [[Denmark]], and [[Iceland]], along with the Chair of the Danish Children's Council and the children's spokesperson for [[Greenland]], passed a resolution that emphasized the decision to be circumcised should belong to the individual, who should be able to give informed consent.<ref name="resolution2">{{cite web|author=Nordic Association of Children's Ombudsmen | title=Let the boys decide for themselves|url=https://www.crin.org/en/library/news-archive/male-circumcision-nordic-ombudspersons-seek-ban-non-therapeutic-male|date=30 September 2013|access-date=22 October 2013|archive-date=19 February 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140219031326/http://www.crin.org/en/library/news-archive/male-circumcision-nordic-ombudspersons-seek-ban-non-therapeutic-male}}[] Tuesday, 1 October 2013</ref>

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.] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160114121528/http://www.nacs.eu/data/press_release001.pdf |date=2016-01-14 }}. 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>{{cite news| vauthors = Faull SF |title=Hospital doctors in Southern Norway will not circumcise boys |url=http://norwaytoday.info/news/hospital-doctors-southern-norway-will-not-circumcise-boys/|work=Norway Today|date=30 August 2016|access-date=4 May 2017|archive-date=27 April 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170427111755/http://norwaytoday.info/news/hospital-doctors-southern-norway-will-not-circumcise-boys/}}</ref>

=== United Kingdom ===
The medical ethics committee of the [[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 is in the child's best interest.<ref name=":02">{{Cite book|date=March 2019|chapter-url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jim-2019-000994.committee|journal= |doi=10.1136/jim-2019-000994.committee|access-date=2021-04-23|archive-date=2021-04-23|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210423000543/https://jim.bmj.com/content/67/Suppl_1/ii|url-status=live|pages=ii|s2cid=220148577|volume=67|issue=Suppl 1|chapter=Committee }}</ref> They say the procedure is a cultural and religious practice, which may be an important ritual for the child's incorporation into the group.<ref name=":02" /> 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=":02" /> They 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=":02" />

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=":1">{{cite journal | vauthors = Mussell R | title = The development of professional guidelines on the law and ethics of male circumcision | journal = Journal of Medical Ethics | volume = 30 | issue = 3 | pages = 254–8 | date = June 2004 | pmid = 15173358 | pmc = 1733857 | doi = 10.1136/jme.2004.008615 | url = http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/30/3/254 | url-status = live | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20061115235246/http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/30/3/254 | archive-date = 2006-11-15 }}</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=":1" />

==== Adult circumcision ====
In a paper published June 2006, the [[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">{{cite web | author=Committee on Medical Ethics | title=The law & ethics of male circumcision: guidance for doctors | url=http://bma.org.uk/-/media/Files/PDFs/Practical%20advice%20at%20work/Ethics/Circumcision.pdf | date=June 2006 | access-date=25 November 2013 | archive-date=30 October 2013 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131030002951/http://bma.org.uk/-/media/Files/PDFs/Practical%20advice%20at%20work/Ethics/Circumcision.pdf }}</ref>

Circumcision of adults as a public health measure for the purpose of reducing the spread of [[Circumcision and HIV|HIV]] also involves ethical concerns such as informed consent and concerns about reducing attention paid to other measures. According to the [[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention|CDC]] website, research has documented a significant reduction of HIV/AIDS transmission when a male is circumcised.<ref>{{cite web|title=HIV and Male Circumcision {{!}} Gateway to Health Communication {{!}} CDC|url=https://www.cdc.gov/healthcommunication/toolstemplates/entertainmented/tips/hivcircumcision.html|website=www.cdc.gov|language=en-us|date=23 February 2017|access-date=23 October 2017|archive-date=12 November 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191112104637/https://www.cdc.gov/healthcommunication/toolstemplates/entertainmented/tips/hivcircumcision.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

==== 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 [[wikt:surrogate|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 ====
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 and 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">{{cite journal | vauthors = Fox M, Thomson M | title = A covenant with the status quo? Male circumcision and the new BMA guidance to doctors | journal = Journal of Medical Ethics | volume = 31 | issue = 8 | pages = 463–9 | date = August 2005 | pmid = 16076971 | pmc = 1734197 | doi = 10.1136/jme.2004.009340 | url = https://jme.bmj.com/content/31/8/463.full | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20191112104722/https://jme.bmj.com/content/31/8/463.full | archive-date = 2019-11-12 }}</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 States ===
==== American Academy of Pediatrics ====
The circumcision policy statement of the [[American Academy of Pediatrics]] (enacted 2012, expired 2017) stated: "Systematic evaluation of English-language peer-reviewed literature from 1995 through 2010 indicates that preventive health benefits of elective circumcision of male newborns outweigh the risks of the procedure." They wrote that the decision of whether or not to circumcise should be made by parents after considering the medical benefits and risks, along with "religious, ethical, and cultural beliefs and practices", and that the medical benefits are such that third-party payment for circumcision of male newborns is warranted. The policy statement also noted that the risk of complications is considerably lower when circumcision is performed during the newborn period, as opposed to when it is performed later in life. The [[American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists]] had endorsed the American Academy of Pediatrics' circumcision policy statement.<ref>{{cite journal | title = Circumcision policy statement | journal = Pediatrics | volume = 130 | issue = 3 | pages = 585–6 | date = September 2012 | pmid = 22926180 | doi = 10.1542/peds.2012-1989 | url = https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/585 | access-date = 2019-06-16 | url-status = live | doi-access = free | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20191029232509/https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/585 | archive-date = 2019-10-29 | author1 = American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/130/3/e756.full.pdf|title=TECHNICAL REPORT Male Circumcision|last=AAP|access-date=2019-06-16|archive-date=2019-07-22|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190722212140/https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/130/3/e756.full.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Criticism ===
The most recent American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) position statement on male circumcision (enacted 2012, expired 2017) has attracted significant critical comment, including from the AAP itself.{{citation needed|date=February 2022}}

In a dissenting paper, Frisch et al. (2013) write: "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. further comment: "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."<ref name=":03">{{cite journal |last1=Frisch |first1=Morten |last2=Aigrain |first2=Yves |last3=Barauskas |first3=Vidmantas |last4=Bjarnason |first4=Ragnar |last5=Boddy |first5=Su-Anna |last6=Czauderna |first6=Piotr |last7=de Gier |first7=Robert P.E. |last8=de Jong |first8=Tom P.V.M. |last9=Fasching |first9=Günter |last10=Fetter |first10=Willem |last11=Gahr |first11=Manfred |date=April 2013 |title=Cultural Bias in the AAP's 2012 Technical Report and Policy Statement on Male Circumcision |journal=Pediatrics |volume=131 |issue=4 |pages=796–800 |doi=10.1542/peds.2012-2896 |pmid=23509170 |s2cid=40444911 |issn=0031-4005|doi-access=free }}</ref>

Van Howe and Svoboda (2013) criticize the AAP's statement because they believed that it failed to include important points, inaccurately analyzed and interpret current medical literature, and made unsupported conclusions.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Svoboda JS, Van Howe RS | title = Out of step: fatal flaws in the latest AAP policy report on neonatal circumcision | journal = Journal of Medical Ethics | volume = 39 | issue = 7 | pages = 434–41 | date = July 2013 | pmid = 23508208 | doi = 10.1136/medethics-2013-101346 | url = https://jme.bmj.com/content/39/7/434 | access-date = 2019-05-01 | url-status = live | s2cid = 39693618 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20190727105437/https://jme.bmj.com/content/39/7/434 | archive-date = 2019-07-27 }}</ref>

Frisch et al. (2013) cited the difference of the AAP's statements in comparison to other Western countries, such as Canada, Australia, and various European countries.<ref name=":03"/> 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=":03" /> 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 taskforce 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 then 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>{{cite journal | title = Cultural bias and circumcision: the AAP Task Force on circumcision responds | journal = Pediatrics | volume = 131 | issue = 4 | pages = 801–4 | date = April 2013 | pmid = 23509171 | doi = 10.1542/peds.2013-0081 | url = https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/131/4/801 | access-date = 2019-06-16 | url-status = live | doi-access = free | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20190904042049/https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/131/4/801 | archive-date = 2019-09-04 | last1 = Task Force On | first1 = Circumcision }}</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=":05">{{cite journal | vauthors = Svoboda JS | title = Nontherapeutic Circumcision of Minors as an Ethically Problematic Form of Iatrogenic Injury | journal = AMA Journal of Ethics | volume = 19 | issue = 8 | pages = 815–824 | date = August 2017 | pmid = 28846521 | doi = 10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.8.msoc2-1708 | doi-access = free }}</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=":05" /> He states that benefits do not outweigh the risks, and also claims that foreskin removal should be considered a sexual harm.<ref name=":05" /> 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=":05" />

Reis and Reis's article explore the role physicians play in neonatal circumcision.<ref name=":14">{{cite journal | vauthors = Reis-Dennis S, Reis E | title = Are Physicians Blameworthy for Iatrogenic Harm Resulting from Unnecessary Genital Surgeries? | journal = AMA Journal of Ethics | volume = 19 | issue = 8 | pages = 825–833 | date = August 2017 | pmid = 28846522 | doi = 10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.8.msoc3-1708 | doi-access = free }}</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=":14" /> They still advise against physicians recommending unnecessary, irreversible surgeries, which is a category circumcision falls in frequently.<ref name=":14" />

== Other views ==
=== JME symposium on circumcision, June 2004 ===
The ''[[Journal of Medical Ethics]]'' published a "symposium on circumcision" in its June 2004 issue.<ref name="symposium">{{cite journal | vauthors= | title=Symposium on Circumcision | journal=J Med Ethics | date=2004 | volume=30 | issue=3 | pages=237–263 | url=http://jme.bmj.com/content/30/3.toc#Symposiumoncircumcision | doi= | pmid= | pmc= | access-date=2013-12-06 | archive-date=2015-10-18 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151018024609/http://jme.bmj.com/content/30/3.toc#Symposiumoncircumcision }}</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) argues that we do not have the evidence available in order to truly assess the ethics behind circumcision, identifying that we do not have evidence surrounding the "effects of early circumcision on adult sexual function and satisfaction". Therefore, Holm states until this data is available this debate cannot be concluded as there will always be an opposition to circumcision driven by "cultural prejudices".<ref name="holm">{{cite journal | vauthors = Holm S | title = Irreversible bodily interventions in children | journal = Journal of Medical Ethics | volume = 30 | issue = 3 | pages = 237 | date = June 2004 | pmid = 15173353 | pmc = 1733860 | doi = 10.1136/jme.2004.009001 | url = https://jme.bmj.com/content/30/3/237.full | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20191112104710/https://jme.bmj.com/content/30/3/237.full | archive-date = 2019-11-12 }}</ref>

Hutson (2004) concludes that he does not believe in the risk of circumcision without reason, stating that "no operation should be done if there is no disease". He justifies this through arguing that surgery is only condoned when the risk of the disease is greater than the surgery itself.<ref name="hutson">{{cite journal | vauthors = Hutson JM | title = Circumcision: a surgeon's perspective | journal = Journal of Medical Ethics | volume = 30 | issue = 3 | pages = 238–40 | date = June 2004 | pmid = 15173354 | pmc = 1733864 | doi = 10.1136/jme.2002.001313 | url = https://jme.bmj.com/content/30/3/238.full | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20191112110234/https://jme.bmj.com/content/30/3/238.full | archive-date = 2019-11-12 }}</ref>

Short (2004) disputes Hutson's claims and argues that male circumcision has future prophylactic benefits that make it worthwhile. He concludes that there can be no debate about male circumcision, arguing that "it can bring major improvements to both male and female reproductive health". He believes that as a result of living in a developing world, we have the facilities that enable this surgery to take place without "physical cruel nor potentially dangerous".<ref name="short">{{cite journal | vauthors = Short RV | title = Male circumcision: a scientific perspective | journal = Journal of Medical Ethics | volume = 30 | issue = 3 | pages = 241 | date = June 2004 | pmid = 15173356 | pmc = 1733868 | doi = 10.1136/jme.2002.002576 | url = http://jme.bmj.com/content/30/3/241.1.full | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20131210221956/http://jme.bmj.com/content/30/3/241.1.full | archive-date = 2013-12-10 }}</ref>

Viens (2004) contends that "we do not know in any robust or determinate sense that infant male circumcision is harmful in itself, nor can we say the same with respect to its purported harmful consequences." He suggests that one must distinguish between practices that are grievously harmful and those that enhance a child's cultural or religious identity. He suggests that medical professionals, and bioethicists especially, "must take as their starting point the fact that reasonable people will disagree about what is valuable and what is harmful."<ref name="viens">{{cite journal | vauthors = Viens AM | title = Value judgment, harm, and religious liberty | journal = Journal of Medical Ethics | volume = 30 | issue = 3 | pages = 241–7 | date = June 2004 | pmid = 15173355 | pmc = 1733861 | doi = 10.1136/jme.2003.003921 | url = https://jme.bmj.com/content/30/3/241.2.full | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20191112104659/https://jme.bmj.com/content/30/3/241.2.full | archive-date = 2019-11-12 }}</ref>

Hellsten (2004) describes arguments in support of circumcision as "rationalisations", and states that infant circumcision can be "clearly condemned as a violation of children's rights whether or not they cause direct pain." He argues that to question the ethical acceptability of the practice, "we need to focus on child rights protection." Hellsten concludes, "Rather, with further education and knowledge the cultural smokescreen around the real reasons for the maintenance of the practice can be overcome in all societies no matter what their cultural background.<ref name="hellsten">{{cite journal | vauthors = Hellsten SK | title = Rationalising circumcision: from tradition to fashion, from public health to individual freedom--critical notes on cultural persistence of the practice of genital mutilation | journal = Journal of Medical Ethics | volume = 30 | issue = 3 | pages = 248–53 | date = June 2004 | pmid = 15173357 | pmc = 1733870 | doi = 10.1136/jme.2004.008888 | url = https://jme.bmj.com/content/30/3/248.full | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20191112110235/https://jme.bmj.com/content/30/3/248.full | archive-date = 2019-11-12 }}</ref>

Mussell (2004) examined the process by which the BMA arrived at a position on non-therapeutic circumcision male minors, when the organisation had groups and individuals of different ethnicities, religion, culture, and widely varying viewpoints.

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">{{cite journal | vauthors = Mussell R | title = The development of professional guidelines on the law and ethics of male circumcision | journal = Journal of Medical Ethics | volume = 30 | issue = 3 | pages = 254–8 | date = June 2004 | pmid = 15173358 | pmc = 1733857 | doi = 10.1136/jme.2004.008615 | url = https://jme.bmj.com/content/30/3/254.full | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20191112110245/https://jme.bmj.com/content/30/3/254.full | archive-date = 2019-11-12 }}</ref>

The last document published by the ''Journal of Medical Ethics'' in its symposium on circumcision was a reprint of the BMA statement: "The law and ethics of male circumcision: guidance for doctors (2003).<ref name="BMA2003">{{cite journal | author = British Medical Association | title = The law and ethics of male circumcision: guidance for doctors | journal = Journal of Medical Ethics | volume = 30 | issue = 3 | pages = 259–63 | date = June 2004 | pmid = 15173359 | pmc = 1733850 | doi = 10.1136/jme.2004.008540 | url = https://jme.bmj.com/content/30/3/259.full | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20191112110246/https://jme.bmj.com/content/30/3/259.full | archive-date = 2019-11-12 }}</ref>

=== 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>{{cite journal | vauthors= | title=The issue of male circumcision | journal=J Med Ethics | date=2013 | volume=39 | issue=7 | pages= | url=http://jme.bmj.com/content/39/7.toc | doi= | pmid= | pmc= | access-date=2013-12-07 | archive-date=2016-05-08 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160508112521/http://jme.bmj.com/content/39/7.toc }}</ref> The numerous articles represent a diverse variety of views.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Foddy B | title = Medical, religious and social reasons for and against an ancient rite | journal = Journal of Medical Ethics | volume = 39 | issue = 7 | pages = 415 | date = July 2013 | pmid = 23781076 | pmc = | doi = 10.1136/medethics-2013-101605 | s2cid = 43693064 | url = http://jme.bmj.com/content/39/7/415.full | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20191112104710/https://jme.bmj.com/content/39/7/415.full | archive-date = 2019-11-12 | doi-access = free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Earp BD | title = The ethics of infant male circumcision | journal = Journal of Medical Ethics | volume = 39 | issue = 7 | pages = 418–20 | date = July 2013 | pmid = 23781078 | pmc = | doi = 10.1136/medethics-2013-101517 | s2cid = 31608321 | url = https://www.academia.edu/3430963 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20210423000559/https://www.academia.edu/3430963/The_ethics_of_infant_male_circumcision | archive-date = 2021-04-23 }}</ref>

=== Other views ===
Povenmire (1988) argues that parents should not have the power to consent to neonatal non-therapeutic circumcision.<ref name="povenmire" />

Richards (1996) argues that parents only have power to consent to therapeutic procedures.<ref name="richards" />

Somerville (2000) argues that the nature of the medical benefits cited as a justification for infant circumcision are such that the potential medical problems can be avoided or, if they occur, treated in far less invasive ways than circumcision. She states that the removal of healthy genital tissue from a minor should not be subject to parental discretion, or that physicians who perform the procedure are not acting in accordance with their ethical duties to the patient, regardless of parental consent.<ref name="Somerville">{{cite book| vauthors = Somerville M| title = The ethical canary: science, society, and the human spirit| url = https://www.academia.edu/654017| access-date = 2007-02-12| date = November 2000| publisher = [[Viking Press|Viking Penguin Canada]]| location = [[New York, NY]]| isbn = 0-670-89302-1| pages = 202–219| chapter = Altering Baby Boys’ Bodies: The Ethics of Infant Male Circumcision| chapter-url = https://www.academia.edu/654017| quote = | authorlink = Margaret Somerville| lccn = 2001369341| archive-date = 2021-04-23| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20210423000543/https://www.academia.edu/654017/Altering_baby_boys_bodies_the_ethics_of_infant_male_circumcision| url-status = dead}}</ref>

<!-- Somerville argues that because of a lack of credible information about male circumcision in some societies, the ability for the caregiver to grant informed consent on behalf of their child is compromised. This may be especially true of caregivers from a religious or cultural tradition that is particularly biased towards or against circumcising infants.<ref name="somerville">{{Cite book| vauthors = Somerville M | doi = 10.5962/bhl.title.31017 |title=Agriculture, by William Somerville ...|date=1913|publisher=Williams and Norgate|location=London,}}</ref> -->
Canning (2002) commented that "[i]f circumcision becomes less commonly performed in North America ... the legal system may no longer be able to ignore the conflict between the practice of circumcision and the legal and ethical duties of medical specialists."<ref name="Canning">{{cite journal | vauthors = Canning DA | title = Informed consent for neonatal circumcision: an ethical and legal conundrum | journal = The Journal of Urology | volume = 168 | issue = 4 Pt 1 | pages = 1650–1 | date = October 2002 | pmid = 12356070 | pmc = | doi = 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)64535-1 }}</ref>

Benatar and Benatar (2003) argue that "it is far from obvious that circumcision reduces sexual pleasure," and that "it is far from clear that non-circumcision leaves open a future person's options in every regard." They continue: "It does preserve the option of future circumcised or uncircumcised status. But it makes other options far more difficult to exercise. Transforming from the uncircumcised to the circumcised state will have psychological and other costs for an adult that are absent for a child. ... Nor are these costs 'negligible', .... At the very least, they are not more negligible than the risks and costs of circumcision."<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Benatar D, Benatar M | title = How not to argue about circumcision | journal = The American Journal of Bioethics | volume = 3 | issue = 2 | pages = W1 | year = 2003 | pmid = 14635630 | doi = 10.1162/152651603102387820 | s2cid = 53004139 | url = http://bioethics.net/journal/pdf/3_2_LT_w01_Benetar.pdf | url-status = dead | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070616011136/http://bioethics.net/journal/pdf/3_2_LT_w01_Benetar.pdf | archive-date = 2007-06-16 }}</ref>

The Committee on Medical Ethics of the British Medical Association (2003) published a paper to guide doctors on the law and ethics of circumcision. It advises medical doctors to proceed on a case by case basis to determine the best interests of the child before deciding to perform a circumcision. The doctor must consider the child's legal and human rights in making his or her determination. It states that a physician has a right to refuse to perform a non-therapeutic circumcision.<ref name="BMAGuide" /> The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia took a similar position.<ref name="cpsbc">{{cite web |author=College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia |title=Circumcision (Infant Male) |url=https://www.cpsbc.ca/cps/physician_resources/publications/resource_manual/malecircum |url-status=dead|date=2007 |access-date=6 December 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070928050441/https://www.cpsbc.ca/cps/physician_resources/publications/resource_manual/malecircum |archive-date=2007-09-28 }}</ref>

Fox and Thomson (2005) state that in the absence of "unequivocal evidence of medical benefit", it is "ethically inappropriate to subject a child to the acknowledged risks of infant male circumcision." Thus, they believe, "the emerging consensus, whereby parental choice holds sway, appears ethically indefensible".<ref name="fox-thomson" />

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>{{cite book | vauthors = Brubaker B, Bump D, Friedberg S |title=Weyl Group Multiple Dirichlet Series|chapter=Statement E Implies Statement D|date=2011-07-25 | series = Weyl Group Multiple Dirichlet Series|publisher=Princeton University Press|isbn=978-0-691-15065-9 |doi=10.23943/Princeton/9780691150659.003.0014 }}</ref><ref name="bulletin2017">{{cite news | author= | title=Ethics committee rules against infant circumcision | url=http://www.xpats.com/ethics-committee-rules-against-infant-circumcision | work=The Bulletin | date=2017 | quote=As circumcision is irreversible and therefore a radical operation, we find the physical integrity of the child takes precedence over the belief system of the parents. | access-date=2017-09-28 | archive-date=2018-03-02 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180302131640/http://www.xpats.com/ethics-committee-rules-against-infant-circumcision }}</ref> The process is irreversible, has no medical justification in most cases, and is performed on minors unable to give their own permission, according to the committee. Paul Schotsmans of the [[KU Leuven|University of Leuven]], on behalf of the committee, noted "the child's right to physical integrity, which is protected by the [[Convention on the Rights of the Child|International Treaty on the Rights of the Child]], and in particular its protection from physical injury."<ref name="bulletin2017" /> The Belgian minister of health, Maggie De Block, replied that the federal institute for health insurance cannot check and know whether in (individual cases) a circumcision is medically justified or not and that she will continue to reimburse circumcision of minors as the safety of the child is her primary concern and she wants to avoid botched circumcisions by non-medical circumcisers.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20170920_03084394|title=De Block blijft besnijdenis terugbetalen| vauthors = Vergauwen E |website=De Standaard|date=21 September 2017 |language=nl-BE|access-date=2019-06-14|archive-date=2019-11-12|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191112104636/https://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20170920_03084394|url-status=live}}</ref>

== HIV prevention ==

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>{{Citation|title=Verwaltungsgebäude WHO/UNAIDS, Genf, Schweiz / WHO/UNAIDS Administration Building, Geneva, Switzerland|date=2016-12-31|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783990431344-014|work=Baumschlager-Eberle 2002-2007|pages=82–91|publisher=Ambra Verlag|doi=10.1515/9783990431344-014|isbn=978-3-99043-133-7|access-date=2021-04-23|archive-date=2020-01-10|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200110122554/https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783990431344/9783990431344-014/9783990431344-014.xml|url-status=live|last1=Simon |first1=Axel }}</ref> 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 does not take into account the fact that adult men may already have contracted HIV before getting circumcised.<ref>{{Cite journal| vauthors = Harmon K |title=Can male circumcision stem the AIDS epidemic in Africa?|url=http://www.nature.com/news/can-male-circumcision-stem-the-aids-epidemic-in-africa-1.9520|journal=Nature News|language=en|doi=10.1038/nature.2011.9520|year=2011|s2cid=172468287|access-date=2019-06-14|archive-date=2017-08-08|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170808144339/http://www.nature.com/news/can-male-circumcision-stem-the-aids-epidemic-in-africa-1.9520|url-status=live}}</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 practicing safe sex including [[condom]] use is the best way to prevent sexually-transmitted disease when having sex.<ref>{{Cite web| url=https://www.nhs.uk/news/lifestyle-and-exercise/circumcision-and-stis/| title=Circumcision and STIs| date=2009-03-26| access-date=2017-11-18| archive-date=2019-08-09| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190809173739/https://www.nhs.uk/news/lifestyle-and-exercise/circumcision-and-stis/| url-status=live}}</ref>

== Surrogate consent ==
Patient [[autonomy]] is an important principle of [[medical ethics]].<ref>{{cite book | vauthors = Beauchamp TL, Childress JF | chapter = | title = Principles of Biomedical Ethics | publisher = New York: Oxford University Press | date = 2001 | isbn = | pages = }}</ref> Some believe that consent for a non-therapeutic operation offends the principle of autonomy, when granted by a surrogate.

Since children, and especially infants, are legally incompetent to grant [[informed consent]] for medical or surgical treatment, that consent must be granted by a surrogate—someone designated to act on behalf of the child-patient, if treatment is to occur.<ref name="conundrum">{{cite journal | vauthors = Svoboda JS, Van Howe RS, Dwyer JG | title = Informed consent for neonatal circumcision: an ethical and legal conundrum | journal = The Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy | volume = 17 | issue = 1 | pages = 61–133 | date = 2000 | pmid = 11216345 | doi = | url = https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/jchlp17&div=10&id=&page= }}</ref>

A surrogate's powers to grant consent are more circumscribed than the powers granted to a competent individual acting on his own behalf.<ref name="conundrum" /><ref name="bioethics">{{cite journal | author = Committee on Bioethics | title = Informed consent, parental permission, and assent in pediatric practice. Committee on Bioethics, American Academy of Pediatrics | journal = Pediatrics | volume = 95 | issue = 2 | pages = 314–7 | date = February 1995 | pmid = 7838658 | pmc = | doi = 10.1542/peds.95.2.314| s2cid = 22221051 | url = http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/95/2/314.full.pdf | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20150906031541/http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/95/2/314.full.pdf | archive-date = 2015-09-06 }} Reaffirmed May 2011.</ref> A surrogate may only act in the best interests of the patient.<ref name="conundrum" /> A surrogate may not put a child at risk for religious reasons.<ref name="conundrum" /> A surrogate may grant consent for a medical procedure that has ''no'' medical indication ''only'' if it is the child's best interests.<ref name="conundrum" />

The attending physician must provide the surrogate with all material information concerning the proposed benefits, risks, advantages, and drawbacks of the proposed treatment or procedure.<ref name="conundrum" /><ref name="bioethics" />

The Committee on Bioethics of the AAP (1995) states that parents may only grant surrogate informed permission for diagnosis and treatment with the assent of the child whenever appropriate.<ref name="bioethics" />

There is an unresolved question whether surrogates may grant effective consent for non-therapeutic child circumcision.<ref name="povenmire">{{cite journal | vauthors = Povenmire R | title = Do parents have the legal authority to consent to the surgical amputation of normal, healthy tissue from their infant children?: the practice of circumcision in the United States | journal = The American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law | volume = 7 | issue = 1 | pages = 87–123 | year = 1998–1999 | pmid = 16526136 | url = http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/povenmire/ | access-date = 2013-11-25 | url-status = live | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20190116234746/http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/povenmire/ | archive-date = 2019-01-16 }}</ref> Richards (1996) argues that parents may only consent to medical care, so are not empowered to grant consent for non-therapeutic circumcision of a child because it is not medical care.<ref name="richards">{{cite journal | vauthors = Richards D |date=May 1996 |title=Male Circumcision: Medical or Ritual? |journal=Journal of Law and Medicine |volume=3 |issue=4 |pages=371–376 |url=http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/richards/ |access-date=2008-04-11 |archive-date=2018-09-10 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180910075745/http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/richards/ |url-status=live }}</ref> The Canadian Paediatric Society (2015) recommends that circumcisions done in the absence of a medical indication or for personal reasons "should be deferred until the individual concerned is able to make their own choices."<ref name="CPS20152"/>

Regardless of these issues, the general practice of the medical community in the United States is to receive surrogate informed consent or permission from parents or legal guardians for non-therapeutic circumcision of children.<ref name="BMA2006" /><ref name="povenmire" />

== See also ==
* [[Applied ethics]]
* [[Brit shalom (naming ceremony)]]
* [[Children's rights]]
* [[Female genital mutilation]]
* [[Medical ethics]]
* [[Men's rights]]
* [[Prevalence of circumcision]]
* [[Violence against men]]

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

== Further reading ==
{{refbegin}}
* {{cite journal | vauthors = Freeman MD | title = A child's right to circumcision | journal = BJU International | volume = 83| issue = S1 | pages = 74–8 | date = January 1999 | pmid = 10349417 | doi = 10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1074.x | doi-access = free }}
* {{cite journal | vauthors = Goodman J | title = Jewish circumcision: an alternative perspective | journal = BJU International | volume = 83| issue = S1 | pages = 22–7 | date = January 1999 | pmid = 10349411 | doi = 10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1022.x | s2cid = 29022100 | doi-access = free }}
{{refend}}

{{Circumcision series}}

[[Category:Circumcision debate]]
[[Category:Male genital modification]]
[[Category:Men's health]]
[[Category:Medical controversies]]
[[Category:Religious controversies]]

Revision as of 17:54, 21 August 2023

Redirect to:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethics_of_circumcision&oldid=1171531844"