Recommendation by a law body to ban infant male circumcision has serious worldwide implications for pediatric practice and human rights
- PMID: 24010685
- PMCID: PMC3846407
- DOI: 10.1186/1471-2431-13-136
Recommendation by a law body to ban infant male circumcision has serious worldwide implications for pediatric practice and human rights
Abstract
Background: Recent attempts in the USA and Europe to ban the circumcision of male children have been unsuccessful. Of current concern is a report by the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute (TLRI) recommending that non-therapeutic circumcision be prohibited, with parents and doctors risking criminal sanctions except where the parents have strong religious and ethnic ties to circumcision. The acceptance of this recommendation would create a precedent for legislation elsewhere in the world, thereby posing a threat to pediatric practice, parental responsibilities and freedoms, and public health.
Discussion: The TLRI report ignores the scientific consensus within medical literature about circumcision. It contains legal and ethical arguments that are seriously flawed. Dispassionate ethical arguments and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child are consistent with parents being permitted to authorize circumcision for their male child. Uncritical acceptance of the TLRI report's recommendations would strengthen and legitimize efforts to ban childhood male circumcision not just in Australia, but in other countries as well. The medical profession should be concerned about any attempt to criminalize a well-accepted and evidence-based medical procedure. The recommendations are illogical, pose potential dangers and seem unworkable in practice. There is no explanation of how the State could impose criminal charges against doctors and parents, nor of how such a punitive apparatus could be structured, nor how strength of ethnic or religious ties could be determined. The proposal could easily be used inappropriately, and discriminates against parents not tied to the religions specified. With time, religious exemptions could subsequently be overturned. The law, governments and the medical profession should reject the TLRI recommendations, especially since the recent affirmative infant male circumcision policy statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics attests to the significant individual and public health benefits and low risk of infant male circumcision.
Summary: Doctors should be allowed to perform medical procedures based on sound evidence of effectiveness and safety with guaranteed protection. Parents should be free to act in the best interests of the health of their infant son by having him circumcised should they choose.
Similar articles
-
Circumcision of male infants as a human rights violation.J Med Ethics. 2013 Jul;39(7):469-74. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2012-101229. Epub 2013 May 22. J Med Ethics. 2013. PMID: 23698885
-
Circumcision Is Unethical and Unlawful.J Law Med Ethics. 2016 Jun;44(2):263-82. doi: 10.1177/1073110516654120. J Law Med Ethics. 2016. PMID: 27338602
-
The child's interests and the case for the permissibility of male infant circumcision.J Med Ethics. 2013 Jul;39(7):421-8. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2013-101318. Epub 2013 May 22. J Med Ethics. 2013. PMID: 23698892
-
[Legal aspects of ritual circumcision].Klin Padiatr. 2009 Dec;221(7):409-14. doi: 10.1055/s-0029-1233494. Klin Padiatr. 2009. PMID: 20013563 Review. German.
-
Circumcision rates in the United States: rising or falling? What effect might the new affirmative pediatric policy statement have?Mayo Clin Proc. 2014 May;89(5):677-86. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2014.01.001. Epub 2014 Apr 2. Mayo Clin Proc. 2014. PMID: 24702735 Review.
Cited by
-
Male circumcision for protection against HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa: the evidence in favour justifies the implementation now in progress.Glob Public Health. 2015;10(5-6):639-66. doi: 10.1080/17441692.2014.989532. Epub 2015 Jan 23. Glob Public Health. 2015. PMID: 25613581 Free PMC article.
-
Neonatal Male Circumcision: Clearly Beneficial for Public Health or an Ethical Dilemma? A Systematic Review.Cureus. 2024 Feb 23;16(2):e54772. doi: 10.7759/cureus.54772. eCollection 2024 Feb. Cureus. 2024. PMID: 38405642 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Critical evaluation of arguments opposing male circumcision: A systematic review.J Evid Based Med. 2019 Nov;12(4):263-290. doi: 10.1111/jebm.12361. Epub 2019 Sep 8. J Evid Based Med. 2019. PMID: 31496128 Free PMC article.
-
CDC's Male Circumcision Recommendations Represent a Key Public Health Measure.Glob Health Sci Pract. 2017 Mar 28;5(1):15-27. doi: 10.9745/GHSP-D-16-00390. Print 2017 Mar 24. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2017. PMID: 28351877 Free PMC article.
-
Indigenous Culture-as-Health: A Systematized Literature Review.J Prev (2022). 2022 Apr;43(2):167-190. doi: 10.1007/s10935-022-00666-3. Epub 2022 Jan 29. J Prev (2022). 2022. PMID: 35286545 Review.
References
-
- Cox G, Morris BJ. In: Surgical Guide to Circumcision. Bolnick DA, Koyle MA, Yosha A, editor. London: Springer; 2012. Why circumcision: From pre-history to the twenty-first century; pp. 243–259.
-
- American Academy of Pediatrics. Circumcision policy statement. Task Force on Circumcision. Pediatrics. 2012;130:e756–e785. - PubMed
-
- Tasmanian Law Reform Institute. Non-therapeutic male circumcision. 2012. Final report no 17, 2012 (109 pp) http://www.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/302829/Non-Therapueti... (accessed Feb 13, 2013)
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical