| Revision as of 02:08, 4 February 2005 editRobert Blair (talk | contribs)578 edits →Scandinavian View: delete Pov pushing.← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:17, 4 February 2005 edit undoJakew (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers17,277 edits NPOVingNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ==Introduction== | ==Introduction== | ||
| The '''bioethics of neonatal circumcision''' is controversial. ] involves the excision of |
The '''bioethics of neonatal circumcision''' is controversial. ] involves the excision of preputial tissue from the human body. Some believe that this tissue may be protective, and may have a specialised sensory function. Some argue that there is no medical indication for circumcision in the neonatal period. Some argue that non-circumcision produces the highest medical utility and should consequently be the preferred medical choice, however others argue that the procedure should be encouraged. The American Academy of Pediatrics claims it has "potential benefits and risks, but is not essential to the child's well-being." The American Medical Association classifies neonatal circumcision as an elective non-therapeutic operation. There remains controversy over whether the procedure is beneficial or harmful (see ]). The three major ethical viewpoints are the parent-centered viewpoint, the child-centered viewpoint, and the human rights-centered viewpoint. | ||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
| ===Human rights=== | ===Human rights=== | ||
| Leading national codes of medical ethics require doctors to respect the human rights of the patient. Jacqueline Smith, a researcher at believes that non-therapeutic male neonatal circumcision violates the human rights of the infant. The ''Norwegian Council for Medical Ethics'' determined that ritual child circumcision violates important principles of medical ethics. The organisation, ''Attorneys for the Rights of the Child'', which campaigns against circumcision, has published a table of what it considers to be human rights violated by neonatal or child circumcision. | Leading national codes of medical ethics require doctors to respect the human rights of the patient. Jacqueline Smith, a researcher at believes that non-therapeutic male neonatal circumcision violates the human rights of the infant. The ''Norwegian Council for Medical Ethics'' determined that ritual child circumcision violates important principles of medical ethics. <!-- this is wrong, but I cannot revert it without falling foul of the 3RR --> The organisation, ''Attorneys for the Rights of the Child'', which campaigns against circumcision, has published a table of what it considers to be human rights violated by neonatal or child circumcision. | ||
| ==Scandinavian View== | ==Scandinavian View== | ||
| Scandinavian nations take the strictest view of child circumcision. As previously stated, the ''Norwegian Council for Medical Ethics'' reported to the board of the ''Norwegian Medical Association'' that the circumcision of boys is not consistent with important principles of medical ethics, and the children’s ombudsman says circumcisions should cease at public hospitals. Similarly, the Finnish Central Union for Child Welfare takes the position that the non-therapeutic circumcision of boys may not be acceptable because it violates bodily integrity. Sweden has passed a law that restricts the practice of circumcision to be performed by qualified professionals, as is usually the case in the US. One interpretation of a statement by the Danish Council for Children says that circumcision violates human rights. | Scandinavian nations take the strictest view of child circumcision. As previously stated, the ''Norwegian Council for Medical Ethics'' reported to the board of the ''Norwegian Medical Association'' that the circumcision of boys is not consistent with important principles of medical ethics, <!-- this is wrong, but I cannot revert it without falling foul of the 3RR --> and the children’s ombudsman says circumcisions should cease at public hospitals. Similarly, the Finnish Central Union for Child Welfare takes the position that the non-therapeutic circumcision of boys may not be acceptable because it violates bodily integrity. Sweden has passed a law that restricts the practice of circumcision to be performed by qualified professionals, as is usually the case in the US. One interpretation of a statement by the Danish Council for Children says that circumcision violates human rights. | ||
| ==Conscientious objection== | ==Conscientious objection== | ||
Revision as of 02:17, 4 February 2005
Introduction
The bioethics of neonatal circumcision is controversial. Male circumcision involves the excision of preputial tissue from the human body. Some believe that this tissue may be protective, and may have a specialised sensory function. Some argue that there is no medical indication for circumcision in the neonatal period. Some argue that non-circumcision produces the highest medical utility and should consequently be the preferred medical choice, however others argue that the procedure should be encouraged. The American Academy of Pediatrics claims it has "potential benefits and risks, but is not essential to the child's well-being." The American Medical Association classifies neonatal circumcision as an elective non-therapeutic operation. There remains controversy over whether the procedure is beneficial or harmful (see Medical analysis of circumcision). The three major ethical viewpoints are the parent-centered viewpoint, the child-centered viewpoint, and the human rights-centered viewpoint.
Parent-centered View
The traditional viewpoint hold that non-therapeutic circumcision of male children is ethical provided that a parent grants consent for the operation after being informed of the possible benefits, known risks and alternative treatment. This view is typified by the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement (1999) of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
- The practice of medicine has long respected an adult's right to self-determination in health care decision-making. This principle has been operationalized through the doctrine of informed consent. The process of informed consent obligates the physician to explain any procedure or treatment and to enumerate the risks, benefits, and alternatives for the patient to make an informed choice. For infants and young children who lack the capacity to decide for themselves, a surrogate, generally a parent, must make such choices.
- Parents and physicians each have an ethical duty to the child to attempt to secure the child's best interest and well-being. However, it is often uncertain as to what is in the best interest of any individual patient. In cases such as the decision to perform a circumcision in the neonatal period when there are potential benefits and risks and the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, it should be the parents who determine what is in the best interest of the child. In the pluralistic society of the United States in which parents are afforded wide authority for determining what constitutes appropriate child-rearing and child welfare, it is legitimate for the parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to medical factors, when making this choice.
- Physicians counseling families concerning this decision should assist the parents by explaining the potential benefits and risks and by ensuring that they understand that circumcision is an elective procedure. Parents should not be coerced by medical professionals to make this choice.
Canning, however, has dissented from this view, declaning that "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."
Child-centered View
Some believe that the parent-centered view is challenged by the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Bioethics, which places responsibility on the physician. It holds that health care providers "have legal and ethical duties to their child patients to render competent medical care based on what the patient needs, not what someone else expresses."
And that:
- "the pediatrician's responsibilities to his or her patient exist independent of parental desires or proxy consent."
And by the newer American Medical Association Principles of Medical Ethics which require:
- VIII. A physician shall, while caring for a patient, regard responsibility to the patient as paramount.
Some interpret these to mean that circumcision is unethical, because they believe that circumcision is not in the patient's best interests.
Guidance on the circumcision of male children has been enunciated by the Committee on Medical Ethics of the British Medical Association. That view require medical doctors to proceed on a case by case basis to determine the best interests of the child before deciding to perform a circumcision. A similar position has been taken by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia.
Hellston expresses the view that the protection of the child's rights should govern the practice.
Human rights
Leading national codes of medical ethics require doctors to respect the human rights of the patient. Jacqueline Smith, a researcher at The Netherlands Institute of Human Rights believes that non-therapeutic male neonatal circumcision violates the human rights of the infant. The Norwegian Council for Medical Ethics determined that ritual child circumcision violates important principles of medical ethics. The organisation, Attorneys for the Rights of the Child, which campaigns against circumcision, has published a table of what it considers to be human rights violated by neonatal or child circumcision.
Scandinavian View
Scandinavian nations take the strictest view of child circumcision. As previously stated, the Norwegian Council for Medical Ethics reported to the board of the Norwegian Medical Association that the circumcision of boys is not consistent with important principles of medical ethics, and the children’s ombudsman says circumcisions should cease at public hospitals. Similarly, the Finnish Central Union for Child Welfare takes the position that the non-therapeutic circumcision of boys may not be acceptable because it violates bodily integrity. Sweden has passed a law that restricts the practice of circumcision to be performed by qualified professionals, as is usually the case in the US. One interpretation of a statement by the Danish Council for Children says that circumcision violates human rights.
Conscientious objection
A physician, except in emergencies, may choose whom to serve. A physician who attends a child-patient must "have legal and ethical duties to their child patients to render competent medical care based on what the patient needs, not what someone else expresses, and he must always act in the best interests of the child and avoid ineffective or harmful treatment. A physician has no obligation to provide ineffective or inappropriate treatment. For these reasons, a physician has an absolute right to conscientiously object to the performance of a non-therapeutic circumision. Some common grounds would be the physician's belief that circumcision violates the patient's right to bodily integrity, or other rights, is not in the best interests of the patient, or that the operation is immoral or unethical.
Conclusion
The bioethics of the circumcision of male infants and children are disputed. There is, however, no clear consensus regarding the ethicality of the non-therapeutic circumcision of male children.
See also
External links
- American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Bioethics. Informed consent, parental permission, and assent in pediatric practice. Pediatrics 1995;95(2):314-7. URL: http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/AAP/
- Task Force on Circumcision. Circumcision Policy Statement. Pediatrics URL: http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3b103/3/686
- Council on Ethical and Judical Affairs. Principles of Medical Ethics. Chicago: American Medical Association, 2001. URL: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/2512.html
- Gulbrandsen P. Rituell omskjæring av gutter. Tidsskr Nor Lægeforen 2001;121(25):2994. URL: http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/gulbrandsen1/
- Committee on Medical Ethics. The law & ethics of male circumcision - guidance for doctors. London: British Medical Association, 2003. URL: http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/malecircumcision2003
- College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia. Policy Manual: Infant Male Circumcision. Vancouver, BC: College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, 2004. URL: http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/cpsbc2004/
- Hellston SK. Rationalising circumcision: from tradition to fashion, from public health to individual freedom—critical notes on cultural persistence of the practice of genital mutilation. J Med Ethics 2004;30:248-53.URL: http://jme.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/30/3/248
- Answers to Your Questions About the Bioethics of Infant Circumcision. San Anselmo, CA: National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers, 2004. URL: http://www.nocirc.org/publish/10pam.pdf
References
- Margaret Somerville. The Ethical Canary: Science, Society and the Human Spirit. Toronto: Penguin, 2000: pp. 202-19. (ISBN 0-670-89971-2)
- Freeman MD. A child's right to circumcision. BJU Int. 1999 Jan;83 Suppl 1:74-8.