Cargando…

Recommendation by a law body to ban infant male circumcision has serious worldwide implications for pediatric practice and human rights

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 sanct...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bates, Michael J, Ziegler, John B, Kennedy, Sean E, Mindel, Adrian, Wodak, Alex D, Zoloth, Laurie S, Tobian, Aaron AR, Morris, Brian J
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3846407/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24010685
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2431-13-136
_version_ 1782293424886513664
author Bates, Michael J
Ziegler, John B
Kennedy, Sean E
Mindel, Adrian
Wodak, Alex D
Zoloth, Laurie S
Tobian, Aaron AR
Morris, Brian J
author_facet Bates, Michael J
Ziegler, John B
Kennedy, Sean E
Mindel, Adrian
Wodak, Alex D
Zoloth, Laurie S
Tobian, Aaron AR
Morris, Brian J
author_sort Bates, Michael J
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3846407
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38464072013-12-03 Recommendation by a law body to ban infant male circumcision has serious worldwide implications for pediatric practice and human rights Bates, Michael J Ziegler, John B Kennedy, Sean E Mindel, Adrian Wodak, Alex D Zoloth, Laurie S Tobian, Aaron AR Morris, Brian J BMC Pediatr Debate 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. BioMed Central 2013-09-08 /pmc/articles/PMC3846407/ /pubmed/24010685 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2431-13-136 Text en Copyright © 2013 Bates et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Debate
Bates, Michael J
Ziegler, John B
Kennedy, Sean E
Mindel, Adrian
Wodak, Alex D
Zoloth, Laurie S
Tobian, Aaron AR
Morris, Brian J
Recommendation by a law body to ban infant male circumcision has serious worldwide implications for pediatric practice and human rights
title Recommendation by a law body to ban infant male circumcision has serious worldwide implications for pediatric practice and human rights
title_full Recommendation by a law body to ban infant male circumcision has serious worldwide implications for pediatric practice and human rights
title_fullStr Recommendation by a law body to ban infant male circumcision has serious worldwide implications for pediatric practice and human rights
title_full_unstemmed Recommendation by a law body to ban infant male circumcision has serious worldwide implications for pediatric practice and human rights
title_short Recommendation by a law body to ban infant male circumcision has serious worldwide implications for pediatric practice and human rights
title_sort recommendation by a law body to ban infant male circumcision has serious worldwide implications for pediatric practice and human rights
topic Debate
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3846407/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24010685
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2431-13-136
work_keys_str_mv AT batesmichaelj recommendationbyalawbodytobaninfantmalecircumcisionhasseriousworldwideimplicationsforpediatricpracticeandhumanrights
AT zieglerjohnb recommendationbyalawbodytobaninfantmalecircumcisionhasseriousworldwideimplicationsforpediatricpracticeandhumanrights
AT kennedyseane recommendationbyalawbodytobaninfantmalecircumcisionhasseriousworldwideimplicationsforpediatricpracticeandhumanrights
AT mindeladrian recommendationbyalawbodytobaninfantmalecircumcisionhasseriousworldwideimplicationsforpediatricpracticeandhumanrights
AT wodakalexd recommendationbyalawbodytobaninfantmalecircumcisionhasseriousworldwideimplicationsforpediatricpracticeandhumanrights
AT zolothlauries recommendationbyalawbodytobaninfantmalecircumcisionhasseriousworldwideimplicationsforpediatricpracticeandhumanrights
AT tobianaaronar recommendationbyalawbodytobaninfantmalecircumcisionhasseriousworldwideimplicationsforpediatricpracticeandhumanrights
AT morrisbrianj recommendationbyalawbodytobaninfantmalecircumcisionhasseriousworldwideimplicationsforpediatricpracticeandhumanrights