Newborn Male Circumcision.

This symposium includes twelve personal narratives from parents about making the decision whether to circumcise their infant male children. The authors of the narratives include five fathers and seven mothers. Nine of the 12 parent authors opted to circumcise their infant sons, though the reasons they stated for doing so varied. Most of the parent authors relied on cultural or social beliefs, religious guidance, or a desire for sameness with the infant's father. Parents who didn't circumcise their male infants discuss their convictions about autonomy, bodily rights, and the medical benefits of circumcision versus the harm or pain caused by the procedure. The symposium includes four expert commentaries on the narratives that are informed and enriched by the commentators' expertise in pediatric bioethics, healthcare ethics, gender studies, Jewish law and tradition, and the medical and surgical techniques of circumcision.

Our Baby, Whose Choice? Certainty, Ambivalence, and Belonging in Male Infant Circumcision.

Routine infant circumcision is one of the most common surgical procedures performed in the U.S. Despite its broad societal acceptance, the practice is not without controversy. The stories included in this symposium offer rich insight into the diverse set of attitudes, values, and beliefs related to the practice of circumcision. They additionally offer insight into the complex web of personal, interpersonal, and social dynamics that inform the circumcision choices parents make for their children, the reasons parents make them, and how others can influence decisional choices. More broadly, these narratives raise important ethical questions mirrored today in broader contemporary bioethical and public discourse on the scope and limits of parental authority to make decisions for their children, power dynamics in medical decision making, and the ethics of healthcare activism. In this commentary, I discuss three sets of themes related to the ethics of circumcision running through the symposium narratives, comment on the ethical tensions and questions which emerge from each set of themes, gently problematize some of the rhetoric surrounding the ethical permissibility of circumcision, and gesture towards the future of bioethical inquiry on circumcision discourse.

Commentary on "Circumcision".

This commentary draws upon the author's experience in bioethics and as a physician, ordained Rabbi, and certified Mohel (a Jewish professional qualified to perform infant male circumcisions (MC)). People's identity and adherence to a religious belief are frequently cited reasons for deciding whether to circumcise their male children. For Jewish and Muslim males, circumcision is considered essential. In this commentary, the author uses his medical, religious, and bioethical knowledge, expertise, and experience to address common arguments used in opposing nontherapeutic male circumcision of minors. In these narratives, half of the parents agreed with circumcision, and half did not. The parents against circumcision cite human rights violations, security, privacy, and bodily integrity issues and refer to circumcision as genital mutilation, while those who agree argue that circumcision should be done for religious reasons to prevent health issues, promote hygiene and cleanness, avoid cancer, or for later sexual enjoyment. After evaluating the evidence, the author states that parents should be free to either consent or decline MC for a son. Though a reoccurring theme in these narratives was for mothers to leave the circumcision decision up to their male partners, the author concludes that women have considerable power regarding the decision.

Circumcision Stories: Enhancing our Understanding of Parental Perspectives in a Context of Controversy.

This commentary examines twelve stories in which parents recount how they (and often their co-parent) decided whether or not to circumcise their newborn sons. Several debated whether this should be their decision to make. The stories offer an intimate glimpse into people's efforts to do the best for children in a context of incomplete and changing information and intense public controversy. The commentary explores the diverse meanings and contradictory commonsense beliefs that surround foreskin removal in the United States today. Considering these parents' reflections-and their silences-can help us appreciate the real-life consequences of debates about the ethics of male circumcision.

Male circumcision: ritual, science and responsibility.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: In Italy, four minors have died in the last year as a result of male circumcision (MC) procedures performed for cultural and religious reasons by unqualified persons in unhygienic conditions. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: After illustrating the historical and ethical outlines of the moral admissibility of MC within a comparative perspective, we examine the features of the Italian healthcare system with particular regard both to the heterogeneity of services available in the various Regions and to the risks engendered by excluding MC from the public health setting. CONCLUSION: In order to adequately safeguard public health, particularly that of minors, there is a pressing need for thorough discussion of whether the National Health Service should perform MC on minors free of charge or, at least, for a reduced fee. The implementation of targeted campaigns may raise awareness of the importance of proper safety measures in MC.

What is the best age to circumcise? A medical and ethical analysis.

Circumcision is often claimed to be simpler, safer and more cost-effective when performed in the neonatal period as opposed to later in life, with a greater benefit-to-risk ratio. In the first part of this paper, we critically examine the evidence base for these claims, and find that it is not as robust as is commonly assumed. In the second part, we demonstrate that, even if one simply grants these claims for the sake of argument, it still does not follow that neonatal circumcision is ethically permissible absent urgent medical necessity. Based on a careful consideration of the relevant evidence, arguments and counterarguments, we conclude that medically unnecessary penile circumcision-like other medically unnecessary genital procedures, such as 'cosmetic' labiaplasty-should not be performed on individuals who are too young (or otherwise unable) to provide meaningful consent to the procedure.

Refusals to perform ritual circumcision: a qualitative study of doctors' professional and ethical reasoning.

BACKGROUND: Ritual circumcision of infant boys is controversial in Norway, as in many other countries. The procedure became a part of Norwegian public health services in 2015. A new law opened for conscientious objection to the procedure. We have studied physicians' refusals to perform ritual circumcision as an issue of professional ethics. METHOD: Qualitative interview study with 10 urologists who refused to perform ritual circumcision from six Norwegian public hospitals. Interviews were recorded and transcribed, then analysed with systematic text condensation, a qualitative analysis framework. RESULTS: The physicians are unanimous in grounding their opposition to the procedure in professional standards and norms, based on fundamental tenets of professional ethics. While there is homogeneity in the group when it comes to this reasoning, there are significant variations as to how deeply the matter touches the urologists on a personal level. About half of them connect their stance to their personal integrity, and state that performing the procedure would go against their conscience and lead to pangs of conscience. CONCLUSIONS: It is argued that professional moral norms sometimes might become more or less 'integrated' in the professional's core moral values and moral identity. If this is the case, then the distinction between conscience-based and professional refusals to certain healthcare services cannot be drawn as sharply as it has been.

Critical evaluation of arguments opposing male circumcision: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate evidence against male circumcision (MC). METHODS: We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. RESULTS: Database searches retrieved 297 publications for inclusion. Bibliographies of these yielded 101 more. After evaluation we found: Claims that MC carries high risk were contradicted by low frequency of adverse events that were virtually all minor and easily treated with complete resolution. Claims that MC causes psychological harm were contradicted by studies finding no such harm. Claims that MC impairs sexual function and pleasure were contradicted by high-quality studies finding no adverse effect. Claims disputing the medical benefits of MC were contradicted by a large body of high-quality evidence indicating protection against a wide range of infections, dermatological conditions, and genital cancers in males and the female sexual partners of men. Risk-benefit analyses reported that benefits exceed risks by 100-200 to 1. To maximize benefits and minimize risks, the evidence supported early infant MC rather than arguments that the procedure should be delayed until males are old enough to decide for themselves. Claims that MC of minors is unethical were contradicted by balanced evaluations of ethical issues supporting the rights of children to be provided with low-risk, high-benefit interventions such as MC for better health. Expert evaluations of case-law supported the legality of MC of minors. Other data demonstrated that early infant MC is cost-saving to health systems. CONCLUSIONS: Arguments opposing MC are supported mostly by low-quality evidence and opinion, and are contradicted by strong scientific evidence.

Circumcising human subjects: An evaluation of experimental foreskin amputation using the Declaration of Helsinki.

This paper explores ethical considerations for active studies of circumcision, i.e., the amputation of the foreskin, in the form of a case study of three major trials performed in African countries in the early 2000s. The paper outlines the function of the foreskin and method and history of its amputation as well as its current use in attempting to combat the global AIDS crisis. These trials are then interrogated in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. In particular, the irreversible nature of amputation is given great consideration. The case studies are found to have serious failures in terms of the modern iteration of the Declaration of Helsinki. This paper calls for extreme scrutiny in accordance with international norms relating to the ethical treatment of human subjects in a research context of studies of circumcision if and when they are proposed again.

The German debate on male circumcision and Habermas' model of post-secularity.

This paper considers Habermas' model of a post-secular political order in the light of the debate on male circumcision that arose in Germany after a court ruled that male circumcision was an unjustifiable act of bodily harm. Central to this model is the idea that religious reasons can only become effective in central legal institutions when they are translated into secular reasons. My paper demonstrates that there are two distinguishable readings of this proviso. On the one hand, there is a broad reading according to which it is only necessary to reach a conclusion that is in line with the democratic principle stating that all citizens can be regarded as co-legislators even if non-generalizable value orientations might then shape the interpretation of fundamental rights (in the case of circumcision, the right to bodily integrity). On the other hand, a truly secular (narrow) reading would avoid the inclusion of non-generalizable value orientations. The debate on circumcision demonstrates that these two interpretations lead to different and conflicting modes of justification. The broad reading allows for a justification of male circumcision, whereas the narrow reading makes such a justification unlikely. In addition, the filtering function of the proviso is weakened in a broad reading.

Non-therapeutic male genital cutting and harm: Law, policy and evidence from U.K. hospitals.

Female genital cutting (FGC) is generally understood as a gendered harm, abusive cultural practice and human rights violation. By contrast, male genital cutting (MGC) is held to be minimally invasive, an expression of religious identity and a legitimate parental choice. Yet scholars increasingly problematize this dichotomy, arguing that male and female genital cutting can occasion comparable levels of harm. In 2015 this academic critique received judicial endorsement, with Sir James Munby's acknowledgement that all genital cutting can cause 'significant harm'. This article investigates the harm occasioned by MGC. It is informed by a Freedom of Information (FoI) study which provides some empirical evidence of the nature and frequency of physical harm caused by MGC in U.K. hospitals. While acknowledging the challenges and limitations of FoI research, we outline important lessons that this preliminary study contains for medical ethics, law and policy. It provides some empirical evidence to support claims regarding the risks which accompany the procedure and the obligation of health professionals to disclose them, and reveals the paucity of measures in place to ensure that harms are recorded, disclosed and monitored.

Penile transplantation as an appropriate response to botched traditional circumcisions in South Africa: an argument against.

Traditional male circumcision is a deeply entrenched cultural practice in South Africa. In recent times, there have been increasing numbers of botched circumcisions by untrained and unscrupulous practitioners, leading to genital mutilation and often, the need for penile amputation. Hailed as a world's first, a team of surgeons conducted the first successful penile transplant in Cape Town, South Africa in 2015. Despite the euphoria of this surgical victory, concerns about the use of this costly intervention in a context of severe resource constraints have been raised. In this paper, we explore some of the ethical implications of penile transplants as a clinical and public health response to the adverse consequences of traditional male circumcision. Given the current fiscal deficits in healthcare and public health sectors, how can one justify costly, high-technology interventions for conditions affecting a small section of the population? Since botched traditional male circumcisions are preventable, is a focus on penile transplantation as a form of treatment reasonable? Finally, do such interventions create undue expectations and false hope among a highly vulnerable and stigmatised group of young men? In this paper, we argue that given limited healthcare resources in South Africa and competing healthcare needs, prevention is a more appropriate response to botched traditional circumcisions than penile transplants.

Response to Vogelstein: How the 2012 AAP Task Force on circumcision went wrong.

Vogelstein cautions medical organizations against jumping into the fray of controversial issues, yet proffers the 2012 American Academy of Pediatrics' Task Force policy position on infant male circumcision as 'an appropriate use of position-statements.' Only a scratch below the surface of this policy statement uncovers the Task Force's failure to consider Vogelstein's many caveats. The Task Force supported the cultural practice by putting undeserved emphasis on questionable scientific data, while ignoring or underplaying the importance of valid contrary scientific data. Without any effort to quantitatively assess the risk/benefit balance, the Task Force concluded the benefits of circumcision outweighed the risks, while acknowledging that the incidence of risks was unknown. This Task Force differed from other Academy policy-forming panels by ignoring the Academy's standard quality measures and by not appointing members with extensive research experience, extensive publications, or recognized expertise directly related to this topic. Despite nearly 100 publications available at the time addressing the substantial ethical issues associated with infant male circumcision, the Task Force chose to ignore the ethical controversy. They merely stated, with minimal justification, the opinion of one of the Task Force members that the practice of infant male circumcision is morally permissible. The release of the report has fostered an explosion of academic discussion on the ethics of infant male circumcision with a number of national medical organizations now decrying the practice as a human rights violation.

Preventive Newborn Male Circumcision: What Is the Child's Best Interest?

Preventive newborn male circumcision has been at the center of scientific debate for many years. The reason for promoting preventive newborn male circumcision, is the reduction of the incidence of UTIs (in the first six months of life), penile cancer, transmission of STDs/HIV infection/AIDS. However preventive interventions in the newborn involving violations of bodily integrity elicit several ethical questions. In this article, we reviewed the literature regarding circumcision, the prevention of UTIs, penile cancer, transmission of STDs/HIV infection/AIDS and complications of this practice in the neonatal period. The very limited reduction of incidence of UTIs and the uncertain preventive role of newborn male circumcision towards penile cancer, STDs/HIV infection and AIDS, makes it difficult to justify male circumcision in newborns. Moreover, the challenge in obtaining a unanimous opinion on newborn male circumcision derives from the fact that, as a preventive intervention, it requires evaluation criteria that are not comparable to those of therapeutic treatments. Since preventive male circumcision determines permanent alteration of the body, some authors believe that it can be used only in subjects that are capable of giving their valid consent. In the case of a newborn, the ″child's best interest″ should be used as a standard, but preventive newborn male circumcision does not satisfy it.

Nontherapeutic Circumcision of Minors as an Ethically Problematic Form of Iatrogenic Injury.

Nontherapeutic circumcision (NTC) of male infants and boys is a common but misunderstood form of iatrogenic injury that causes harm by removing functional tissue that has known erogenous, protective, and immunological properties, regardless of whether the surgery generates complications. I argue that the loss of the foreskin itself should be counted, clinically and morally, as a harm in evaluating NTC; that a comparison of benefits and risks is not ethically sufficient in an analysis of a nontherapeutic procedure performed on patients unable to provide informed consent; and that circumcision violates clinicians' imperatives to respect patients' autonomy, to do good, to do no harm, and to be just. When due consideration is given to these values, the balance of factors suggests that NTC should be deferred until the affected person can perform his own cost-benefit analysis, applying his mature, informed preferences and values.

Foreskin and the molecular politics of risk.

In this paper, I examine disputes over recent claims that male circumcision reduces HIV risk to suggest a complicated relationship between risk individualization and categorization. Whereas randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in sub-Saharan Africa appear to have provided key evidence for the World Health Organization's endorsement of male circumcision as an HIV prevention strategy, RCTs alone did not provide evidence for the underlying causal mechanism. For that, medical authorities have turned to histo-immunological studies of the foreskin's biomolecular vulnerability to HIV, thus molecularizing risk. Some actors used these studies both as a way of shoring up results of RCTs conducted in sub-Saharan Africa and as an important rationale in arguments for making neonatal circumcision more widely available. Others, however, resisted this move to generalize the RCT results to other parts of the world, citing both contextual differences in HIV transmission patterns and conflicting scientific details regarding the biomolecular basis of the foreskin's susceptibility. Nevertheless, by locating an abstract notion of relative risk in the body itself, I argue that histological studies of foreskin have played a key role in stabilizing male circumcision status as a new risk category, largely independent of a given individual's risk profile.

Non-therapeutic infant male circumcision. evidence, ethics and international law perspective.

[No Avaliable Abstract].

Between Moral Relativism and Moral Hypocrisy: Reframing the Debate on "FGM".

The spectrum of practices termed "Female Genital Mutilation" (or FGM) by the World Health Organization is sometimes held up as a counterexample to moral relativism. Those who advance this line of thought suggest the practices are so harmful in terms of their physical and emotional consequences, as well as so problematic in terms of their sexist or oppressive implications, that they provide sufficient, rational grounds for the assertion of a universal moral claim--namely, that all forms of FGM are wrong, regardless of the cultural context. However, others point to cultural bias and moral double standards on the part of those who espouse this argument, and have begun to question the received interpretation of the relevant empirical data on FGM as well. In this article I assess the merits of these competing perspectives. I argue that each of them involves valid moral concerns that should be taken seriously in order to move the discussion forward. In doing so, I draw on the biomedical "enhancement" literature in order to develop a novel ethical framework for evaluating FGM (and related interventions--such as female genital "cosmetic" surgery and nontherapeutic male circumcision) that takes into account the genuine harms that are at stake in these procedures, but which does not suffer from being based on cultural or moral double standards.