{"id":2394,"date":"2013-03-19T00:30:41","date_gmt":"2013-03-18T23:30:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/?p=2394"},"modified":"2013-03-22T15:13:56","modified_gmt":"2013-03-22T14:13:56","slug":"journal-of-medical-ethics-special-issue-on-circumcision","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/2013\/03\/19\/journal-of-medical-ethics-special-issue-on-circumcision\/","title":{"rendered":"Journal of Medical Ethics \u2013 Special Issue on Circumcision"},"content":{"rendered":"

Guest Post by Brian Earp<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Journal of Medical Ethics<\/i> is pleased to announce the forthcoming release of a special issue – “The Ethics of Male Circumcision” \u00a0– to be published in full in the coming days.\u00a0 Selected papers have already been posted Online First and can be seen by clicking here<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span>. Contributions cover a wide range of perspectives, and were invited from leading legal scholars, bioethicists, political theorists, pediatricians, and medical historians with expertise in this area. All essays were subjected to rigorous peer review. A list of main contributors and highlights from the arguments showcased in this Special Issue can be found below.<\/p>\n

Background<\/span><\/p>\n

Recent events have re-ignited controversy around the oft-debated issue of the moral and legal permissibility of infant male circumcision.<\/p>\n

According to a recent German court ruling<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span>, circumcising minors on religious grounds amounts to grievous bodily harm. \u00a0The court held that children have fundamental rights to bodily integrity and self-determination that cannot be outweighed by the right of parents to practice their religion and raise their children as they see fit. German chancellor Angela Merkel suggested<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span> that the ruling was an affront to religious liberty, while anti-circumcision groups as well as a number of ethicists hailed it<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span> as a victory for child rights. \u00a0In December of 2012, the German parliament passed a law<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span> to protect religious circumcision from future legal threats.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, in New York City, health officials recently succeeded in enacting<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span> a consent form requirement for circumcision after it was revealed that dozens of infants have contracted herpes in the last decade from a form of the surgery practiced by some Orthodox Jews. This form, called \u00a0<\/span><\/i><\/span>, involves the sucking of blood directly off of the infant\u2019s penis. Disagreements about the relative importance of religious tradition versus health concerns have shaped the ensuing controversy there.<\/p>\n

Finally, in late summer of 2012, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued a new circumcision policy statement and technical report, in which the child health organization suggested that the possible health benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks and complications. \u00a0This pronouncement was cited favourably<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span> by some commentators, while other groups, such as Doctors Opposing Circumcision, issued harsh criticisms<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span>. \u00a0The Journal of Medical Ethics<\/i> announces today that it is hosting a continuation of this debate in the pages of its Special Issue, publishing a further critique of the AAP report and policy statement, alongside a formal reply by the AAP.<\/p>\n

Ethical issues<\/span><\/p>\n

Given the controversy following the Cologne ruling mentioned above, as well as the discussion surrounding metzitzah b\u2019peh<\/i> in New York City, the main focus of the Special Issue on circumcision is on religiously-motivated forms of the procedure, although \u201chealth benefits\u201d and secular circumcisions as performed in the United States are also addressed.<\/p>\n

Justifications for ritual circumcision are sometimes given in terms of parental rights or religious freedoms. \u00a0Of course, few would argue that parental rights – religious or otherwise – are boundless. \u00a0Parents may not, for example, withhold life-saving medical care from their children, whether on the basis of their spiritual beliefs or for other reasons. \u00a0The question, then, is not whether a court or legislature may ever justifiably prohibit, restrict, or regulate a religious- or culturally-motivated practice, but under what conditions it may do so, for which reasons, concerning which practices, on what legal, ethical, or health grounds, and so on.<\/p>\n

A 2004 symposium<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span> on circumcision in the Journal of Medical Ethics\u00a0<\/i>covered a wide array of issues, ranging from health justifications for\u00a0the procedure to professional guidelines for medical practitioners. \u00a0For this new symposium, we welcomed in particular papers that sought to address the ways in which medical harm and benefit are weighed against the array of non-medical goods and harms associated with the practice of male infant circumcision. \u00a0We invited submissions from both religious and\u00a0secular perspectives which we think will move the conversation forward, both in\u00a0favor of and opposed to the position that non-therapeutic circumcision is either morally permissible or legally tolerable in\u00a0pluralistic, contemporary societies.<\/p>\n

Highlights<\/span><\/p>\n