Is newborn circumcision a violation of medical ethics?

Question

How can they possibly give informed consent? I ask this in religion because I think some ethics actually override religious concerns. I'm open to intellegent responses.

In better than 99|% of cases there is no medical reason for circumcision, and the forskin is not only self cleaning but an important part of the immune system of all mammals. Some insurance will not pay for it now, calling it "cosmetic".

Answer 1

I agree that circumcision violates medical ethics not only from the standpoint of informed consent but also on the grounds that it un- nesecesary surgery performed for non medical reasons.

Answer 2

The answer is no, it isn't.

If, as it seems, your argument is based purely on whether or not the "patient" is able to give informed consent, then ALL pediatric medecine becomes ethically dubious. And that, plainly, is patently absurd.

Your statement that some ethics override religious concerns is interesting but trite, because all religious concerns are ultimately based on ethical opinions, so they become one and the same thing.

The logical conclusion to your argument would be that those religions which practice circumcision (primarily Judaism and Islam) are ethically "wrong" ...but that is purely a objective opinion and based on nothing other than your personal theory. That does not make your ideas wrong...but it does not make them right either.

There might well be a far stronger ethical argument against the practice of female circumision as practiced by some remote African tribes, which is based on traditional ritual rather than specifically religious belief.

Also, just to correct some previously incorrect assumptions..a doctor would NOT carry out a circumcision for religious purposes, that is done by the specificly appointed surgical agent of the religion in question. Doctors would only carry this proceedure out for necessary medical reasons, of which there are several.


I would be interested to know your source for "in better than 99% of cases there is no medical reason". I would humbly suggest that this pergentage is not only evidently preposterous, but also fundamentally misleading.

There is no part of the body that is "self-cleaning". Self-regulating, perhaps, but that is not the same thing. Left uncleansed for long enough, most of the body will become a haven for bacterial decay and hence possible problems, even if that appears as no more than a socially unpleasant odour. The foreskin is amongst the parts of the body particularly prone to bacterial gathering, although not in every case, of course.

Its removal has no lasting effect on the human immune system whatsoever. It this were in any way true, why are doctors' surgeries not full to the brim with circumicised men suffering from numerous diseases? Indeed, given its main purpose (the physical protection of the glans) the removal of it may actually
strengthen the long term health of the penis by exposing it regularly to more general "wear & tear". The pesence of a foreskin can cause as many problems as the absence of one.

And it may be an obvious query, but what sort of wacko would ever consider lodging an insurance claim against his circumcision, if not guided by some bizarre religious conviction? I am astonished that ANY reputable insurance company would consent to such a policy, short of trying to make a fast buck out of the gullible.

Answer 3

Or what about the removal of the Clitoris in girls aged 7 in some cultures. Or the sewing up of the female genetalia so only a small hole is left to pee from. Or the forcing of the man to rip open the sewn vagina to prove his manliness. As far as I am concerned this is much more a violation of ethics than the removal of the foreskin. A foreskin can medically be replaced, a clitoris cant.
However, I agree that such actions are immoral based solely on the wants of the parents religion as apposed to the health wants and needs of the child. How can a doctor who is supposed to be religiously impartial carry out his duty to the public performing ritualistic surgery?

Answer 4

Obviously a baby cannot give consent of any kind. Unless there is a very good medical reason (and I'm struggling to think how there could be) then the answer is yes, it is very much a violation of the child's rights, and therefore a very serious breach of medical ethics

Answer 5

both are human rights violations and the "reward" from male circumcision do not exist. Male circumcision interior the U. S. change into began to dodge masturbation and to make sex a lot less relaxing for adult men. yet human beings interior the U. S. opt to be ethnocentric so that they offer the effect of being on the Africans (with reference to lady circumcision) as Evil and backwards, even as our personal immoral circumcision of male little ones is defined away through nonsense.

Answer 6

Parents are responsible for informed consent just as they would be for other procedures. I work in nursing and I can tell you , you would rather have this done as an baby than as an older man. Many have to later.

Answer 7

Absolutely, routine infant circumcision is grossly immoral and will be made illegal in due course (the sooner the better).

Answer 8

circumcision is not a good thing it is biologically proven , if you type on the internet I read in a medical journal about 38 reason why we should not circumcise .

Answer 9

look at it from the medical point of view... do you ask a child if he wants to have his heart fixed or ask him if its ok to stitch him up after a fall ... there are medical reasons for a circumcision... it's not always about religion

Answer 10

NO ITS NOT A VIOLATION, ITS EASIER TO CLEAN AFTER BEING CIRCUMCISED.