"Whenever a doctor cannot do good, he must be kept from doing harm."
--Hippocrates
Most recently the medical society in the United States has tried to remain as neutral as possible in regards to
routine circumcision. It's become such a complex and controversial issue that it's easier not to pick a side and just pull out of
the whole debate, providing some information that can be interpretted as both pro and anti, then shift responsibility (as well as
the blame along with it) over to the parents who have their sons circumcised.
However, no matter how many parents want their children circumcised that still doesn't change the fact that it's the medical industry that offers circumcision and the doctors who actually perform it, and
it was the medical industry that started circumcision in the United States in the first place, so it should be their job to end
it. In regards to this American doctors have been extremely lax on their duties. In the absence of any medical benefit sufficient enough
to recommend the procedure, the AAP has this to say on what goes into the decision making process:
"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."
However telling parents that it's OK to choose circumcision for their unconsenting child based on these reasons just goes completely against what
the AAP has said about similar situations. For example,
AAP Committee on Bioethics-
"Thus ``proxy consent'' poses serious problems for pediatric health care providers. Such 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. Although impasses regarding the interests of minors and
the expressed wishes of their parents or guardians are rare, the pediatrician's responsibilities to his or
her patient exist independent of parental desires or proxy consent."
"Usually, parental permission articulates what most agree represents the ``best interests of the child.''
However, the Academy acknowledges that this standard of decisionmaking does not always prove easy
to define. In a pluralistic society, one can find many religious, social, cultural, and philosophic positions
on what constitutes acceptable child rearing and child welfare. The law generally provides parents with
wide discretionary authority in raising their children. Nonetheless, the need for child abuse and
neglect laws and procedures makes it clear that parents sometimes breach their obligations toward their
children. Providers of care and services to children have to carefully justify the invasion of privacy and
psychologic disruption that come with taking legal steps to override parental prerogatives."
Religious Obections to Medical Care-
"ABSTRACT. Parents sometimes deny their children the benefits of medical care because of religious
beliefs. In some jurisdictions, exemptions to child abuse and neglect laws restrict government action to
protect children or seek legal redress when the alleged abuse or neglect has occurred in the name of
religion. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) believes that all children deserve effective medical
treatment that is likely to prevent substantial harm or suffering or death. In addition the AAP advocates
that all legal interventions apply equally whenever children are endangered or harmed, without
exemptions based on parental religious beliefs. To these ends, the AAP calls for the end of religious
exemption laws and supports additional efforts to educate the public about the medical needs of
children."
"The AAP asserts that every child should have the opportunity to grow and develop free from
preventable illness or injury. Children also have the right to appropriate medical evaluation when it is
likely that a serious illness, injury, or other medical condition endangers their lives or threatens
substantial harm or suffering. Under these circumstances, parents and other guardians have a
responsibility to seek medical treatment, regardless of their religious beliefs and preferences.
Unfortunately, certain groups have obtained exemptions from legal sanctions and state child abuse and
neglect reporting laws based on the child's "treatment" by spiritual means, such as prayer. The overall
effect has been to limit the government's ability to protect children from abuse or neglect."
Allowing a parent right to choose circumcision based on social or religious reasons just contradicts these
statements saying that children deserve the best medical care based on what the patient himself needs as opposed to what the
parent wants. Now that it's been shown that none of the so-called benefits of circumcision warrant the procedure being in a
child's best interest this should be a "choice" that parents are no longer allowed to make for their children. The American medical
industry is just afraid to take a stronger stance because too many parents feel so strongly about this.
Despite how neutral doctors may be trying to act toward circumcised in the United States, the The Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons says that routine infant circumcision is "inappropriate and unnecessary" and "we are opposed to male children being subjected to a procedure, which had they been old enough to consider the advantages and disadvantages, may well have opted to reject the operation and retain their prepuce." Likewise, the British Medical Association says "to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate."
Additional resources:
Back to Yuki's Intactivism Resource
