Our system is currently under heavy load due to increased usage. We're actively working on upgrades to improve performance. Thank you for your patience.
2017
DOI: 10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.8.msoc2-1708
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

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

Abstract: 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.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 44 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Much recent conversation has occurred in media and literature regarding the purported benefits, risks, and ethics of nontherapeutic circumcision (NTC) of male neonates in the US (Svoboda, 2017).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Much recent conversation has occurred in media and literature regarding the purported benefits, risks, and ethics of nontherapeutic circumcision (NTC) of male neonates in the US (Svoboda, 2017).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Opponents of the practice argue that RIC is ethically contentious, and results in a permanent nontherapeutic alteration to the body of a minor who is too young to understand or consent (Svoboda, 2017). The most recent available publication regarding circumcision complications found rates highly variable and ranges from 0% to 14% in global reports (UNAIDS, 2010).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A categorical position is adopted by Andrew L. Freedman, a former member of the American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision, as he conceded that circumcision is fundamentally a religious or cultural practice in search of a ‘medical’ justification. 4 At opposing end of the debate stands the Center of Disease Control (CDC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), both concluding that the benefits of neonatal circumcision greatly outweigh the risks, suggesting at the same time, that the procedure be made available to informed parents asking for it for their sons. 95 Situating itself somewhere equidistantly between these two poles, the Canadian Pediatric Society considers that the medical risk: Benefit ratio of routine newborn male circumcision is closely balanced and that it is challenging to make definitive recommendations for the entire male newborn population in Canada.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…3 In recent years, the rate of neonatal circumcision has been dropping in the United States, but it still varies among certain populations. 2 Despite the prevalence of this procedure, there are a number of ethical and moral debates surrounding the practice of male circumcision, 4 especially regarding whether a neonate can give consent for his own circumcision. In June 2012, an appellate court in Germany ruled that nontherapeutic circumcision of boys is irreversible bodily harm that violates the child's right to autonomy and self‐determination and that the procedure should be delayed until an age where the boy can consent for himself.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this supposedly enlightened twenty-first century, destructive genital cutting of non-consenting minors, carried out as a rite of passage, is patently unethical and the time has come to recognize once and for all that children's bodily integrity is a fundamental human right that must be respected. The societal pressure exerted on young healthy boys in the Philippines to endure destructive non-therapeutic genital cutting is clearly a flagrant abuse of power and violation of children's human rights [34,35].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%