Religious Upbringing, Religious Diversity and the Child’s Right to an Open Future&gt;

Morgan, Jeffrey

doi:10.1007/s11217-005-0257-0

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some commentators on the open future principle have questioned whether parents have the right to indoctrinate children into particular religious or political beliefs2 3 6, but there is no need to take the argument as far as that in order to recognise that there is a profound difference between mental conditioning and physically marking the body. While an individual may never completely throw off the influences of his socialisation and upbringing, many children challenge and reject the values of their parents and set themselves on different courses in adulthood.…”

Section: The Open Future Principle and Circumcisionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The child's right to an open future: is the principle applicable to non-therapeutic circumcision?

Darby¹

2013

J Med Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The principle of the child's right to an open future was first proposed by the legal philosopher Joel Feinberg and developed further by bioethicist Dena Davis. The principle holds that children possess a unique class of rights called rights in trust-rights that they cannot yet exercise, but which they will be able to exercise when they reach maturity. Parents should not, therefore, take actions that permanently foreclose on or pre-empt the future options of their children, but leave them the greatest possible scope for exercising personal life choices in adulthood. Davis particularly applies the principle to genetic counselling, arguing that parents should not take deliberate steps to create physically abnormal children, and to religion, arguing that while parents are entitled to bring their children up in accordance with their own values, they are not entitled to inflict physical or mental harm, neither by omission nor commission. In this paper, I aim to elucidate the open future principle, and consider whether it is applicable to non-therapeutic circumcision of boys, whether performed for cultural/religious or for prophylactic/health reasons. I argue that the principle is highly applicable to non-therapeutic circumcision, and conclude that non-therapeutic circumcision would be a violation of the child's right to an open future, and thus objectionable from both an ethical and a human rights perspective.

show abstract

Section: The Open Future Principle and Circumcisionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The child's right to an open future: is the principle applicable to non-therapeutic circumcision?

Darby¹

2013

J Med Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These rights function as a constraint to ensure certain options are left open for the child as an autonomous adult. The open future principle has been applied to ideological aspects of child-rearing, particularly those related to education and religion (Mills, 2003 ; Millum, 2014 ; Morgan, 2005 ). It has also gained traction in debates about certain bioethical issues, including genetic reproductive technologies (Davis, 1997 ; Garrett et al, 2019 ), surgery in infants with disorders of sex development (Harris & Chan, 2019 ; Kon, 2015 ), fertility preservation in children facing gonadotoxic cancer treatment (Cutas & Hens, 2015 ), and infant circumcision (Darby, 2013 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Puberty Suppression for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria and the Child’s Right to an Open Future

Jorgensen,

Athéa,

Masson

2024

Arch Sex Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this essay, we consider the clinical and ethical implications of puberty blockers for pediatric gender dysphoria through the lens of “the child’s right to an open future,” which refers to rights that children do not have the capacity to exercise as minors, but that must be protected, so they can exercise them in the future as autonomous adults. We contrast the open future principle with the beliefs underpinning the gender affirming care model and discuss implications for consent. We evaluate claims that puberty blockers are reversible, discuss the scientific uncertainty about long-term benefits and harms, summarize international developments, and examine how suicide has been used to frame puberty suppression as a medically necessary, lifesaving treatment. In discussing these issues, we include relevant empirical evidence and raise questions for clinicians and researchers. We conclude that treatment pathways that delay decisions about medical transition until the child has had the chance to grow and mature into an autonomous adulthood would be most consistent with the open future principle.

show abstract

Can Culture Justify Infant Circumcision?

Sarajlic

2014

Res Publica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper addresses arguments in the recent philosophical and bioethical literature claiming that social and cultural benefits can justify non-therapeutic male infant circumcision. It rejects these claims by referring to the open future argument, according to which infant circumcision is morally unjustifiable because it violates the child's right to an open future. The paper also addresses an important objection to the open future argument and examines the strength of the objection to refute the application of the argument to the circumcision case.

show abstract

Religious Upbringing, Religious Diversity and the Child’s Right to an Open Future>

Cited by 5 publications

References 15 publications

The child's right to an open future: is the principle applicable to non-therapeutic circumcision?

The child's right to an open future: is the principle applicable to non-therapeutic circumcision?

Puberty Suppression for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria and the Child’s Right to an Open Future

Can Culture Justify Infant Circumcision?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About