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

Abstract

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.

Ritual Male Infant Circumcision and Human Rights

“…Some critics of circumcision use autonomy-based arguments to assert that circumcision violates fundamental human rights (LeBourdais 1995;Mason 2001) Believing that only a consenting adult should undergo elective permanent alteration of the body, they see circumcision either as foreclosing a child's future options (Darby 2013) or as an unconsented assault on bodily integrity (Svoboda 2013a). If the reasonable possibility of health benefits to minors does not warrant infant circumcision then, a fortiori, neither do intangible religious benefits.…”

“…Fourth, it may limit the child's future options (Unger-Sargon 2013). Finally, it may transgress a right to bodily integrity (Darby 2013). The first two of these arguments are based on the principle of nonmaleficence.…”

“…Some nations, cultures, and religions advocate nontherapeutic circumcision, others tolerate it, and still others oppose the practice. Critics of the practice have increasingly used human rights arguments (Darby 2013;Svoboda 2013a). These critics claim that circumcision of minors violates prerogatives of those circumcised, and that the resulting affront to their human dignity demands state protection against the procedure.…”

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

“…The ethical principle of justice is violated by the availability in Western countries of legal protections from unnecessary genital cutting for girls-but not for boys [32]. Males have a right to an open future [60] and, accordingly, justice mandates protecting their right to natural genitalia along with girls' corresponding right.…”

Female genital mutilation and male circumcision: toward an autonomy-based ethical framework

“…earp are treated less favorably -but more on considerations of informed consent, reflecting an underlying concern for the "genital autonomy" 141,144 of children. Moira Dustin has described just such an approach.…”