Recommendation by a law body to ban infant male circumcision has serious worldwide implications for pediatric practice and human rights

BMC Pediatrics

Brian J Morris⁷  Aaron AR Tobian²  Laurie S Zoloth⁵  Alex D Wodak⁴  Adrian Mindel⁶  Sean E Kennedy³  John B Ziegler³  Michael J Bates¹ 

[1] PO Box 29, Springwood 4127, Qld, Australia;Department of Pathology, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA;School of Women’s & Children’s Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia;St Vincent’s Hospital and Kirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2010, Australia;Program in Bioethics and Medical Humanities, Northwestern University School of Medicine, Chicago, IL 60611-3015, USA;Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia;School of Medical Sciences and Bosch Institute, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia

关键词: Australia;    American Academy of Pediatrics;    Tasmanian Law Reform Institute;    Religion;    Public health;    Surgery;    Ethics;    Law;    Infancy;    Circumcision;   

Others  :  1144563
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2431-13-136

 received in 2013-02-28, accepted in 2013-09-06,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Recent attempts in the USA and Europe to ban the circumcision of male children have been unsuccessful. Of current concern is a report by the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute (TLRI) recommending that non-therapeutic circumcision be prohibited, with parents and doctors risking criminal sanctions except where the parents have strong religious and ethnic ties to circumcision. The acceptance of this recommendation would create a precedent for legislation elsewhere in the world, thereby posing a threat to pediatric practice, parental responsibilities and freedoms, and public health.

Discussion

The TLRI report ignores the scientific consensus within medical literature about circumcision. It contains legal and ethical arguments that are seriously flawed. Dispassionate ethical arguments and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child are consistent with parents being permitted to authorize circumcision for their male child. Uncritical acceptance of the TLRI report’s recommendations would strengthen and legitimize efforts to ban childhood male circumcision not just in Australia, but in other countries as well. The medical profession should be concerned about any attempt to criminalize a well-accepted and evidence-based medical procedure. The recommendations are illogical, pose potential dangers and seem unworkable in practice. There is no explanation of how the State could impose criminal charges against doctors and parents, nor of how such a punitive apparatus could be structured, nor how strength of ethnic or religious ties could be determined. The proposal could easily be used inappropriately, and discriminates against parents not tied to the religions specified. With time, religious exemptions could subsequently be overturned. The law, governments and the medical profession should reject the TLRI recommendations, especially since the recent affirmative infant male circumcision policy statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics attests to the significant individual and public health benefits and low risk of infant male circumcision.

Summary

Doctors should be allowed to perform medical procedures based on sound evidence of effectiveness and safety with guaranteed protection. Parents should be free to act in the best interests of the health of their infant son by having him circumcised should they choose.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Bates et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Cox G, Morris BJ: Why circumcision: From pre-history to the twenty-first century. In Surgical Guide to Circumcision. Edited by Bolnick DA, Koyle MA, Yosha A. London: Springer; 2012:243-259.
• [2]Morris BJ, Wodak AD, Mindel A, Schrieber L, Duggan KA, Dilly A, Willcourt RJ, Cooper DA: The Royal Australasian College of Physicians policy statement ‘Circumcision of infant males’ is not evidence based. Intern Med J 2012, 42:822-828.
• [3]Darby R: Infant circumcision in Australia: a preliminary estimate, 2000–10. Aust N Z J Public Health 2011, 35:391-392.
• [4]American Academy of Pediatrics: Circumcision policy statement. Task Force on Circumcision. Pediatrics 2012, 130:e756-e785.
• [5]Tasmanian Law Reform Institute: Non-therapeutic male circumcision. 2012. Final report no 17, 2012 (109 pp) http://www.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/302829/Non-Therapuetic-Circ_Final-Report-August-2012.pdf webcite (accessed Feb 13, 2013)
• [6]Morris BJ, Wodak AD, Mindel A, Schrieber L, Duggan KA, Dilly A, Willcourt RJ, Cooper DA, Lumbers ER, Russell CT, Leeder SR: Infant male circumcision: An evidence-based policy statement. Open J Prevent Med 2012, 2:79-82.
• [7]British Medical Association: The law and ethics of male circumcision. Guidance for doctors. 2006. http://jme.bmj.com/content/30/3/259.full webcite, BMA
• [8]Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG): Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors. 2010. Utrecht: Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) http://knmg.artsennet.nl/Publicaties/KNMGpublicatie/Nontherapeutic-circumcision-of-male-minors-2010.htm webcite
• [9]Royal Australasian College of Physicians, Paediatrics & Child Health Division: Circumcision of infant males. 2010. http://www.racp.edu.au/index.cfm?objectid=65118B16-F145-8B74-236C86100E4E3E8E webcite (last accessed 8 May 2013)
• [10]Smith DK, Taylor A, Kilmarx PH, Sullivan P, Warner L, Kamb M, Bock N, Kohmescher B, Mastro TD: Male circumcision in the United States for the prevention of HIV infection and other adverse health outcomes: Report from a CDC consultation. Public Health Rep 2010, 125(Suppl 1):72-82.
• [11]Kirkey S: Canada’s pediatricians set to reveal new policy on circumcision. 2013. http://o.canada.com/2013/03/03/canadas-pediatricians-set-to-reveal-new-policy-on-circumcision/ webcite (accessed Aug 5, 2013)
• [12]California Assembly Bill 768: Male circumcision. http://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB768/id/348729 webcite, 2011
• [13]District Court, Cologne: Landgericht Koln. 2012, 1-5. Urteil 151 Ns 169/11 https://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/ilm/CircumcisionJudgmentLGCologne7May20121.pdf webcite (accessed Feb 13, 2013)
• [14]DW news-service: Circumcision remains legal in Germany. 2012. http://www.dw.de/circumcision-remains-legal-in-germany/a-16399336 webcite (accessed Feb 7, 2013)
• [15]Donovan B, Basset I, Bodsworth NJ: Male circumcision and common sexually transmissible diseases in a developed nation setting. Genitourin Med 1994, 70:317-320.
• [16]Xu B, Goldman H: Newborn circumcision in Victoria, Australia: reasons and parental attitudes. ANZ J Surg 2008, 78:1019-1022.
• [17]Department of Health and Community Services v JWB and SMB (Marion’s Case) [1992] HCA 15; 175 CLR 218 96, May 1992. High Court of Australia 1992. http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/high_ct/175clr218.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=title webcite. (Accessed 3 Sep, 2012. 1992)
• [18]Bates B, Morris BJ: Legal arguments opposing infant male circumcision are flawed. Intern Med J 2012, 42:1281-1282.
• [19]Johnson MT: Religious circumcision, invasive rites, neutrality and equality: bearing the burdens and consequences of belief. J Med Ethics 2013, 39:450-455.
• [20]Savulescu J: Male circumcision and the enhancement debate: harm reduction, not prohibition. J Med Ethics 2013, 39:416-417.
• [21]Davis DS: Ancient rites and new laws: how should we regulate religious circumcision of minors? J Med Ethics 2013, 39:456-458.
• [22]Ben-Yami H: Circumcision: What should be done? J Med Ethics 2013, 39:459-462.
• [23]Robinson JD, Ortega G, Carrol JA, Townsend A, Carnegie DA, Rice D, Bennett N Jr: Circumcision in the United States: where are we? J Natl Med Assoc 2012, 104:455-458.
• [24]Morris BJ, Wiswell TE: Circumcision and lifetime risk of urinary tract infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol 2013, 189:2118-2124.
• [25]Morris BJ, Waskett JH, Banerjee J, Wamai RG, Tobian AAR, Gray RH, Bailis SA, Bailey RC, Klausner JD, Willcourt RJ, Halperin DT, Wiswell TE, Mindel A: A ‘snip’ in time: what is the best age to circumcise? BMC Pediatr 2012, 12(article20):1-15.
• [26]Morris BJ, Mindel A, Tobian AAR, Hankins CA, Gray RH, Bailey RC, Bosch X, Wodak AD: Should male circumcision be advocated for genital cancer prevention? Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2012, 13:4839-4842.
• [27]Morris BJ, Gray RH, Castellsague X, Bosch FX, Halperin DT, Waskett JH, Hankins CA: The strong protection afforded by circumcision against cancer of the penis. Adv Urol 2011, (Article ID 812368):1-21. doi:10.1155/2011/812368.
• [28]Morris BJ, Castellsague X: The role of circumcision in the preventing STIs. In Sexually Transmitted Infections and Sexually Transmitted Diseases. Edited by Gross GE, Tyring SK. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer; 2011:715-739.
• [29]Tobian AA, Gray RH: The medical benefits of male circumcision. JAMA 2011, 306:1479-1480.
• [30]Viens AM: Value judgement, harm, and religious liberty. J Med Ethics 2004, 30:241-247.
• [31]Etchells E, Sharpe G, Walsh P: Consent for circumcision. Can Med Assoc J 1997, 156:18.
• [32]American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Bioethics: Informed consent, parental permission, and assent in pediatric practice. Pediatrics 1995, 95(part 1):314-317.
• [33]Diekema DS: Parental refusals of medical treatment: the harm principle as threshold for state intervention. Theor Med Bioeth 2004, 25:243-264.
• [34]United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989. 44/25 20 November 1989. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm webcite
• [35]Morton R: University stands by anti-vaccine student. The Australian. 2012. Sep 26 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/university-stands-by-anti-vaccine-student/story-e6frgcjx-1226481373743 webcite
• [36]Jacobson M: Jacobson v. Com. of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905). 1905. FindLaw: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=197&invol=11 webcite (accessed Aug 5, 2013)
• [37]Dekkers W, Hoffer C, Wils JP: Bodily integrity and male and female circumcision. Med Health Care Philos 2005, 8:179-191.
• [38]Darby RJL: The child’s right to an open future: is the principle applicable to non-therapeutic circumcision? J Med Ethics 2013, 39:463-468.
• [39]Morris BJ, Krieger JN: Does male circumcision affect sexual function, sensitivity or satisfaction? – A systematic review. J Sex Med 2013. doi:10.1111/jsm.12293. Epub ahead of print Aug 12
• [40]Benatar D: Evaluations of circumcision should be circumscribed by the evidence. J Med Ethics 2013, 39:431-432.
• [41]Mazor J: The child’s interests and the case for the permissibility of male infant circumcision. J Med Ethics 2013, 39:421-438.
• [42]Fleischman AR, Nolan K, Dubler NN, Epstein MF, Gerben MA, Jellinek MS, Litt IF, Miles MS, Oppenheimer S, Shaw A: Caring for gravely ill children. Pediatrics 1994, 94(Part 1):433-439.
• [43]Stemple L: Health and human rights in today’s fight against HIV/AIDS. AIDS 2008, 22(Suppl 2):S113-S121.
• [44]Alanis MC, Lucidi RS: Neonatal circumcision: a review of the world’s oldest and most controversial operation. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2004, 59:379-395.
• [45]Jacobs AJ: The ethics of circumcision of male infants. Isr Med Assoc J 2013, 15:60-65.
• [46]Benatar D, Benatar M: How not to argue about circumcision. Am J Bioethics 2003, 3:W1-W9.
• [47]Clark PA, Eisenman J, Szapor S: Mandatory neonatal male circumcision in Sub-Saharan Africa: Medical and ethical analysis. Med Sci Monit 2007, 12:RA205-RA213.
• [48]Brusa M, Barilan YM: Cultural circumcision in EU public hospitals–an ethical discussion. Bioethics 2009, 23:470-482.
• [49]Cox GC, Re : Non therapeutic treatment on the NHS. 2008. ADC Online 6 Nov 2008 responding to Wheeler R, Arch Dis Child 2008; 93: 825–826 Arch Dis Child 2008: http://adc.bmj.com/content/93/10/825.extract/reply-archdischild_el_8203 webcite (Last accessed Feb 19, 2013)
• [50]Kraszewski J, Burke T, Rosenbaum S: Legal issues in newborn screening: implications for public health practice and policy. Public Health Rep 2006, 121:92-94.
• [51]Kacker S, Frick KD, Gaydos CA, Tobian AA: Costs and effectiveness of neonatal male circumcision. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2012, 166:910-918.
• [52]Leibowitz AA, Desmond K, Belin T: Determinants and policy implications of male circumcision in the United States. Am J Public Health 2009, 99:138-145.
• [53]Morris BJ, Bailis SA, Waskett JH, Wiswell TE, Halperin DT: Medicaid coverage of newborn circumcision: a health parity right of the poor. Am J Public Health 2009, 99:969-971.
• [54]Andrews AL, Lazenby GB, Unal ER, Simpson KN: The cost of medicaid savings: the potential detrimental public health impact of neonatal circumcision defunding. Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol 2012, 1-7. Article 540295
• [55]Ortenberg J, Roth CC: Projected financial impact of noncoverage of elective circumcision by Louisiana Medicaid in boys 0–5 years old. J Urol 2013, 190:1540-1544.
• [56]Cooper DA, Wodak AD, Morris BJ: The case for boosting infant male circumcision in the face of rising heterosexual transmission of HIV. Med J Aust 2010, 193:318-319.