Andrew Sullivan has for quite a while had a quiet campaign against what he calls male genital mutilation and most of us call circumcision. Now Massachusetts is considering a bill to ban the practice (considering does not indicate any great likelihood of passing). Sullivan argues that there should be a religious exception, but otherwise it he is on board.
While like most surgical procedures, there are occasional errors in performing circumcisions, but there is a strong body of evidence that circumcision reduces the risk for the spread of STDs and can have other related benefits. This makes it a legitimate medical procedure for a parent to choose for their son, and clearly separates it from female genital mutilation which is merely cultural. It is hard to see why the right to privacy in medical decisions that covers abortion would not extend to circumcisions, though they are of an elective nature that it would be perfectly reasonable to defer them to supplemental rather than basic coverage.
November 10, 2009 at 11:19 am |
It never was and never has been a legitimate medical procedure. Infant circumcision is practiced by two groups. Americans and Jews. Muslims circumcise boys around age 8. No other countries do it. You can run from these facts but you can’t hide from them. The USA has both the highest circumcision rate of any developed country and the highest rates sexually transmitted disease. Circumcision is and always has been bullshit.
November 10, 2009 at 5:53 pm |
Correlation is not causation. Just because the US has high rates of both circumcision and STDs does not mean circumcision does not lessen the risk of getting an STD. The US is undoubtedly high in other factors leading to the spread of STDs.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/health/27std.html
This is news coverage of what a real scientific study looks like and it finds strong evidence supporting circumcision. This does not mean everyone should, there are other factors to weigh, just that there is a medical reason to do so.
November 11, 2009 at 8:15 pm |
The potential health benefits of circumcision do not justify parental proxy consent. The only proper criterion for surgery on children is need, which is not present in most male infants. The only objective outcome from non-therapeutic male circumcision is the harm from surgery (i.e. scarring, loss of healthy tissue and nerves, risk of complications, etc.).
The comparison to female genital mutilation is valid. Although there are forms of FGM that are unquestionably no more damaging than male circumcision, they are clearly not the common forms. Still, the ethical issue pertaining to proxy consent is simple and applies to all cutting on children of either gender: Non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual is wrong. Potential benefits do not outweigh that. Children have rights, regardless of gender.
The anti-FGM act in the U.S. makes this very clear, criminalizing all non-therapeutic genital cutting on female minors, regardless of parental preference or justification. There is no valid Constitutional distinction based on gender. Boys must be protected the way girls are currently protected, or girls must be unprotected the way boys are currently unprotected. Obviously only the former is a legitimate approach.