Circumcision, one of the most emotionally surgical procedures that has been long practiced on infant child to adult male all over the world and has become yet another focus and debate to where it raises ethical consideration. In an article in the Reuters, Dutch doctors urges the human right groups and politicians to raise their voices and discourage the practice of infant male circumcision claiming that it is a 'painful and harmful ritual' and violates children's rights. According to the Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG), between 10,000 - 15,000 boys are circumcised in the Netherlands each year, mostly for religious reason and not always with anesthetic. They state that male circumcision involves the removal of all or part of the foreskin of the penis. It is a ritual obligation for infant Jewish boys, and is also a common rite among Muslims, who account for the largest share of circumcised men worldwide. Further in the story, the doctors also insisted that 'circumcision is an unnecessary procedure which violates the integrity of the child.’
The main issue that is raised in this article is whether infant circumcision is wrong or not. Should they even be circumcised at that early age? It raises the questions of age and consent as the infants are too young to give consent to the procedure. Thus bringing to the next question of who should decide whether the infant boy should be circumcised or not. The main area of knowledge that is involved in this real-life issue is ethics as it is concern the age issue of a child infant. While the ways of knowing that is present in this article is reason/logic. The Dutch doctors have used the reason that circumcision should be discourage on infants is merely because of the acknowledgement of the pain. While the babies can’t give consent to the procedure, they certainly can feel the pain of it. The surgical procedure is also embedded deeply with religious practices and habits. Is circumcision solely means of religious tradition or is it children’s right violation? It is considered a violation of human rights when consent is not given to the person even if it has been a religious tradition. However, as mention, an infant defined as a baby has not been able to even develop the thought of thinking let alone giving consent. Are the parents in this case responsible? Does the religious practice cancels out the ethical issue raised? No. I think, that it is immoral and wrong for an infant to be circumcised, 1st because they can’t give consent and 2nd more importantly is acknowledging the pain. The pain of circumcision is can only be felt firsthand by the infant himself. Therefore in this case, the parents should not be given the rights to decided circumcision on their newborn infant.
In related real-life issue, stem-cell research is an example of another issue that involves the AoKs of ethics. Stem cell research can involve the use of the human embryo to spinal stem cells. For example they are used in animal research to revive hearts, create new organs and as well as curing defect/disability such as paralyzed lower body or such. The use of the embryonic-cells involves the creation and destruction of it. A human embryo is considered to be a living aspect of life which thus brings the issue of ethic in hand. Is stem cell research merely for health benefits or is it destruction of a living thing. This issue is related to the circumcision issue because it involves the question whether the procedure is right or wrong?
Citations:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/23/us-dutch-circumcision-health-idUSTRE78M3R620110923
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_controversy
It’s interesting that the doctors are the ones protesting the circumcision of the babies. I would have thought they would have enjoyed the profit. But then again, it’s probably one of the least enjoyable jobs a person could do. Indeed this raises the big question of when are children old enough to make their own decisions, especially regarding medical issues. How much say should children have in these matters? Since they are not of legal age, is it ethical to consider them incapable of making the necessary judgments that determine whether or not it’s necessary to undergo a procedure? In this case it is further complicated by the fact that the subjects are infants. Since the babies are newborn and literally have no previous experience of life outside the womb, personally I would think it’s a bit silly to say circumcision is violating their rights. A doctor doesn’t need permission from the baby to give the baby surgery if there is an issue. The consent comes from the legal guardians of the baby. However I understand your argument. For instance in the novel My Sister’s Keeper, a child had undergone surgical procedures in order to keep her sister who had cancer alive. She was forced to donate bone marrow and blood and because she was so young she wasn’t given the choice. However as she got older, her resentment towards these procedures increased and she ended up suing her own parents for violating her rights.
ReplyDeleteI think another area that should be considered is whether the parents have the rights to decide whether their children should have circumcision or not. While parents do have the rights to oversee what their children should be doing, circumcision is a very personal matter than should be considered more wisely. Of course with religious rituals the parents have less rights to decide and it is likely that the father of the baby could have possibly had the same surgical procedure done to him when he was a baby. However I still think the parents should not decide this risky surgical procedure for their children. Ethical issue, as you've stated in the blog post, is extremely important. Is it okay to inflict pain on someone for religious matters? How is this any different from stabbing a person on the stomach without killing them? I definitely do not think the parents should have a say in their children's matters. They really cannot feel the pain his/her children is feeling.
ReplyDeleteA significant analogy would be the exposure of children to different types of toys in their youth. When a child is undergoing their developmental stages, should the parents expose the child to stereotypically viewed toys that are categorized based on masculinity and femininity? If the child were male could he be exposed to barbie dolls and PowerPuff Girls, and on the other hand could the female child be given action figures and be introduced to Cowboys and Aliens (the other term would be a racist term in the old toy title). Of course, this may place a lot of responsibility on the parent, although allowing the child the opportunity to decide out of personal preference and curiosity should place no burden on the guardian at all, that is, unless the parent has an expectation (goal) which they hope to see their child discover. To present the correlation with the blog post, parents may very well claim that they are protecting the children whether, in the case of circumcisions, it is to protect them religiously or in a society with a majority of males being circumsized. However, similar to deaf communities and the possibilities of cochlear implants, in this case, the protection offered by the parents would only be a very subtle message which they are using to “protect” the child. It is completely possible for the child to undergo the exact same surgery when they are older, and there are completely no health risks as it is a relatively straightforward process. The child can therefore make their own personal decision at a more mature age. The surgery of circumcision, not being part of the child’s development but merely an aesthetic towards religion and orthodox ideals, should not have any claim of the parent in making forcing the child to undergo the surgery. The claim that they can help them avoid pain in the future would become an irrational fear for their child as the permanent removal of something which not everyone has removed may prove to have an impact of the child’s psychology as they come to learn human anatomy in their development.
ReplyDeleteUltimately, the debate here is whether or not parents get to decide things for their child when they are of premature age. I think that, since the children are not of legal age to decide things for themselves, the parents have the right, under the right state of mind, to make decisions for their child. Research shows that routine circumcision is usually performed during the first 10 days (or preferably, within the first 48 hours) because circumcision after the newborn period can be a more complicated procedure and usually requires general anesthesia. One might not only risk death but also interference in brain development, and perhaps long term memory issues or learning disabilities. But besides that, research shows that infants that undergo circumcision are less likely to develop urinary tract infections, penile cancer, possibly an additional line of defense against sexually transmitted diseases and penile problems such as irritation, inflammation and infection! Knowing the benefits of circumcision, I believe that parents should be allowed to make the decision for their baby boys and undergo this procedure. Besides the inhumanness of the procedure, so far, there haven’t been any disputes over the disadvantages and harms this procedure can induce.
ReplyDeleteThe practice of circumcision has been around for centuries. It is interesting how what once was thought of as tradition may be a violation of human rights today. I think that this subject raises issues with religion and culture. To what extent should religion and culture play a role in society? In regards to male circumcision, I think that the parents of a child should be the ones to decide whether or not to undergo this procedure. Although it causes infants pain, the health risks are minimal and there are potential benefits for the male in the future. However, female circumcision, although a religious practice, seems to cause more harm than good. There are arguments that say that this practice is a form of oppression for women, however, more importantly, can be life threatening. In some countries this practice is illegal because of the health risks caused by it: infection, death due to haemorrhaging, septicaemia and shock.
ReplyDeleteThus, I think that these religious practices should be considered only when individuals undergoing them are not risking their health or lives.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/physical_health/conditions/female_genital_mutilation.shtml
I think Azri makes a really valid argument and this raises the question of ethics. Not only does circumcision hurt but it goes against the birthrights of the babes. It violates the rights of the babies as this happens on their bodies. It may also infringe the law of nature as you alter part of a natural and normal human organ. Still, this procedure is also crucial to the health of the babies and their adult life as it offers certain medical benefits and reduces some risks. It also raises the question when a child can decide on his or her own, and how much rights the parents have on their children. I think Charlie also makes a good point that since the infants have no prior life experiences, it's probably better to have their parents to decide what's best for their children. This whole issue also relates to the example that how much a school can regulate on the dressing code of their students. Some schools ban students to wear tank tops and have piercings, but isn't that part of the students' own individual rights?
ReplyDeleteThis is interesting, take in consideration if circumcisions were put in the same category as body modifications. If people were to treat it like this, then circumcision may have a serious problem, as the parents are forcing the child to remove skin from their penis at birth. However many people do not categorize circumcision in the same category as a tattoo for example. Both are arguably permanent, one inks the skin and the other removes skin from the tip of the male's reproductive organ. The reason for this may be that a circumcised penis is not always seen by everyone you meet, and thus does not effect the perception or feelings of the individual as much, as if he chose to get a tongue piercing. However regarding whether it is right to get a circumcision it is definitely an easier procedure when done young, as there are less complications. However if one were to argue that it should only be done if the individual wants it, then as a baby you obviously can't make a decision. Meaning that all circumcisions would be done when older. Judging from my own opinion, I don't think any male would suddenly want to remove foreskin when they are 14, unless they are forced to due to a medical condition. This poses another issue, should parents be the one to decide if a child have a circumcision. In my opinion, this could be a never ending topic, there are so many aspects to view this problem from that even I don't know what to say about this issue. Very intriguing topic tho!
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I feel that another 2 area that should be considered should be if the parents have the right to decide for their children since they are not of age yet and the issue with religion. Although the children or not of legal age yet and the parents have the right to make decisions for their child. Although I agree with Charlie’s point that a doctor doesn’t need permission from the baby to give the baby surgery if there is an issue, circumcision is not done because there is an issue with the infant but instead it is because of the religion that the parents follow. Also, the parents do not know the pain that the child has to go through when the child is circumcised. So, the parents should not be given the right to making the decision if the child should be circumcised or not. This also leads on to another issue which is religion. The practice of circumcision has been around for centuries and it has been a tradition for Jewish and Muslims to be circumcised. This is very similar to the case where young girls in India are being forced into prostitution because of tradition. Should some traditions that are considered unethical to be abolished or should we allow these long standing traditions to continue on? Personally, I feel that parents should not be given the right to have their children circumcised as the parents do not know how the child is feeling at that time and should not be able to make a decision that would cause so much pain to the child.
ReplyDelete