Targeting Patients Who Cannot Object? Re-Examining the Case for Non-Therapeutic Infant Circumcision

Abstract

Recent restatements of the case for routine circumcision of normal male infants and boys typically base their arguments on a range of medical evidence showing circumcision to have a protective effect against certain pathological conditions. It is then assumed that this evidence leads automatically to a clinical recommendation that circumcision should either be “considered” or strongly urged. Closer analysis reveals that the recommendation of infant or child circumcision has less to do with the medical benefits than with the historic origins of the procedure, the convenience to the operator and the status of the patient. It is further suggested that it is not clear that the medical benefits of infant or child circumcision outweigh the risks and harms, and that this style of advocacy fails to pay due regard to basic principles of bioethics and human rights that are accepted in other areas of medical practice.