Cutting through red tape: non-therapeutic circumcision and unethical guidelines

Abstract

Current General Medical Council guidelines state that any doctor who does not wish to carry out a non-therapeutic circumcision (NTC) on a boy must invoke conscientious objection. This paper argues that this is illogical, as it is clear that an ethical doctor will object to conducting a clinically unnecessary operation on a child who cannot consent simply because of the parents' religious beliefs. Comparison of the GMC guidelines with the more sensible British Medical Association guidance reveals that both are biased in favour of NTC and subvert standard consent procedures. It is further argued that any doctor who does participate in non-therapeutic circumcision of a minor may be guilty of negligence and in breach of the Human Rights Act. In fact, the GMC guidance implies that doctors must claim conscientious objection if they do not wish to be negligent. Both sets of guidelines should be changed to ensure an objective consent process and avoid confusion over the ethics of NTC. Cutting through red tape: non-therapeutic circumcision and unethical guidelines

Conscientious objection to deceased organ donation by healthcare professionals

“…Generally, CO involves healthcare professionals excusing themselves from activities which they regard as harmful: abortion destroys a foetus and euthanasia kills a patient, even if at his or her request. 1 Less dramatically, some jurisdictions require healthcare professionals who do not wish to perform non-therapeutic circumcision of male infants to invoke CO. 2 A recent consensus statement on the topic of healthcare professional CO argued against the status quo in many countries where healthcare professionals can object, on grounds of conscience, to granting access to 'legally available, societally accepted, medically indicated and safe services requested by patients in practice for any reason'. 3 CO to participation in organ donation might seem stranger still; if a patient wants to save lives by donating organs, what objections could healthcare professionals have?…”

“…Generally, CO involves healthcare professionals excusing themselves from activities which they regard as harmful: abortion destroys a foetus and euthanasia kills a patient, even if at his or her request. 1 Less dramatically, some jurisdictions require healthcare professionals who do not wish to perform non-therapeutic circumcision of male infants to invoke CO. 2…”