Infant circumcision: the last stand for the dead dogma of parental (sovereignal) rights

Abstract

J S Mill used the term 'dead dogma' to describe a belief that has gone unquestioned for so long and to such a degree that people have little idea why they accept it or why they continue to believe it. When wives and children were considered chattel, it made sense for the head of a household to have a 'sovereignal right' to do as he wished with his property. Now that women and children are considered to have the full complement of human rights and slavery has been abolished, it is no longer acceptable for someone to have a 'right' to completely control the life of another human being. Revealingly, parental rights tend to be invoked only when parents want to do something that is arguably not in their child's best interest. Infant male circumcision is a case in point. Instead of parental rights, I claim that parents have an obligation to protect their children's rights as well as to preserve the future options of those children so far as possible. In this essay, it is argued that the notion that parents have a right to make decisions concerning their children's bodies and minds-irrespective of the child's best interests-is a dead dogma. The ramifications of this argument for the circumcision debate are then spelled out and discussed.

Circumcision Rates in the United States: Rising or Falling? What Effect Might the New Affirmative Pediatric Policy Statement Have?

“…States Parties shall strive to ensure that no child is deprived of his or her right of access to such health care services." 63 Although some argue that a child has a right to "bodily integrity" and, thus, that circumcision of boys should be banned, discouraged, or at least delayed until he can decide for himself, [65][66][67] others disagree 64,[68][69][70][71] based on several reasons, some of which are discussed later herein. One author argues that being circumcised boosts autonomy more than constraining it.…”

Critical evaluation of arguments opposing male circumcision: A systematic review

“…An argument that infant MC should be banned, discouraged, or at least delayed until the boy is old enough to decide for himself was refuted by authorities in ethics, who have presented sound reasons why such reasoning is flawed …”

“…[14][15][16][17] Arguments opposing nontherapeutic MC, especially in minors, appear to start with the premise that MC has no benefits, only harms, or that any benefits only apply later in life when the male can make his own decision to get circumcised. [18][19][20][21] In this "posttruth" era, vocal minority groups consider that their opinions count more than those of medical and scientific experts. 22 These attitudes fit with a pattern of radical individualism, devaluation of scientific evidence, and promotion of autonomy, in which life-saving childhood vaccines, for example, may be refused by parents, as is their legal right, which must be respected, except when parents are not in agreement.…”

“…317 Because these barriers deter many men from getting circumcised a much higher uptake of MC can be achieved for EIMC. 318 An argument that infant MC should be banned, discouraged, or at least delayed until the boy is old enough to decide for himself [18][19][20]319,320 was refuted by authorities in ethics, who have presented sound reasons why such reasoning is flawed. [321][322][323][324][325][326][327] .…”

“…Contradicting the AAP and CDC policy recommendations, opponents have lobbied to have MC of minors banned in the United States and Scandinavian countries, although to date such efforts have not been successful . Arguments opposing nontherapeutic MC, especially in minors, appear to start with the premise that MC has no benefits, only harms, or that any benefits only apply later in life when the male can make his own decision to get circumcised . In this “posttruth” era, vocal minority groups consider that their opinions count more than those of medical and scientific experts .…”