Zero Tolerance for Genital Mutilation: a Review of Moral Justifications

Earp, Brian D.

doi:10.1007/s11930-020-00286-0

Cited by 16 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 94 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The idea of the child's right to bodily integrity has increasingly been defended in bioethical, philosophical, and legal scholarship [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. Some authors argue in favour of the child's right to genital integrity grounded in the value of genital and sexual autonomy for all individuals [6][7][8].…”

Section: Current Inconsistencies In Law and Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Though simple, this position is at odds with most current policy in Western liberal societies [4,7,8,[10][11][12][13][14]. Children with femaletypical sex characteristics in Western (and many other) societies are legally protected from medically unnecessary genital cutting and modification, however 'minor' the cutting may be, and even if sought by parents for religious reasons.…”

Section: Current Inconsistencies In Law and Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Different treatment of child genital cutting practices depending on the sex of the child is morally problematic and could potentially be ruled unconstitutional in Western states [17]. It is indicative of cultural bias that bestows preferential treatment on the practices of Western majority and established minority groups, even when those practices are materially similar to the strictly prohibited practices of marginalised minority groups [4,7,8,[11][12][13][14]. This bias is evident in the genital cutting policies of international liberal institutions including the World Health Organisation (WHO) [18,19], and it is transparent in current UK legislation on Female Genital Cutting (FGC).…”

Section: Current Inconsistencies In Law and Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…

…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Defending an inclusive right to genital and bodily integrity for children

Townsend

2021

Int J Impot Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

At the time of writing in mid-2021, policy on child genital cutting and modification is inconsistent in the UK, US, and most European states, and there is growing consensus that this inconsistency should end [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. The question addressed here, is whether Western liberal democracies ought to discourage, if not legally prohibit, all forms of medically unnecessary child genital cutting and modification, or permit some relatively minor forms. Given the core political values of Western liberal democracies, including a commitment to human rights, this piece takes a liberal normative approach and argues that individual rights to bodilyand especially genitalintegrity should take priority over group rights if they come into conflict.

show abstract

Section: Current Inconsistencies In Law and Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Current Inconsistencies In Law and Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Current Inconsistencies In Law and Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…

…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Defending an inclusive right to genital and bodily integrity for children

Townsend

2021

Int J Impot Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The question for this paper, then, is whether a “zero tolerance” policy for NWFGC can be coherently maintained without also adopting such a policy for medically unnecessary intersex genital cutting, and without recourse to cultural or moral double standards. 32…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The need for a unified ethical stance on child genital cutting

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The American College of Nurse-Midwives, American Society for Pain Management Nursing, American Academy of Pediatrics, and other largely US-based medical organizations have argued that at least some forms of non-therapeutic child genital cutting, including routine penile circumcision, are ethically permissible even when performed on non-consenting minors. In support of this view, these organizations have at times appealed to potential health benefits that may follow from removing sexually sensitive, non-diseased tissue from the genitals of such minors. We argue that these appeals to “health benefits” as a way of justifying medically unnecessary child genital cutting practices may have unintended consequences. For example, it may create a “loophole” through which certain forms of female genital cutting—or female genital “mutilation” as it is defined by the World Health Organization—could potentially be legitimized. Moreover, by comparing current dominant Western attitudes toward female genital “mutilation” and so-called intersex genital “normalization” surgeries (i.e. surgeries on children with certain differences of sex development), we show that the concept of health invoked in each case is inconsistent and culturally biased. It is time for Western healthcare organizations—including the American College of Nurse-Midwives, American Society for Pain Management Nursing, American Academy of Pediatrics, and World Health Organization—to adopt a more consistent concept of health and a unified ethical stance when it comes to child genital cutting practices.

show abstract

Female Genital Alteration

Jacobs

2021

Assigning Responsibility for Children’s Health When Parents and Authorities Disagree: Whose Child?

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Zero Tolerance for Genital Mutilation: a Review of Moral Justifications

Cited by 16 publications

References 94 publications

Defending an inclusive right to genital and bodily integrity for children

Defending an inclusive right to genital and bodily integrity for children

The need for a unified ethical stance on child genital cutting

Female Genital Alteration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About