2015/02/01 by Allan J. Jacobs, Kavita Shah Arora · 51 citations
Medicine · Psychology · #Genital Health and Disease #Ethics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare #Urological Disorders and Treatments #Human rights #Meaning (existential) #Test (biology) #Male circumcision #Law #Psychology #Political science #Sociology #Population #Biology #Psychotherapist #Demography
paper · doi:10.1080/15265161.2014.990162
published in The American Journal of Bioethics 15(2), 30-39 (Taylor & Francis)
openalex publication_date 2015/02/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/22
Opponents of male circumcision have increasingly used human rights positions to articulate their viewpoint. We characterize the meaning of the term "human rights." We discuss these human rights arguments with special attention to the claims of rights to an open future and to bodily integrity. We offer a three-part test under which a parental decision might be considered an unacceptable violation of a child's right. The test considers the impact of the practice on society, the impact of the practice on the individual, and the likelihood of adverse impact. Infant circumcision is permissible under this test. We conclude that infant circumcision may be proscribed as violating local norms, even though it does not violate human rights.