Routine circumcision of infant boys: It's time to make progress through the common ground
Melanie Jansen
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jpc.13224
2016-05-01
Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health
Abstract:It seems that the routine circumcision of infant boys is joining the ranks of the intractable. In a recent review of 50 years of paediatric ethics in Australia, Gillam notes that the ethical debate on infant male circumcision ‘...has seemingly gone round in circles rather than moving forward...’. One only need Google ‘circumcision’ to see that it is now keeping company with issues like abortion and euthanasia by virtue of its thorniness and ability to polarise. At one end are the ‘Intactivists’, who maintain that the benefits of circumcision do not outweigh the risks and that a child’s right to bodily integrity should be respected regardless of the beliefs of their parents. At the other end are those who believe circumcision is akin to a surgical ‘vaccine’ and that parents should be compelled to have their infant sons circumcised. While it is true that the spectrum of opinion on both the scientific and moral questions related to circumcision is broad, it is also true that there is significant common ground held, particularly in the recommendations of major paediatric medical bodies in the westernworld. For example, the AmericanAcademy of Paediatrics states that themedical benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks, a notably different assessment to that of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) and similar bodies in the United Kingdom, Europe and Canada. However, despite their differing interpretations of the evidence, none of the aforementioned bodies believe the evidence for benefit is strong enough to insist on routine circumcision, nor do any think the evidence for harm is compelling enough to impose a complete ban. The situation is similar with the ethical concerns. Some key arguments for circumcision falling within the zone of parental discretion are that there may be significant socio-cultural benefits to being circumcised and that parents are best placed to assess these. Additionally, some argue that the harms associated with circumcision are not great enough to warrant over-riding parental autonomy, with parallel examples such as the permissibility of ear piercing often being given. The main argument for circumcision not being within the zone of parental discretion is that children have rights to bodily integrity, regardless of the beliefs of their parents. Many children’s rights advocates agree that this should also apply to practices like ear piercing in infants. Perhaps the most compelling parallel example against circumcision being in the zone of parental discretion is the absolute prohibition, in western countries, of all forms of female genital cutting, including nonfunction-limiting ritual nicks. Proponents for a ban on all forms of circumcision argue that there is nomorally significant difference between non-function-limiting female genital cutting and male circumcision, and it is therefore ethically inconsistent to allow one and not the other. The ethical positions of paediatric medical bodies reflect this spectrum of opinion, but, similar to their positions on the scientific benefits of circumcision, their recommendations for practice overlap considerably. For example, the Royal Dutch Medical Association considers infant circumcision a violation of a child’s right to physical integrity. However, they do not go so far as to recommend it be made illegal, but rather emphasise the importance of informed consent of parents and an ongoing dialoguewith religious and cultural groups for whom circumcision is an important ritual. At the other end of the spectrum, the American Academy of Paediatrics are very comfortable with parents taking their own cultural and religious beliefs into account when deciding whether or not to circumcise their sons but still emphasise the importance of a robust consent process. In a nutshell, with significantly varying degrees of comfort, most major paediatric bodies agree that the decision to circumcise lies within the zone of parental discretion. While the Intactivistsmayfind this unsatisfactory,when ethics is practiced outside of an ivory tower, pragmatism is essential. It is highly unlikely that circumcision will be made illegal in Australia in the foreseeable future.While this does not mean that campaigns at legislative and policy level should cease, it does mean that minimising the harms associated with circumcision is an urgent priority. Another commonality in the recommendations given by paediatric groups is that of the conditions under which circumcision should be performed. The majority of paediatric medical bodiesmake recommendations in linewith those of the RACP: that parents are given accurate and unbiased information with which to make the decision, and that the procedure be performed by an appropriately trained practitioner, with adequate pain management. The RACP define an appropriately trained practitioner as a person who can both perform the procedure and deal with any complications arising from it. They identify dorsal penile nerve block (DPNB) as the anaesthetic of choice in neonatal circumcision. The harm associated with inadequate pain relief in neonates is well established, as is the inadequacy of topical anaesthetic cream alone in this situation. Given there are no other Australian guidelines for this procedure, it is reasonable to consider the RACP recommendations as the accepted standard of practice. Approximately 10–20% of newborn boys in Australia are circumcised. The majority of circumcisions in Australia are performed by general practitioners (GPs) in their rooms. For example, Medicare data for the year 2013–2014 show that 16827 circumcisions were performed nationally on males under 6 months of age and 7300 on males of all other ages. Of those done on boys over Correspondence: Dr Melanie Jansen,Centre for Children’s Health Ethics and Law, Lady Cilento Children’s Hospital, 501 Stanley St, South Brisbane, Qld. 4101, Australia; email: melanie.jansen@health.qld.gov.au