Search

Copyright of Die Urologie is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article analyses the approach of key international actors to the circumcision of children, seeking, first, to understand why the policy towards the circumcision or genital cutting of girls is so different from that towards boys. As part of this project, the article considers the literature on the situation in international law, concluding that the legal position is unclear and debatable. The article notes, however, that the policy difference is justified not by key actors by reference to international law but instead by reference to their theoretical understanding of how dynamics of gender and power infuse the genital cutting of girls. The article suggests that this approach is deficient because it can only compute inter-gender harm and not intra-gender harm, with the consequence that it fails to protect boy children from harms, which a better crafted theoretical model of gender and sexuality would capture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper considers Habermas' model of a post‐secular political order in the light of the debate on male circumcision that arose in Germany after a court ruled that male circumcision was an unjustifiable act of bodily harm. Central to this model is the idea that religious reasons can only become effective in central legal institutions when they are translated into secular reasons. My paper demonstrates that there are two distinguishable readings of this proviso. On the one hand, there is a broad reading according to which it is only necessary to reach a conclusion that is in line with the democratic principle stating that all citizens can be regarded as co‐legislators even if non‐generalizable value orientations might then shape the interpretation of fundamental rights (in the case of circumcision, the right to bodily integrity). On the other hand, a truly secular (narrow) reading would avoid the inclusion of non‐generalizable value orientations. The debate on circumcision demonstrates that these two interpretations lead to different and conflicting modes of justification. The broad reading allows for a justification of male circumcision, whereas the narrow reading makes such a justification unlikely. In addition, the filtering function of the proviso is weakened in a broad reading. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many countries around the globe, including liberal democracies, have forbidden ritual female circumcision, better known as female genital mutilation in all its variants, while ritual circumcision of young boys and female genital modifications for esthetic reasons are allowed. This difference in the legal treatment of comparable practices, such as male circumcision, the least invasive version of female circumcision and female genital cosmetic surgeries, receives criticism for the "double standards" that favors religious believers and the cosmetic surgery industry. To address properly the "double standards" criticism, this article focuses mainly on the legality of ritual male and female circumcision. It adopts a health law perspective to put the legality of both types of circumcision under critical scrutiny. This is a fruitful approach to explain why ritual male circumcision is generally allowed as an exception in law. That is not because of its religious narratives, but, because it has been considered a medical intervention that seems in the best interest of the child. The health law perspective also posits why female circumcision in its most severe variants should remain a crime. These variants of female circumcision have no health benefits and harm young female bodies significantly. The final part of this article reiterates that the health law perspective rejects convincingly exemptions for female circumcision and allows ritual male circumcision conditionally and temporarily. This conclusion gives an unsatisfactory feeling as the ban on male circumcision hangs like a Damocles sword above this traditional practice. To face the "Damocles sword" criticism and to develop an argumentation pattern that would fit a broader sense of justice concerning the legality of male circumcision, this article introduces two novel pragmatic arguments that explain the "double standards" regime beyond the health law perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article argues that male minors have a moral anticipatory right-in-trust not to be circumcised without a medical indication. Topics discussed include ethical, political, and intellectual persuasions of children's rights, parental rights, religious freedom; moral implications to circumcise male minors without a medical indication; and moral rights of male minors.

A recent judgment by a lower court in Germany brought the problem of ritual male circumcision to the consciousness of the wider public and legal academia. This essay weighs in on this emerging discussion and argues that ritual male circumcision is not covered by parental authority. It first considers and dismisses the best interest of the child test, which is the most widely used test of parental authority in legal practice. Instead, the essay proposes what it terms the autonomy conception of parental authority, according to which parental authority must be exercised such as to ensure that the child will become an autonomous adult. While parents may raise their child in line with their ethical, including religious, convictions, respect for his autonomy requires that this be done in a way that allows the child to later distance himself from these values; this implies, among other things, that irreversible physical changes are impermissible. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

A UK doctor was recently acquitted of charges of reinstating a variety of female genital mutilation after delivering a child. In this paper, I contend that this incident reflects a broader confusion concerning the ethico-legal status of non-therapeutic genital surgeries for children and adults, which are not derivable from tenets of medical ethics, but rather violate them. I argue that medical professionals have an obligation to announce and address this confusion in order to motivate legislative reform, since the inconsistency of the current law entrenches the underlying sexism and ethnocentrism upon which its sense depends. Without convincing arguments for (a) condoning male circumcision and female cosmetic genital surgery and for (b) treating adult women of colour as lacking the capacity to consent, the current legislation stands in need of urgent revision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Certain parts of the United States have seen recent political movements seeking to ban the practice of religious male circumcision. Although these movements have not been successful yet, multiple Western European governments have already taken actions to restrict religious male circumcision. This trend of circumcision restrictions will reach the United States in the near future, which raises questions about the implications for religious liberty. As male circumcision is a religious practice in both Jewish and Muslim faiths, restrictions and outright bans of circumcision will indeed create First and Fourteenth Amendment concerns, likely to be fought over in court. Questions of family, religion, and bodily rights are all raised in arguments over religious male circumcision, and legal scholars ought to consider these issues now before they are eventually raised in United States court rooms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the ethical and legal aspects, and the children's rights issues, concerning non-therapeutic male circumcision, within the context of the debate between the association Attorneys for the Rights of the Child (ARC), the U.S. Centers for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC) and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) over the issue. The authors contend that the pain caused by circumcision makes it unethical, including the pain caused to the penis foreskin. The role that parents play in their sons' circumcisions is discussed.

The article discusses the legal and ethical aspects of newborn male circumcision in the U.S. with parental consent, through referencing evidence-based guidelines by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). The role that male circumcision plays in decreasing the risk of diseases, including of penile cancer, increasing sexual health and reducing the risk of the HIV virus, is discussed.

After an appellate court made circumcision of minors effectively illegal in the absence of a medical justification, the German Parliament passed a statute that restored, with some limitations, the right of parents to seek ritual circumcisions for their sons. Between these events, a fierce controversy broke out in Germany involving Jews, Muslims, and other Germans. Whereas circumcision without medical indication is rare among most Germans, it is a common religious practice in Jewish and Muslim communities in Germany. The debate tapped into ongoing discussions of German cultural norms, German secularization, and a long history of anti-Semitism and a much shorter history of anti-Muslim sentiment in Germany. It also tapped into the religious and traditional practices -- sometimes converging, sometimes diverging -- of Jews and Muslims. This Article discusses the range of opinions on religious circumcision among Germans and other Europeans. It disentangles the social factors at work in the debate and analyzes the court decision and the new statute. It also examines some recent decisions under the new statute and explores problems with the statute's application. Given that roughly 700 million boys worldwide have undergone ritual circumcision, the German controversy has global implications. This Article shows that at day's end, the debate turns on issues of toleration and multiculturalism. It is scarcely possible to resolve this debate without asking, "What is a child?" If a child is a proto-member of his parents' religious community and has only a weak right to bodily integrity, or if the risk-benefit ratio favors circumcision and the parents have a broad scope of consent, then circumcision without medical indication might be legally and morally permissible. Parents might then have discretion to place on his body a permanent physical symbol of his expected or hoped for religious affiliation as an adult. Yet if a child has a strong right to bodily integrity, and circumcision is not medically indicated, then the permanent physical modification of his body with a symbol of Jewish or Muslim identity might be problematic, and circumcising him for aesthetic or other nonreligious reasons might likewise be problematic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article aims to illuminate the recent debate in Germany about the legitimacy of circumcision for religious reasons. The aim is both to evaluate the new German law allowing religious circumcision, and to outline the resulting conflict between the surrounding ethical and legal issues. We first elucidate the diversity of legal and medical views on religious circumcision in Germany. Next we examine to what extent invasive and irreversible physical interventions on infant boys unable to given their consent should be carried out for non-medical reasons. To this end, the potential benefits and harms of circumcision for non-medical reasons are compared. We argue that circumcision does not provide any benefits for the 'child as a child' and poses only risks to boys. We then set out to clarify and analyse political (rather than ethical) justifications of the new circumcision law. We demonstrate through this analysis how the circumcision debate in Germany has been transformed from a legal and ethical problem into a political issue, due at least in part to Germany's unique historical context. Although such a particular political sensibility is entirely comprehensible, it raises particular problems when it comes to framing and responding to medical ethical issues - as in the case of religious circumcision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The ever increasing use of children's rights discourse in national, regional and international political institutions can perhaps be seen as a sign of the success of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child ("CRC"), and of the internalization of the concept that children are independent rights holders, the ideological basis of the doctrine of children's rights. Nevertheless, there is evidence that some advocates of children's rights in the political arena are taking an over-simplistic, uni-dimensional approach to children's rights which results in misrepresentation of the true interests of children. This risk is well illustrated by the recent resolution of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe ("PACE") resolution entitled "Children's Right to Physical Integrity," which inter alia expressed concern about the violation of the right to the physical integrity of young boys circumcised for religious reasons and made recommendations that States should consider placing restrictions on this practice. This Article uses the PACE resolution as a platform for examining the pitfalls inherent within the doctrine of children's rights, specifically as given effect to by the CRC, that make it susceptible to misuse in the political arena. The recent 25th anniversary of the signing of the CRC is a timely occasion for a discussion of some of its deficiencies that include definitional problems, selectivity and the indeterminacy of the best interests standard. In addition, the paper explains how these pitfalls were exacerbated by serious flaws in the PACE's decision-making mechanism and suggests changes which might be made at the institutional level to reduce the risks involved in children's rights discourse in the political arena. Whilst the Article does in fact deconstruct the claims that religious male circumcision violates children's rights, the implications of the analysis are far wider than the ritual circumcision debate. This analysis is particularly pertinent to the children's rights implications of all types of decisions made by parents in relation to the rearing of their children, which do not conform to the norms prevalent in Western society. More broadly, the analysis demonstrates the need to rethink how the complex multi-layered doctrine of children's rights can be refined in such a way that it can practicably be used to inform decision-making in the political arena. In addition, many of the insights in relation to the problems associated with children's rights discourse in the political arena are also of relevance in relation to human rights discourse in general. It is to be hoped that increased understanding of the pitfalls inherent in the CRC will lead to greater caution in the use of children's rights discourse in the political arena, inter alia by the introduction of appropriate safeguards, and provide an impetus for the search for solutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper addresses arguments in the recent philosophical and bioethical literature claiming that social and cultural benefits can justify non-therapeutic male infant circumcision. It rejects these claims by referring to the open future argument, according to which infant circumcision is morally unjustifiable because it violates the child's right to an open future. The paper also addresses an important objection to the open future argument and examines the strength of the objection to refute the application of the argument to the circumcision case. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which was adopted in 1998 and came into force in 2002, enumerates a broader range of sex crimes than any previous instrument of international criminal law. These include rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilisation and ‘any other form of sexual violence’ of a comparable gravity, as war crimes and crimes against humanity. In applying the new residual crime of ‘any other form of sexual violence’, judges and prosecutors in the ICC have had to confront the complex question of what makes violence ‘sexual violence’, and how can the ‘gravity’ of sexual violence be determined, where that is a legal requirement. This article examines how these questions have been addressed in two cases currently before the ICC, from the situations in the Central African Republic and Kenya, where attempts have been made to prosecute forced nudity, forced male circumcision and mutilation of the male genitals as ‘sexual violence’ within the meaning of the Rome Statute. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The author discusses ritual male circumcision within the context of the criminal law in light of historical developments including recent judgments and subsequent legislation in Sweden and Germany. While currently legal, he argues that circumcision should be criminalized in order to protect the physical integrity of the child. He is, however, not optimistic in regard to the chances of passing such a measure in the Danish parliament. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses proposed legislation to amend the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (Civil Code, BGB) of Germany concerning parental rights and parental consent for male circumcision in infants and young boys for religious reasons. The author outlines the legal uncertainties that surrounded such procedures if they were not medically necessary until a decision by the Landgericht (District Court) of Cologne, Germany, on May 7, 2012, which effectively outlawed male circumcision for religious reasons and caused protest particularly from Jewish and Muslim communities in the country. The relationship between the proposed changes in civil law and extant criminal law is considered, as are the consequences of the amendment for child welfare legislation.

A recent Court decision in Cologne Germany concerning circumcision has resulted in a rapid response from the German Government. The German Parliament has passed new legislation confirming the lawfulness of ritual circumcision. However there are questions as to whether the German Parliament has done enough. This note looks at the background to the case in question and considers its ethical implications whilst also considering the analogous position in the UK. The author makes recommendations to change the current English law in this area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2011, San Francisco placed a measure to outlaw infant male circumcision on its November ballot. Members of the Jewish and Muslim faiths practice infant male circumcision as a tenet of their religions. If approved, this ballot measure would have raised serious questions about the scope of religious liberty protected under the Constitution. This Note argues that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment prohibits governments from, at minimum, outlawing religious practices--at least not without satisfying the elements of strict scrutiny. This Note will undertake a critical analysis of the United States Supreme Court's concept of neutrality as has been applied to religious practice and will advance an argument for the theory of "substantive neutrality." Given that the San Francisco Ballot Measure fails to satisfy the substantive neutrality principle, and further that a circumcision ban does not serve a compelling state interest, the proposal would not be upheld under the rule advocated for in this Note. Part II of this Note will provide a brief background of the religious motivations and social constructions of male circumcision and the medical debate over the procedure. Part III discusses the text and legislative motives of the San Francisco Ballot Measure. Subsequently, Part IV of this Note summarizes the Court's Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence. Part V will analyze how a court considering the San Francisco Ballot Measure would apply these cases to the proposal, and it will show why analysis confined to the present rule is constitutionally deficient. Finally, the Note argues that substantive neutrality is the correct formulation of the neutrality requirement, and that the San Francisco Ballot Measure violates the principle. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Law Commission will shortly begin discussions on reform of the law of non-fatal offences by issuing a scoping paper. This article starts with a review of recent improvements in the ways in which the Commission may get its Bills enacted. It then critiques the principal (to modern eyes) crimes of this kind found in the Offences against the Person Act 1861. Its focus lies on those offences and not the more policy-driven law, for example, on the transmission of HIV/AIDS, sado-masochism, male circumcision, and boxing (all of which are highly important). It concentrates on the Commission's previously expressed concerns that the statute's language is archaic and that the Act fails to provide a hierarchy (a 'ladder') of offences. It concludes with a redraft of the statute and a quote from Henry LJ in R v Lynsey that 'Bad laws cost money and clog up the courts with better things to do'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Human rights claim universal validity, which implies that bias in their applicability as well as in their application should be avoided. From this perspective it is rather remarkable that female circumcision is a major cause for human rights concerns, whereas male circumcision is rarely addressed in the context of human rights. This raises the question whether practices of female circumcision are really that different from forms of male circumcision. There is at least some evidence that there are more similarities between male and female circumcision than commonly perceived. Taking this as a starting point, on the basis of facts, figures and rationales, we distinguish three types of circumcision: the 'African', the 'American' and the 'Abrahamic' type. Whereas male circumcision may fulfil the characteristics of any of these three types, female circumcision seems to fit only the African type. The typology allows for an analysis of the frames used in the debate to justify or delegitimise male and female circumcision. Frames that feature in the debates on male circumcision area 'medical/health frame'and a 'cultural/religious frame', both with an 'accessory human rights frame'. The debate on female circumcision (mostly referred to as female genital mutilation or FGM), on the other hand, is predominantly a 'women's rights frame'. The differences in normative framing as well as the consequences thereof for the human rights protection of men and women do not seem entirely justified by the differences between the practices of male and female circumcision. We discuss three forms of bias - related to culture, religion and to gender - that may help explain the diverging normative framings. Irrespective of one's normative assessment of the compatibility of circumcision practices with human rights norms, the universality claim of human rights requires the application of the same standards to similar practices, regardless of sex. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Allegations of poorly performed circumcisions may arise as negligence claims, civil claims or a professional (General Medical Council [GMC]) matter. This article explains the various types of circumcision, including those done for religious purposes, and attempts to provide an understanding of the issues relating to claims. The writer is a medicolegal expert (Accident & Emergency Consultant) who trained in surgery and for over 25 years has performed neonatal circumcision for religious purposes (usually in the home), child circumcision and adult circumcision. He has provided reports for both claimant and defendants, in negligence claims, civil claims and GMC proceedings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper engages with a changing politics of male circumcision. It suggests that various shifts which have occurred in how the issue is debated challenge legal constructions of the practice as a private familial issue. Although circumcision rates have declined in those Western nations which have traditionally practised it, the procedure is now being promoted as a medicalised response to the HIV/AIDS pandemic in sub-Saharan Africa. Such initiatives propose a new biomedical rationale for the practice and have been difficult to confine to the African context or to adult bodies, prompting a resurgence of enthusiasm for neonatal male circumcision on the part of professional bodies in the USA and elsewhere. Although we have reservations about such public health policies, which we suggest downplay risks inherent in the procedure both for the individual and for the advancement of public health, we argue that such strategies have the potential to move debates about circumcision beyond the parameters of traditional 'medical law', with its focus on the doctor-patient nexus and the issue of who can validly consent to medical procedures. We suggest that, as with female genital cutting, male circumcision ought to be debated within a paradigm of social justice which gives adequate weighting to the interests of all affected parties (including women whose health may actually be compromised by the procedure) and which renders visible the socio-economic dimensions of the issue. In line with a social justice approach, we argue that public health initiatives must comply with international ethico-legal standards and be attentive to the emergence of an international human right to health. The shift in analytical frame that we propose has the potential not only to make us re-think our approach to the ethics and legality of male circumcision by challenging its construction as a familial decision but also to impact on the need for a broader conceptualisation of health law as rooted in social justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines a 2008 judgement of the Finnish Supreme Court on the legal permissibility of male circumcision, setting the judgement in its social context and examining its consequences for public policy. The court ruled that (medically unnecessary) circumcision of a Muslim boy, when ‘appropriately’ performed, does not fulfil the criteria for the criminal offence of assault causing harm, unlike female circumcision, which always constitutes a criminal offence. The legal tolerance shown to male (as opposed to female) circumcision was justified through physical differences and cultural assumptions that allegedly distinguish between the two practices. While the outcome in some ways recognises the increasing diversity of cultural practices that are transforming a traditionally homogenous society, some of the assumptions made by the court are questionable and the outcome of the case leaves public policy in a state of uncertainty, requiring legislative action by the government. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

On two occasions the Court of Appeal in England has addressed the legality of non-therapeutic circumcision performed on a minor unable to provide consent. Both cases involved disputes in post-separation families where one parent sought a male child's circumcision against the wishes of the other parent. In January 2008 the Supreme Court of Oregon was faced with a similar factual situation in the case of Boldt v Boldt. However, the boy at the centre of the dispute in Boldt was significantly older than in the English cases. The Supreme Court therefore concluded that the testimony of the boy himself, who is now 13, was required and remanded the case for a re-hearing in order that the trial court could specifically address his wishes with regard to circumcision. In this paper we offer a critique of the Oregon Court's somewhat elliptical reasoning in the Boldt case. We argue that cases involving male circumcision of older children raise important ethico-legal issues, which the Boldt judgements gloss over, and which English courts have yet to confront in the context of circumcision. Consequently, our aim in this paper is to use Boldt as a lens through which to explore and inform UK practice. We argue that this case fits into a characteristic pattern according to which judges, law makers and professional bodies shy away from confronting key ethico-legal questions raised by the tolerance in Anglo-American society of non-therapeutic genital cutting of male infants. In raising explicitly for the first time the position of older minors, the factual situation in Boldt affords us an opportunity to begin to address the limits of parents' rights to determine the future religious identity of their children. In seeking to analyse how Boldt and the questions to which it gives rise might inform UK law we focus on three issues. The first is the right of the boy at the centre of the dispute to determine which medical treatments or interventions to his body are permissible. The father's subsequent petitions for reconsideration and for certiorari mean that when the boy's testimony is finally heard by a court it is likely that he will be 14 or 15 years of age. We aim to assess how a UK court might respond if faced with the task of determining whether a minor could choose circumcision for himself in such a scenario. A subsidiary question here is the extent to which circumcision procedures are appropriately categorised as 'medical treatment'. Finally we offer some more tentative thoughts on what limits may legitimately be placed on parental rights to make choices for their children when their choices are motivated by religious belief. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives This study describes a female genital cutting (FGC) elimination communication programme in Enugu State and assesses its impact in changing relevant knowledge, attitudes and behavioural intentions. Methods The FGC programme combined a community mobilization component with targeted advocacy and mass media activities. Data for assessing the impact of the programme derived from baseline and follow-up surveys in three intervention local government areas (LGA) in Enugu State and three comparison LGAs in Ebonyi State. An ideation model of behaviour change guided the analyses of the impact of the programme on personal advocacy for FGC, perceived self-efficacy to refuse pressure to perform FGC, perceived social support for FGC discontinuation, perceived benefits of FGC, perceived health complications of FGC and intention not to perform FGC on daughters. The analytical methods include comparing change in pertinent outcome variables from baseline to follow-up in the two study states and using logistic regression on follow-up data for the intervention state to assess the link between programme exposure and the relevant outcome indicators. Results The data show that while the pertinent ideational factors and the intention not to perform FGC either worsened or remained stagnant in Ebonyi State, they improved significantly in Enugu State. The logistic regression results show that programme exposure is associated with the expected improvements in all the pertinent indicators. Conclusion The multimedia communication programme has been effective in changing FGC-related attitudes and promoting the intention not to perform FGC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Ritual Male Infant Circumcission and Human Rights" in the 2015(2) issue.

The article offers world news briefs related to medical ethics. Fresenius Kabi AG, a drug manufacturer, barred the sale of the anaesthetic, propofol for use in lethal injections. The High Court in England and Wales rejected the legal claims for assisted dying of two men suffering from locked-in syndrome. The German government announced that it supported legislation which would legalize non-therapeutic male circumcision.

The article offers world news briefs related to perinatal care. The U.S. Institute of Medicine and National Research Council issued a new set of guidelines on the weight gain of pregnant women. According to the research conducted by Wei Xing Zhu and colleagues, the births of boys is greater than 1.1 million than girls and the disparity is wider among children ages 1 to 4 years old. In Australia, the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute scrutinizes the legalization of the circumcision of newborn boys.

The article discusses various reports published within the issue, including one by Marie Fox and Michael Thomson on the approach of courts in the U.S. and Great Britain to individual parental autonomy of decision-making in relation to male circumcision, and another by Robyn Martin on the extent to which public health law can appropriately incorporate issues of minority belief.