Search

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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 focuses on the measures to safeguard male circumcision. Circumcision is sometimes done by the religious scholars but now several countries have imposed a ban on it. It informs that the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has released their Circumcision Policy Statement which declares the benefits of circumcision for newborn boys to decrease the risk of acquiring sexually transmitted infections.