Abstract (may include machine translation)
I explain why I think that considerations regarding the opposing rights involved in the practice of circumcision-rights of the individual to bodily integrity and rights of the community to practice its religion-would not help us decide on the desirable policytowards this controversial practice. I then suggest a few measures that are not in conflict with either religious or community rights but that can both reduce the harm that circumcision as currently practiced involves and bring about a change in attitude towards the practice, thus further reducing its frequency. These measures are the compulsory administration of anaesthetics; the banning of the metzitzah b'peh; and having an upper age limit of a few months on nontherapeutic circumcision of minors. I conclude with general considerations on why the steps taken towards the reform of circumcision should be moderate.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 459-462 |
| Number of pages | 4 |
| Journal | Journal of Medical Ethics |
| Volume | 39 |
| Issue number | 7 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - 2013 |
UN SDGs
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
-
SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Circumcision: What should be done?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver