Article Text
Abstract
This paper does not attempt to lay out the arguments relating to male circumcision for non-medical reasons. Rather, the aim is to focus more on the process and the problems of a professional body (in this case the British Medical Association (BMA)) attempting to produce any consensus guidelines for its members on an issue which clearly polarises doctors as much as it divides society as a whole. The legal and ethical considerations of male circumcision are inevitably touched upon here but are not the central issue. In 2003, the BMA published professional guidance on this subject. Some thought this a pointless exercise; others saw it as an initiative which simply failed to go far enough. Reservations centred on the fact that the BMA’s guidance—like that of the statutory body, the General Medical Council—explored the issues without either firmly rejecting or accepting non-therapeutic male circumcision. Was it then a fruitless project or a brave start to grasping the nettle?
- male circumcision
- circumcision
- law and circumcision
- ethics of circumcision
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- The law and ethics of male circumcision: guidance for doctors
- A covenant with the status quo? Male circumcision and the new BMA guidance to doctors
- Ethics briefings
- Infant circumcision: the last stand for the dead dogma of parental (sovereignal) rights
- Consent for non-therapeutic male circumcision: an exception to the rule?
- Veracity and rhetoric in paediatric medicine: a critique of Svoboda and Van Howe's response to the AAP policy on infant male circumcision
- The child's interests and the case for the permissibility of male infant circumcision
- Circumcision of male infants as a human rights violation
- The BMA's guidance on conscientious objection may be contrary to human rights law
- Ethics briefings