J S Mill used the term ‘dead dogma’ to describe a belief that has gone unquestioned for so long and to such a degree that people have little idea why they accept it or why they continue to believe it. When wives and children were considered chattel, it made sense for the head of a household to have a ‘sovereignal right’ to do as he wished with his property. Now that women and children are considered to have the full complement of human rights and slavery has been abolished, it is no longer acceptable for someone to have a ‘right’ to completely control the life of another human being. Revealingly, parental rights tend to be invoked only when parents want to do something that is arguably not in their child's best interest. Infant male circumcision is a case in point. Instead of parental rights, I claim that parents have an obligation to protect their children's rights as well as to preserve the future options of those children so far as possible. In this essay, it is argued that the notion that parents have a right to make decisions concerning their children's bodies and minds—irrespective of the child's best interests—is a dead dogma. The ramifications of this argument for the circumcision debate are then spelled out and discussed.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- The child's interests and the case for the permissibility of male infant circumcision
- Female genital alteration: a compromise solution
- Out of step: fatal flaws in the latest AAP policy report on neonatal circumcision
- Circumcision of male infants as a human rights violation
- Veracity and rhetoric in paediatric medicine: a critique of Svoboda and Van Howe's response to the AAP policy on infant male circumcision
- The limits of parental responsibility regarding medical treatment decisions
- The development of professional guidelines on the law and ethics of male circumcision
- Better to hesitate at the threshold of compulsion: PKU testing and the concept of family autonomy in Eire
- The child's right to an open future: is the principle applicable to non-therapeutic circumcision?
- After Cologne: male circumcision and the law. Parental right, religious liberty or criminal assault?