On the impermissibility of infant male circumcision: a response to Mazor (2013)
This is a response to Dr Joseph Mazor’s paper ‘The child's interests and the case for the permissibility of male infant circumcision.’ I argue that Dr Mazor fails to prove that bodily integrity and self-determination are mere interests as opposed to genuine rights in the case of infant male circumcision. Moreover, I cast doubt on the interest calculus that Dr Mazor employs to arrive at his conclusions about circumcision.
- Clinical Ethics
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
- Infant circumcision: the last stand for the dead dogma of parental (sovereignal) rights
- Veracity and rhetoric in paediatric medicine: a critique of Svoboda and Van Howe's response to the AAP policy on infant male circumcision
- After Cologne: male circumcision and the law. Parental right, religious liberty or criminal assault?
- What philosophers can contribute in the face of fundamental empirical disagreement: a response to Benatar and Lang
- Circumcision of male infants as a human rights violation
- Value judgment, harm, and religious liberty
- Is infant male circumcision an abuse of the rights of the child? Yes
- Is infant male circumcision an abuse of the rights of the child? No
- Claimed by culture: circumcision, cochlear implants and the ‘intact’ body