Article Text
PDFResponse
On the impermissibility of infant male circumcision: a response to Mazor (2013)
Abstract
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.
- Circumcision
- Clinical Ethics
- Children
- Decision-making
- Ethics
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Request Permissions
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.
Copyright information:
Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions
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
- Veracity and rhetoric in paediatric medicine: a critique of Svoboda and Van Howe 's response to the AAP policy on infant male circumcision
- Circumcision of male infants as a human rights violation
- Value judgment, harm, and religious liberty
- Infant circumcision: the last stand for the dead dogma of parental (sovereignal) rights
- The ethics of infant male circumcision
- Out of step: fatal flaws in the latest AAP policy report on neonatal circumcision
- Is infant male circumcision an abuse of the rights of the child? Yes
- What philosophers can contribute in the face of fundamental empirical disagreement: a response to Benatar and Lang
- After Cologne: male circumcision and the law. Parental right, religious liberty or criminal assault