Article Text
Response
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
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