Article info
PDFExtended essay
Male or female genital cutting: why ‘health benefits’ are morally irrelevant
- Correspondence to Brian D Earp, Associate Director, Yale-Hastings Program in Ethics and Health Policy, Yale University and The Hastings Center, New Haven, CT 06511, USA; brian.earp{at}yale.edu
Citation
Male or female genital cutting: why ‘health benefits’ are morally irrelevant
Publication history
- Received August 8, 2020
- Revised December 3, 2020
- Accepted December 8, 2020
- First published January 18, 2021.
Online issue publication
January 07, 2022
Article Versions
- Previous version (7 January 2022).
- Previous version (7 January 2022).
- You are viewing the most recent version of this article.
- latest version (10 January 2022).
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
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Other content recommended for you
- Veracity and rhetoric in paediatric medicine: a critique of Svoboda and Van Howe's response to the AAP policy on infant male circumcision
- Infant circumcision: the last stand for the dead dogma of parental (sovereignal) rights
- Out of step: fatal flaws in the latest AAP policy report on neonatal circumcision
- Female genital alteration: a compromise solution
- Male circumcision: risk versus benefit
- Circumcision of male infants as a human rights violation
- In defence of genital autonomy for children
- A covenant with the status quo? Male circumcision and the new BMA guidance to doctors
- Circumcision: Divided we fall
- The ethics of infant male circumcision