Сүндеттау мәселесі: этикалық көзқарастар мен пікірталас

Variety of ethical positions on circumcision

Male circumcision is the surgical removal of the foreskin (prepuce) from the human penis. There is substantial disagreement amongst bioethicists and theologians over the practice of circumcision, with many believing that the routine circumcision of neonates for health purposes is a cost ineffective and ethically problematic intervention in developed countries, while circumcision on a consenting adult is generally viewed as a morally permissible action. Positions taken on the issue are heavily influenced by prevalence in the given area, religion, and culture. Some medical associations take the position that circumcision is an infringement of the child's autonomy and should be deferred until he is capable of making the decision himself. Others state that parents should be allowed to determine what is in his best interest.

There is a long running and vigorous debate over ethical concerns regarding circumcision, particularly neonatal circumcision for reasons other than intended direct medical benefit. There are three parties involved in the decision to circumcise a minor: the minor as the patient, the parents (or other guardians) and the physician. The physician is bound under the ethical principles of beneficence (promoting well being) and non maleficence ("first, do no harm"), and so is charged with the responsibility to promote the best interests of the patient while minimizing unnecessary harms. Those involved must weigh the factors of what is in the best interest of the minor against the potential harms of the procedure. Generally, circumcision on a minor is not ethically controversial or legally questionable when there is a clear and pressing medical indication for which it is the accepted best practice to resolve. Where circumcision is the chosen intervention, the physician has an ethical responsibility to ensure the procedure is performed competently and safely to minimize potential harms. With a newborn involved, the decision is made more complex due to the principles of respect for autonomy and consent, as a newborn cannot understand or engage in a logical discussion of his own values and best interests.

The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (2010) released a statement indicating that neonatal male circumcision is "generally considered an ethical procedure", provided that 1) the child's decision makers, typically the parents, are acting in the best interests of the child and are making an informed decision; and 2) the procedure is performed by a competent provider, with sufficient analgesia, and does not unnecessarily harm the child or have substantial risks. They argue that parents should be allowed to be the primary decision makers because providers may not understand the full psychosocial benefits of circumcision. Additionally, this procedure does not present substantial harm compared to its potential benefits, so parents should be allowed full decision making capacity as long as they are educated properly. The statement also establishes that "the option of leaving circumcision until later, when the boy is old enough to make a decision for himself does need to be raised with parents and considered", and that "the ethical merit of this option is that it seeks to respect the child's physical integrity, and capacity for autonomy by leaving the options open for him to make his own autonomous choice in the future."

The Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) issued a position statement on September 8, 2015, which highlighted the ethical issue surrounding the child's inability to give consent. Since children require a substituted decision maker acting in their best interests, they recommend to hold off non medically indicated procedures, such as circumcision, until children can make their own decisions. Yet the CPS also states that parents of male newborns must receive unbiased information about neonatal circumcision, so that they can weigh specific risks and benefits of circumcision in the context of their own familial, religious and cultural beliefs. According to Dr. Lise Møller, the chairwoman of the Doctors' Association's Ethics Board, allowing the individual to make this decision himself when he is of age respects his right of self determination. The Danish College of General Practitioners has defined non medical circumcision as mutilation.

The Royal Dutch Medical Association (Koninklijke Nederlandsche Maatschappij tot bevordering der Geneeskunst) (KNMG) and several Dutch specialist medical societies published a statement of position regarding circumcision of male children on 27 May 2010. The KNMG argues against circumcising male minors due to lack of evidence the procedure is useful or necessary, its associated risks, and violate the child's autonomy.

In 2013, children's ombudsmen from Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, and Iceland, along with the Chair of the Danish Children's Council and the children's spokesperson for Greenland, passed a resolution that emphasized the decision to be circumcised should belong to the individual, who should be able to give informed consent. The Nordic Association of Clinical Sexologists supports the position of the Nordic Association of Ombudsmen who reason that circumcision violates the individual's human rights by denying the male child his ability to make the decision for himself. The medical doctors at Sørland Hospital in Kristiansand, Southern Norway have all refused to perform circumcisions on boys, citing reasons of conscience.

The medical ethics committee of the British Medical Association also reviewed the ethics behind circumcision. Since circumcision has associated risks with, in their view, no unequivocally proven medical benefits, they advise physicians to keep up with clinical evidence and only perform this procedure if it is in the child's best interest. They say the procedure is a cultural and religious practice, which may be an important ritual for the child's incorporation into the group. He identifies this as a difficulty in achieving consensus within the medical ethics committee. Arguments put forward in discussions, according to Mussell, included the social and cultural benefits of circumcision, the violation of the child's rights, and the violation of the child's autonomy. Circumcision of adults as a public health measure for the purpose of reducing the spread of HIV also involves ethical concerns such as informed consent and concerns about reducing attention paid to other measures. According to the CDC website, research has documented a significant reduction of HIV/AIDS transmission when a male is circumcised.

In the same British Medical Association paper, circumcision of a child to treat a clear and present medical indication after a trial of conservative treatment also is not considered to be ethically questionable, provided that a suitable surrogate has granted surrogate consent after receiving all material information regarding the known risks, disadvantages, and potential benefits to be derived from the surgical operation.

The BMA statement of 2003 took the position that non therapeutic circumcision of children is lawful in the United Kingdom. The BMA issued a revised statement in 2006 and now reports the controversy regarding the lawfulness of non therapeutic child circumcision and recommends that doctors obtain the consent of both parents before performing non therapeutic circumcision of a male minor. The revised statement now mentions that male circumcision is generally assumed to be lawful provided that it is performed competently, is believed to be in the child's best interests, and there is valid consent from both parent or the child if it is capable of expressing a view.

The most recent American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) position statement on male circumcision (enacted 2012) has attracted significant critical comment, including from the AAP itself. In a dissenting paper, Frisch et al. (2013) write: "Circumcision fails to meet the criteria to serve as a preventive measure for UTI As a preventive measure for penile cancer, circumcision also fails to meet the criteria for preventive medicine circumcision for HIV protection in Western countries fails to meet the criteria for preventive medicine Circumcision fails to meet the commonly accepted criteria for the justification of preventive medical procedures in children." Frisch et al. further comment: "The AAP report lacks a serious discussion of the central ethical dilemma with, on one side, parents' right to act in the best interest of the child on the basis of cultural, religious, and health related beliefs and wishes and, on the other side, infant boys' basic right to physical integrity in the absence of compelling reasons for surgery. Physical integrity is one of the most fundamental and inalienable rights a child has. Physicians and their professional organizations have a professional duty to protect this right, irrespective of the gender of the child." Van Howe and Svoboda (2013) criticize the AAP's statement because they believed that it failed to include important points, inaccurately analyzed and interpret current medical literature, and made unsupported conclusions. Frisch et al. (2013) cited the difference of the AAP's statements in comparison to other Western countries, such as Canada, Australia, and various European countries.

In August 2017, the American Medical Association Journal of Ethics featured two separate articles challenging the morality of performing non therapeutic infant circumcision. Svoboda argues against non therapeutic circumcision. He states that this decision should be considered in the context of benefit vs risk of harm, rather than simply risk benefit due to the non therapeutic nature of the procedure. They state that if physicians outline all the currently known risks and benefits of the procedure to the parents and believes the procedure is indeed medically indicated, they cannot be held accountable for any harm from the procedure. The symposium published the original version (2003) of the BMA policy statement and six articles by various individuals with a wide spectrum of views on the ethicality of circumcision of male minors. In the introduction, Holm (2004) argues that we do not have the evidence available in order to truly assess the ethics behind circumcision, identifying that we do not have evidence surrounding the "effects of early circumcision on adult sexual function and satisfaction". Therefore, Holm states until this data is available this debate cannot be concluded as there will always be an opposition to circumcision driven by "cultural prejudices". Hutson (2004) concludes that he does not believe in the risk of circumcision without reason, stating that "no operation should be done if there is no disease". He justifies this through arguing that surgery is only condoned when the risk of the disease is greater than the surgery itself. Short (2004) disputes Hutson's claims and argues that male circumcision has future prophylactic benefits that make it worthwhile. He concludes that there can be no debate about male circumcision, arguing that "it can bring major improvements to both male and female reproductive health". He believes that as a result of living in a developing world, we have the facilities that enable this surgery to take place without "physical cruel nor potentially dangerous". Viens (2004) contends that "we do not know in any robust or determinate sense that infant male circumcision is harmful in itself, nor can we say the same with respect to its purported harmful consequences." He suggests that one must distinguish between practices that are grievously harmful and those that enhance a child's cultural or religious identity. He suggests that medical professionals, and bioethicists especially, "must take as their starting point the fact that reasonable people will disagree about what is valuable and what is harmful." Hellsten (2004) describes arguments in support of circumcision as "rationalisations", and states that infant circumcision can be "clearly condemned as a violation of children's rights whether or not they cause direct pain." He argues that to question the ethical acceptability of the practice, "we need to focus on child rights protection." Hellsten concludes, "Rather, with further education and knowledge the cultural smokescreen around the real reasons for the maintenance of the practice can be overcome in all societies no matter what their cultural background. Mussell (2004) examined the process by which the BMA arrived at a position on non therapeutic circumcision male minors, when the organisation had groups and individuals of different ethnicities, religion, culture, and widely varying viewpoints. Arguments were put forward that non therapeutic male circumcision is a net benefit for some because it helps them to integrate in the community. Arguments were also put forward that non therapeutic male circumcision is a net harm because it is seen as a breach of children's rights—the right of the child to be free from physical intrusion and the right of the child to choose in the future. This argument was given emphasis by Britain's incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights (1950) into domestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998. The BMA produced a document that set forth legal and ethical concerns but left the final decision on whether or not to perform a non therapeutic circumcision to the attending physician. The last document published by the Journal of Medical Ethics in its symposium on circumcision was a reprint of the BMA statement: "The law and ethics of male circumcision: guidance for doctors (2003).

The Journal of Medical Ethics devoted the entire July 2013 issue to the controversial issue of non therapeutic circumcision of male children. The numerous articles represent a diverse variety of views.

Povenmire (1988) argues that parents should not have the power to consent to neonatal non therapeutic circumcision. Canning (2002) commented that "[i]f circumcision becomes less commonly performed in North America the legal system may no longer be able to ignore the conflict between the practice of circumcision and the legal and ethical duties of medical specialists." Benatar and Benatar (2003) argue that "it is far from obvious that circumcision reduces sexual pleasure," and that "it is far from clear that non circumcision leaves open a future person's options in every regard." They continue: "It does preserve the option of future circumcised or uncircumcised status. But it makes other options far more difficult to exercise. Transforming from the uncircumcised to the circumcised state will have psychological and other costs for an adult that are absent for a child. Nor are these costs 'negligible', At the very least, they are not more negligible than the risks and costs of circumcision." The Committee on Medical Ethics of the British Medical Association (2003) published a paper to guide doctors on the law and ethics of circumcision. It advises medical doctors to proceed on a case by case basis to determine the best interests of the child before deciding to perform a circumcision. The doctor must consider the child's legal and human rights in making his or her determination. It states that a physician has a right to refuse to perform a non therapeutic circumcision. Fox and Thomson (2005) state that in the absence of "unequivocal evidence of medical benefit", it is "ethically inappropriate to subject a child to the acknowledged risks of infant male circumcision." Thus, they believe, "the emerging consensus, whereby parental choice holds sway, appears ethically indefensible". The process is irreversible, has no medical justification in most cases, and is performed on minors unable to give their own permission, according to the committee. Paul Schotsmans of the University of Leuven, on behalf of the committee, noted "the child's right to physical integrity, which is protected by the International Treaty on the Rights of the Child, and in particular its protection from physical injury."

The World Health Organization (2007) states that provision of circumcision should be consistent with "medical ethics and human rights principles." They state that "[i]nformed consent, confidentiality and absence of coercion should be assured. Parents who are responsible for providing consent, including for the circumcision of male infants, should be given sufficient information regarding the benefits and risks of the procedure in order to determine what is in the best interests of the child." Since babies and children are not sexually active, sexually transmitted HIV infection is not a relevant concern. Critics of non therapeutic circumcision argue that advocating circumcision to prevent HIV infection may detract from other efforts to prevent the spread of the virus such as using condoms. If the adult chooses to remain celibate or if a couple remain monogamous, or if HIV is eliminated by the time the child is an adult, the sexual reduction surgery would not have been needed. Moreover, they argue that circumcising a child purportedly to partially protect him from HIV infection in adulthood may be seen as granting permission to engage in dangerous sexual practices. Obviously baby boys do not need such protection and can choose for themselves as consenting adults if they want a circumcision. The UK National Health Service (NHS) has stated that the African studies have "important implications for the control of sexually transmitted infections in Africa", but that in the United Kingdom practicing safe sex including condom use is the best way to prevent sexually transmitted disease when having sex.

Patient autonomy is an important principle of medical ethics. Some believe that consent for a non therapeutic operation offends the principle of autonomy, when granted by a surrogate. Since children, and especially infants, are legally incompetent to grant informed consent for medical or surgical treatment, that consent must be granted by a surrogate—someone designated to act on behalf of the child patient, if treatment is to occur. A surrogate's powers to grant consent are more circumscribed than the powers granted to a competent individual acting on his own behalf. A surrogate may only act in the best interests of the patient. Richards (1996) argues that parents may only consent to medical care, so are not empowered to grant consent for non therapeutic circumcision of a child because it is not medical care. The Canadian Paediatric Society (2015) recommends that circumcisions done in the absence of a medical indication or for personal reasons "should be deferred until the individual concerned is able to make their own choices." Regardless of these issues, the general practice of the medical community in the United States is to receive surrogate informed consent or permission from parents or legal guardians for non therapeutic circumcision of children.