首页> 外文期刊>BMC Pediatrics >Recommendation by a law body to ban infant male circumcision has serious worldwide implications for pediatric practice and human rights
【24h】

Recommendation by a law body to ban infant male circumcision has serious worldwide implications for pediatric practice and human rights

机译:法律机构建议禁止婴儿包皮环切术对儿科实践和人权具有严重的全球影响

获取原文
       

摘要

Background Recent attempts in the USA and Europe to ban the circumcision of male children have been unsuccessful. Of current concern is a report by the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute (TLRI) recommending that non-therapeutic circumcision be prohibited, with parents and doctors risking criminal sanctions except where the parents have strong religious and ethnic ties to circumcision. The acceptance of this recommendation would create a precedent for legislation elsewhere in the world, thereby posing a threat to pediatric practice, parental responsibilities and freedoms, and public health. Discussion The TLRI report ignores the scientific consensus within medical literature about circumcision. It contains legal and ethical arguments that are seriously flawed. Dispassionate ethical arguments and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child are consistent with parents being permitted to authorize circumcision for their male child. Uncritical acceptance of the TLRI report’s recommendations would strengthen and legitimize efforts to ban childhood male circumcision not just in Australia, but in other countries as well. The medical profession should be concerned about any attempt to criminalize a well-accepted and evidence-based medical procedure. The recommendations are illogical, pose potential dangers and seem unworkable in practice. There is no explanation of how the State could impose criminal charges against doctors and parents, nor of how such a punitive apparatus could be structured, nor how strength of ethnic or religious ties could be determined. The proposal could easily be used inappropriately, and discriminates against parents not tied to the religions specified. With time, religious exemptions could subsequently be overturned. The law, governments and the medical profession should reject the TLRI recommendations, especially since the recent affirmative infant male circumcision policy statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics attests to the significant individual and public health benefits and low risk of infant male circumcision. Summary Doctors should be allowed to perform medical procedures based on sound evidence of effectiveness and safety with guaranteed protection. Parents should be free to act in the best interests of the health of their infant son by having him circumcised should they choose.
机译:背景技术最近在美国和欧洲禁止对男孩进行包皮环切术的尝试均未成功。塔斯马尼亚法律改革研究所(TLRI)的一份报告当前令人关注,该报告建议禁止非治疗性包皮环切术,除非父母与包皮环切术具有强烈的宗教和种族联系,否则父母和医生可能面临刑事制裁。接受该建议将为世界其他地方的立法开创先例,从而对儿科实践,父母责任和自由以及公共卫生构成威胁。讨论TLRI报告忽略了医学文献中关于包皮环切术的科学共识。它包含有严重缺陷的法律和道德论据。无私的道德论据和《联合国儿童权利公约》与允许父母批准对男婴进行包皮环切术相一致。不加批判地接受TLRI报告的建议将不仅在澳大利亚而且在其他国家也加强和合法化禁止童年男性包皮环切的努力。医学界应关注将公认的循证医学程序定为犯罪的任何尝试。这些建议是不合逻辑的,有潜在的危险,在实践中似乎不可行。没有任何关于国家如何对医生和父母施加刑事指控的解释,也没有任何关于如何构成这种惩罚性机构,如何确定种族或宗教纽带力量的解释。该提议很容易被不适当地使用,并歧视与特定宗教无关的父母。随着时间的流逝,宗教豁免可能会随后被推翻。法律,政府和医学界应拒绝TLRI建议,特别是因为美国儿科学会最近发布的肯定的男性包皮环切政策声明证明了个人和公共健康的巨大收益以及婴儿包皮环切的低风险。总结应该允许医生根据有力的证据证明其有效性和安全性,并提供有保证的保护。父母应自由选择采取割礼,以便为自己的小儿子的健康谋福利。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号