There is an inherent flaw always present in â€œparents should decide on genital cutting (but only for boys)â€ essays. An asinine dismissal of the ethical principle will exist. Although the case against must be made each time, the ethics obviously do not support that stance. Non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual is unethical. It violates bodily autonomy. Any facts supposedly in favor of at least allowing parents to decide canâ€™t overcome this basic principle. So when an essay is titled â€œWhy the decision to circumcise should be left in the hands of the familyâ€, the flaw is guaranteed to be there. Itâ€™s the only way to seemingly make the premise hold. Yet, Iâ€™ve never seen the flaw so ridiculously written as in Dr. Jeremy Friedmanâ€™s essay.
Deep into the essay (emphasis added):
I understand that there are many vocal groups who feel that circumcision has a negative effect on sexual function and pleasure. I also realize that some feel it is unethical to remove something from an infantâ€™s body without a clear medical need and without the infant having some input into the decision.
As a pediatrician, Iâ€™m not really professionally qualified to discuss the merits of these viewpoints but I respect the right of those individuals to express them. I am, however, qualified to tell you that babies are capable of experiencing pain and I donâ€™t think it is acceptable to perform a circumcision in a newborn without some form of analgesia. There are a number of different options to prevent pain, and this should be discussed with the practitioner chosen to do the procedure, well ahead of the circumcision.
Dr. Friedman stated that heâ€™s not professionally qualified to discuss the merits of these viewpoints, yet this is the next paragraph, his conclusion:
So what is my take-home message? The decision should be left in the hands of the family. Current medical evidence points to some specific advantages to being circumcised, especially in certain higher risk groups. In Canada Iâ€™m not convinced that there is sufficient medical evidence to advocate for circumcision in a family that would not choose it for religious/cultural/family reasons. Nevertheless in those who do choose it, I think they should be allowed the right to proceed, but I will put in a plea for encouraging adequate pain relief. Letâ€™s face it: None of us would dream of having any procedure on this rather sensitive part of our anatomy without it.
He canâ€™t evaluate the validity of individual autonomy for a human being, but heâ€™s qualified to draw a conclusion without concern for the effect on his conclusion from the ethical claim he did not test. Thatâ€™s pathetic. It isnâ€™t acceptable to punt an aspect of the debate and then claim victory. Itâ€™s more ridiculous because he felt competent to draw an ethical conclusion on pain relief. Itâ€™s a minor distance from a plea to use pain relief to a plea to refrain from medically-unnecessary circumcision.
In a paragraph aimed at defending parental choice because a study claims the complication rate is lower for newborns, he wrote:
â€¦ My interpretation of this data is that when circumcision is performed by adequately trained individuals, complications are infrequent and usually fairly minor. Most common would be infection and bleeding which can be treated quite easily. Nevertheless severe complications such as penile injury can occur, albeit very rarely. If one wants oneâ€™s son circumcised then it appears to be much safer if done in the newborn period.
Penile injury occurs in every single circumcision. Less severe penile injury isnâ€™t irrelevant simply because it was intended.