Ritual male infant circumcision and human rights

Genital Modifications in Prepubescent Minors: When May Clinicians Ethically Proceed?

When is it ethically permissible for clinicians to surgically intervene into the genitals of a legal minor? We distinguish between voluntary and nonvoluntary procedures and focus on nonvoluntary procedures, specifically in prepubescent minors ("children"). We do not address procedures in adolescence or adulthood. With respect to children categorized as female at birth who have no apparent differences of sex development (i.e., non-intersex or "endosex" females) there is a near-universal ethical consensus in the Global North. This consensus holds that clinicians may not perform any nonvoluntary genital cutting or surgery, from "cosmetic" labiaplasty to medicalized ritual "pricking" of the vulva, insofar as the procedure is not strictly necessary to protect the child's physical health. All other motivations, including possible psychosocial, cultural, subjective-aesthetic, or prophylactic benefits as judged by doctors or parents, are seen as categorically inappropriate grounds for a clinician to proceed with a nonvoluntary genital procedure in this population. We argue that the main ethical reasons capable of supporting this consensus turn not on empirically contestable benefit-risk calculations, but on a fundamental concern to respect the child's privacy, bodily integrity, developing sexual boundaries, and (future) genital autonomy. We show that these ethical reasons are sound. However, as we argue, they do not only apply to endosex female children, but rather to all children regardless of sex characteristics, including those with intersex traits and endosex males. We conclude, therefore, that as a matter of justice, inclusivity, and gender equality in medical-ethical policy (we do not take a position as to criminal law), clinicians should not be permitted to perform any nonvoluntary genital cutting or surgery in prepubescent minors, irrespective of the latter's sex traits or gender assignment, unless urgently necessary to protect their physical health. By contrast, we suggest that voluntary surgeries in older individuals might, under certain conditions, permissibly be performed for a wider range of reasons, including reasons of self-identity or psychosocial well-being, in keeping with the circumstances, values, and explicit needs and preferences of the persons so concerned. Note: Because our position is tied to clinicians' widely accepted role-specific duties as medical practitioners within regulated healthcare systems, we do not consider genital procedures performed outside of a healthcare context (e.g., for religious reasons) or by persons other than licensed healthcare providers working in their professional capacity.

Neonatal Male Circumcision: Clearly Beneficial for Public Health or an Ethical Dilemma? A Systematic Review

Contrasting ethical and legal arguments have been made concerning neonatal male circumcision (NMC) that merit the first systematic review on this topic. We performed PRISMA-compliant keyword searches of PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, LexisNexis, and other databases and identified 61 articles that met the inclusion criteria. In the bibliographies of these articles, we identified 58 more relevant articles and 28 internet items. We found high-quality evidence that NMC is a low-risk procedure that provides immediate and lifetime medical and health benefits and only rarely leads to later adverse effects on sexual function or pleasure. Given this evidence, we conclude that discouraging or denying NMC is unethical from the perspective of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which emphasizes the right to health. Further, case law supports the legality of NMC. We found, conversely, that the ethical arguments against NMC rely on distortions of the medical evidence. Thus, NMC, by experienced operators using available safety precautions, appears to be both legal and ethical. Consistent with this conclusion, all of the evidence-based pediatric policies that we reviewed describe NMC as low-risk and beneficial to public health. We calculated that a reduction in NMC in the United States from 80% to 10% would substantially increase the cases of adverse medical conditions. The present findings thus support the evidence-based NMC policy statements and are inconsistent with the non-evidence-based policies that discourage NMC. On balance, the arguments and evidence reviewed here indicate that NMC is a medically beneficial and ethical public health intervention early in life because it reduces suffering, deaths, cases, and costs of treating adverse medical conditions throughout the lifetimes of circumcised individuals.

Is Physical Alteration a Sufficient Reason to Prohibit Ritual Infant Circumcision?

European culture and thought have long disfavored ritual child circumcision, which is obligatory to Jews and Muslims. Much opposition to this practice hinges on the notion that it represents an unwarranted unconsented physical assault on the child. This article takes issue with that conclusion. Furthermore, even if one were to grant this conclusion, the offense is not of sufficient magnitude to warrant government action to halt the practice. On the other hand, suppression of ritual child circumcision may represent an attack against cultures and societies in which circumcision is practiced.

The role of androgens in clitorophallus development and possible applications to transgender patients

BACKGROUND

The clitorophallus, or glans, is a critical structure in sexual development and plays an important role in how gender is conceptualized across the life span. This can be seen in both the evaluation and treatment of intersex individuals and the use of gender-affirming masculinizing therapies to help those born with a clitoris (small clitorophallus with separate urethra) enlarge or alter the function of that structure.

OBJECTIVES

To review the role of testosterone in clitorophallus development from embryo to adulthood, including how exogenous testosterone is used to stimulate clitorophallus enlargement in masculinizing gender-affirming therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Relevant English-language literature was identified and evaluated for data regarding clitorophallus development in endosex and intersex individuals and the utilization of hormonal and surgical masculinizing therapies on the clitorophallus. Studies included evaluated the spectrum of terms regarding the clitorophallus (genital tubercle, clitoris, micropenis, penis).

RESULTS

Endogenous testosterone, and its more active metabolite dihydrotestosterone, plays an important role in the development of the genital tubercle into the clitorophallus, primarily during the prenatal and early postnatal periods and then again during puberty. Androgens contribute to not only growth but also the inclusion of a urethra on the ventral aspect. Exogenous testosterone can be used to enlarge the small clitorophallus (clitoris or micropenis) as part of both intersex and gender-affirming care (in transmasculine patients, up to 2 cm of additional growth). Where testosterone is insufficient to provide the degree of masculinization desired, surgical options including phalloplasty and metoidioplasty are available.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Endogenous testosterone plays an important role in clitorophallus development, and there are circumstances where exogenous testosterone may be useful for masculinization. Surgical options may also help some patients reach their personal goals. As masculinizing gender-affirming care advances, the options available for clitorophallus modifications will likely continue to expand and improve.

Male or female genital cutting: why 'health benefits' are morally irrelevant

The WHO, American Academy of Pediatrics and other Western medical bodies currently maintain that all medically unnecessary female genital cutting of minors is categorically a human rights violation, while either tolerating or actively endorsing medically unnecessary male genital cutting of minors, especially in the form of penile circumcision. Given that some forms of female genital cutting, such as ritual pricking or nicking of the clitoral hood, are less severe than penile circumcision, yet are often performed within the same families for similar (eg, religious) reasons, it may seem that there is an unjust double standard. Against this view, it is sometimes claimed that while female genital cutting has 'no health benefits', male genital cutting has at least some. Is that really the case? And if it is the case, can it justify the disparate treatment of children with different sex characteristics when it comes to protecting their genital integrity? I argue that, even if one accepts the health claims that are sometimes raised in this context, they cannot justify such disparate treatment. Rather, children of all sexes and genders have an equal right to (future) bodily autonomy. This includes the right to decide whether their own 'private' anatomy should be exposed to surgical risk, much less permanently altered, for reasons they themselves endorse when they are sufficiently mature.

'An insight into circumcised men seeking foreskin reconstruction: a prospective cohort study'

The aim of this study was to present a cohort of men seeking assistance with foreskin reconstruction, with the objective to broaden the general understanding for this specific request. All men between January 2015 and May 2019 seeking assistance with foreskin reconstruction were included. We prospectively collected data on patient demographics and outcomes such as their motivations, treatment trajectory, and experiences. A total of 11 patients were identified and included (age range 20-62). The majority were circumcised during adulthood for medical reasons. Among the most prominent motivations to pursue reconstruction were experiencing impairment of body integrity, feeling mutilated, increasing glans sensitivity and having issues with an imposed cultural or religious identity. Most patients stated that they experienced little support from healthcare professionals and that the Internet was their main source of information. Furthermore, almost all patients practiced penile tissue stretching to reconstruct the foreskin with unregistered devices. Foreskin reconstruction is a scarcely reported topic and is sought out for different reasons. Although rare, these patients experience a heavy burden and will go to great lengths to reconstruct their foreskin, more often so without the involvement of healthcare professions. In contrary to the surgical treatment options, the nonsurgical methods seem promising, but these rely heavily on lay-sources found online.

Immediate Complications of Elective Newborn Circumcision

OBJECTIVES

To determine the incidence of immediate complications of elective newborn circumcision in 2 community teaching hospitals.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective chart review of all term neonates who had circumcision performed between August 2011 and December 2014 at 2 community hospitals in New York. Neonatal hospital records and subsequent inpatient and outpatient records were reviewed. We classified complications as minor, intermediate, and major.

RESULTS

Out of a total of 1115 circumcisions, 1064 met inclusion criteria. There were 41 complications (3.9%), all involving hemorrhage. Sutures were used to control hemorrhage in 3 patients (0.3%). Local pressure or application of hemostatic chemical agents controlled bleeding in the remainder of patients. Bleeding was more common with the use of the Gomco clamp than with the Mogen clamp. Circumcisions performed with Gomco clamp represented 73.2% of the total complications compared with 26.8% with the Mogen clamp. There were no injuries to structures outside the prepuce or problems requiring medical treatment after discharge from the neonatal hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

The most common immediate complication encountered during an elective neonatal circumcision was bleeding that required only pressure or topical thrombin to achieve hemostasis. Bleeding was more common with the use of the Gomco versus the Mogen clamp. To conclude, our data support the theory that elective infant circumcision can be performed safely in a hospital setting.

Critical evaluation of arguments opposing male circumcision: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically evaluate evidence against male circumcision (MC).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE and Cochrane databases.

RESULTS

Database searches retrieved 297 publications for inclusion. Bibliographies of these yielded 101 more. After evaluation we found: Claims that MC carries high risk were contradicted by low frequency of adverse events that were virtually all minor and easily treated with complete resolution. Claims that MC causes psychological harm were contradicted by studies finding no such harm. Claims that MC impairs sexual function and pleasure were contradicted by high-quality studies finding no adverse effect. Claims disputing the medical benefits of MC were contradicted by a large body of high-quality evidence indicating protection against a wide range of infections, dermatological conditions, and genital cancers in males and the female sexual partners of men. Risk-benefit analyses reported that benefits exceed risks by 100-200 to 1. To maximize benefits and minimize risks, the evidence supported early infant MC rather than arguments that the procedure should be delayed until males are old enough to decide for themselves. Claims that MC of minors is unethical were contradicted by balanced evaluations of ethical issues supporting the rights of children to be provided with low-risk, high-benefit interventions such as MC for better health. Expert evaluations of case-law supported the legality of MC of minors. Other data demonstrated that early infant MC is cost-saving to health systems.

CONCLUSIONS

Arguments opposing MC are supported mostly by low-quality evidence and opinion, and are contradicted by strong scientific evidence.

The value of bioethical research: A qualitative literature analysis of researchers' statements

INTRODUCTION

Value and waste in preclinical and clinical research projects are intensively debated in biomedicine at present. Such different aspects as the need for setting objectives and priorities, improving study design, quality of reporting, and problematic incentives of the academic reward system are addressed. While this debate is also fueled by ethical considerations and thus informed by bioethical research, up to now, the field of bioethics lacks a similar extensive debate. Nonetheless, bioethical research should not go unquestioned regarding its scientific or social value. What exactly constitutes the value of bioethical research, however, remains widely unclear so far.

METHODS

This explorative study investigated possible value dimensions for bioethical research by conducting a qualitative literature analysis of researchers' statements about the value of their studies. 40 bioethics articles published 2015 in four relevant journals (The American Journal of Bioethics, Bioethics, BMC Medical Ethics and Journal of Medical Ethics) were analyzed. The value dimensions of "advancing knowledge" (e.g. research results that are relevant for science itself and for further research) and "application" (e.g. increasing applicability of research results in practice) were used as main deductive categories for the analysis. Further subcategories were inductively generated.

RESULTS

The analysis resulted in 62 subcategories representing a wide range of value dimensions for bioethical research. Of these, 45 were subcategories of "advancing knowledge" and 17 of "application". In 21 articles, no value dimensions related to "application" was found; the remaining 19 articles mentioned "advancing knowledge" as well as "application". The value dimensions related to "advancing knowledge" were, in general, more fine-grained.

CONCLUSIONS

Even though limitations arise regarding the sample, the study revealed a plethora of value dimensions that can inform further debates about what makes bioethical research valuable for science and society. Besides theoretical reflections on the value of bioethics more meta-research in bioethics is needed.

False beliefs predict increased circumcision satisfaction in a sample of US American men

Critics of non-therapeutic male and female childhood genital cutting claim that such cutting is harmful. It is therefore puzzling that 'circumcised' women and men do not typically regard themselves as having been harmed by the cutting, notwithstanding the loss of sensitive, prima facie valuable tissue. For female genital cutting (FGC), a commonly proposed solution to this puzzle is that women who had part(s) of their vulvae removed before sexual debut 'do not know what they are missing' and may 'justify' their genitally-altered state by adopting false beliefs about the benefits of FGC, while simultaneously stigmatising unmodified genitalia as unattractive or unclean. Might a similar phenomenon apply to neonatally circumcised men? In this survey of 999 US American men, greater endorsement of false beliefs concerning circumcision and penile anatomy predicted greater satisfaction with being circumcised, while among genitally intact men, the opposite trend occurred: greater endorsement of false beliefs predicted less satisfaction with being genitally intact. These findings provide tentative support for the hypothesis that the lack-of-harm reported by many circumcised men, like the lack-of-harm reported by their female counterparts in societies that practice FGC, may be related to holding inaccurate beliefs concerning unaltered genitalia and the consequences of childhood genital modification.

When May Government Interfere with Religious Practices to Protect the Health and Safety of Children?

Secular states may be asked to override parental decisions based on religious beliefs when these decisions lead to concerns for the wellbeing of the child or welfare of society at large. Particular difficulties arise when goals of limited state importance to secular society conflict with practices that matter a great deal to members of religious groups. We propose a prudentially-based approach to resolving these conflicts by balancing the interests of the affected child, those close to the child, and society without compromising the child's needs. This approach acknowledges the importance of children's relational interests as members of families and religious cultures. It is compatible both with legal and bioethical practice. Decisions are contextually framed, taking into account the degree to which the state generally tolerates risks to children's health and safety. The constraints built into our approach protect against using child welfare as a pretext for attacks on minorities. Finally, use of this approach partially addresses the imprecision of other standards that have been applied to judge the appropriateness of parental decisions.

Critical evaluation of unscientific arguments disparaging affirmative infant male circumcision policy

We evaluate recent claims opposing infant male circumcision, a procedure now supported by the evidence-based policy of the American Academy of Pediatrics. We find those criticisms depend on speculative claims about the foreskin and obfuscation of the strong scientific evidence supporting pediatric policy development. An argument that circumcision should be delayed to allow a boy to make up his own mind as an adult fails to appreciate the psychological, scheduling and financial burdens later circumcision entails, so reducing the likelihood that it will occur. In contrast, early infant circumcision is convenient, safer, quicker, lower risk, healing is faster, cosmetic outcome is routinely good and the lifetime benefits accrue immediately. Benefits include reduction in urinary tract infections, inflammatory skin conditions, foreskin problems, and, when older, substantial protection against sexually transmitted infections and genital cancers in the male and his female sexual partners. Some authorities regard the failure to offer parents early infant circumcision as unethical, just as it would be unethical to fail to encourage the vaccination of children. In conclusion, the criticisms of evidence-based infant male circumcision policy are seriously flawed and should be dismissed as unhelpful to evidence-based development and implementation of pediatric policy intended to improve public health and individual wellbeing.

In defence of genital autonomy for children

Arora and Jacobs (2016) assume that liberal societies should tolerate non-therapeutic infant male circumcision, and argue that it follows from this that they should similarly tolerate-or even encourage-what the authors regard as 'de minimis' forms of female genital mutilation (as defined by the World Health Organization). In this commentary, I argue that many serious problems would be likely to follow from a policy of increased tolerance for female genital mutilation, and that it may therefore be time to consider a less tolerant attitude toward non-therapeutic infant male circumcision. Ultimately, I suggest that children of whatever sex or gender should be free from having healthy parts of their most intimate sexual organs either damaged or removed, before they can understand what is at stake in such an intervention and agree to it themselves.

Female genital alteration: a compromise solution

Despite 30 years of advocacy, the prevalence of non-therapeutic female genital alteration (FGA) in minors is stable in many countries. Educational efforts have minimally changed the prevalence of this procedure in regions where it has been widely practiced. In order to better protect female children from the serious and long-term harms of some types of non-therapeutic FGA, we must adopt a more nuanced position that acknowledges a wide spectrum of procedures that alter female genitalia. We offer a revised categorisation for non-therapeutic FGA that groups procedures by effect and not by process. Acceptance of de minimis procedures that generally do not carry long-term medical risks is culturally sensitive, does not discriminate on the basis of gender, and does not violate human rights. More morbid procedures should not be performed. However, accepting de minimis non-therapeutic f FGA procedures enhances the effort of compassionate practitioners searching for a compromise position that respects cultural differences but protects the health of their patients.