Journal of Clinical Ethics

[Fellow Traveler]

An excellent article recently published in the UK Journal of Clinical Ethics.

http://www.davidwilton.com/files/2009_shaw.pdf

Discuss.

[kiki07]

Here is the abstract of the article


Cutting through red tape: non-therapeutic
circumcision and unethical guidelines
Abstract
Current General Medical Council (GMC) guidelines state that any doctor who does not wish to carry out a non-therapeutic circumcision (NTC) on a boy must invoke conscientious objection. This paper argues that this is illogical, as it is clear that an ethical doctor will object to conducting a clinically unnecessary operation on a child who cannot consent simply because of the parents’ religious beliefs.
Comparison of the GMC guidelines with the more sensible British Medical Association guidance reveals that both are biased in favour of NTC and subvert standard consent procedures. It is further argued that any doctor who does participate in NTC of a minor may be guilty of negligence and in breach of the Human Rights Act. In fact, the GMC guidance implies that doctors must claim conscientious objection if they do not wish to be negligent. Both sets of guidelines should be changed to ensure an objective consent process and avoid confusion over the ethics of NTC.

[Opinionated]

:yelclap::yelclap::yelclap:

My biggest problem with circumcision is the ethics of it. This is a great article.

I doubt there will be any discussion. Not much that could be said to that.

[MummaBear03]

Hmm, we'll have to see. It really doesn't make sense when you think about the fact that doctors are not to cause harm to patients. I'd say cutting off skin is harming them :confused: