Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Respect in the Context of Infant Male Circumcision

Can Ethics and Law Provide Insights?

  • Chapter
Male and Female Circumcision

Abstract

As you are almost certainly aware, human cloning is a major scientific, ethical, and legal issue at present. In fact, it may well prove to be the major “science fiction turned science fact” event of the end of the twentieth century. What connection could the debate surrounding human cloning have with both the current practice of infant male circumcision and moves to abolish this? A slide that I prepared as part of a presentation I gave on the ethical issues raised by human cloning is relevant to responding to this question.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Taylor JR, Lockwood AP, Taylor AJ. The prepuce: specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision. Br J Urol 1996;77:291–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Williams N, Kapila L. Complications of circumcision. Br J Surg 1993;80:1231–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kaplan GW. Complications of circumcision. Urol Clin N Amer 1983;10:543–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Taddio A, Goldbach M, Ipp M, Stevens B, Koren G. Effect of neonatal circumcision on pain responses at vaccination in boys. Lancet 1995;345:291–2.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Taddio A, Katz J, Ilersich AL, Koren G. Effect of neonatal circumcision on pain response during subsequent routine vaccination. Luncet 1997;349:599–603.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Howard CR, Howard FM, Weitzman ML. Acetaminophen analgesia in neonatal circumcision: the effects on pain. Pediatrics 1994;93:641–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Fetus and Newborn Committee, Canadian Paediatric Society. Neonatal circumcision revisited. CMAJ 1996;154:776.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Lawler FH, Bisonni RS, Holtgrave DR. Circumcision: a decision analysis of its medical value. Fam Med 1991;23:587–93. [Cited in Canadian Paediatric Society statement, note 7, at p.776].

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Ganiats TG, Humphrey JBC, Taras HL, Kaplan RM. Routine neonatal circumcision: a cost-utility analysis. Med Decis Making 1991;11:282–93.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Van Howe RS. Neonatal circumcision: a cost-utility analysis. 20th Annual Meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making. Cambridge, MA. October 1998 [Abstract] (In press).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Taylor JR, Lockwood AP, Taylor AJ. The prepuce: specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision. Br J Urol 1996;77:291–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Fleiss PM, Hodges FM, Van Howe RS. Immunological functions of the human prepuce: a review. Sex Transm Inf 1998;77:364–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Williams GL. Significance and function of preputial Langerhans cells. Presentation, Fifth International Symposium on Sexual Mutilations University of Oxford, 5–7 August, 1998. (Plenum; In press).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Somerville MA. Genetics, reproductive technologies, euthanasia, and the search for a new societal paradigm. [Editorial] Social Sciences & Medicine 1996;42(12):ix–xii.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Yankelovich D. Trends in American cultural values. Criterion (August 1996):2–9.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Neither the Holocaust nor the Russian pogroms of the nineteenth century—two events that do qualify as the most horrific, anti-Semitic movements—(or the Babylonian captivity, for that matter) commenced with people speaking out against infant male circumcision. The Nazis neither spoke out against ritual Jewish circumcision nor passed laws forbidding ritual Jewish circumcision. There have only been three instances in history when Jewish ritual circumcision has been banned. Fist, from 168 BCE until around 141 BCE, when Antiochus IV tried to hellenise the Jews and banned circumcision, as related in I Maccabees 1:14–15. Second, in 132 AD, when Emperor Hadrian banned circumcision. This ban lasted until 140 AD, when Emperor Antoninus Pius issued a rescript to the ban and allowed only the Jews to circumcise their children. The third and last time that Jewish circumcision was banned was in the Soviet Union. This ban was not through statute but through an interpretation of a passage in the soviet constitution that stated that every soviet citizen had the right to freedom from religion. This interpretation of the law, however, was not merely applicable to Jews. It also included Muslims. There were a variety of laws passed by Byzantine emperors and by the Church throughout the middle ages banning Jews from circumcising non-Jewish slaves and servants, but no laws were passed banning Jews from circumcising their own children. See: Linder A, ed. The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. 1987, Grayzel S. The Church and the Jews in the XIIIth Century. Revised ed. New York Hermon Press. 1966, Rothenberg J.The Jewish Religion in the Soviet Union. New York: KTAV. 1971:142, Gitelman Z. The communist party and Soviet Jewry: the early years. In. Aspects of Religion in the Soviet Union 1917-1967. Marshall RH Jr, ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1971:332n. Personal communication, Frederick Hodges, Oxford University, Wellcome Unit for the History of Medicine. 11 September 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Somerville MA. Medical Interventions and the criminal law: lawful or excusable wounding? McGill Law Journal 1980;26(1):82–96.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kirkey S. Circumcising baby boys “criminal assault.” Ethicist says society must consider ban. The Ottawa Citizen (October 17, 1997):A1.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Somerville MA. Medical Interventions and the criminal law: lawful or excusable wounding? McGill Law Journal 1980;26(1):82–96.

    Google Scholar 

  20. See, for example, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Schedule B, Constitution Act 1982, section 2(a).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kugler I. On the possibility of a criminal law defence for conscientious objection. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 1997;10:387–439.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Stuart D. Canadian Criminal Law. 2nd ed. Toronto: Carswell. 1987:432–41.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Colvin E. Principles of Criminal Law. 2nd ed. Toronto: Carswell. 1991:238–49.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Somerville MA. Death of pain: pain, suffering, and ethics. In: Gebhart GF, Hammond DL, Jensen TS, eds. Progress in Pain Research and Management. Volume 2. Proceedings of the 7th World Congress on Pain, International Association for the Study of Pain. Seattle: IASP Press. 1994:41–58.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Somerville MA. Pain and suffering at interfaces of medicine and law. University of Toronto Law Journal 1986;36:286–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Anand KJ, Hickey PR. Pain and its effects in the human neonate and fetus. N Engl J Med 1987;317:1321–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Taddio A, Goldbach M, Ipp M, Stevens B, Koren G. Effect of neonatal circumcision on pain responses at vaccination in boys. Lancet 1995;345:291–2.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Taddio A, Katz J, Ilersich AL, Koren G. Effect of neonatal circumcision on pain response during subsequent routine vaccination. Lancet 1997;349:599–603.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Taddio A, Stevens B, Craig K, Rastogi P, Ben-David S, Shennan M, Mulligan P, Koren G. Efficacy and safety of lidocaine-prilocaine cream for pain during circumcision. N Engl J Med 1997;336:1197–201.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Somerville MA, Alwin D. Lidocaine-Prilocaine Cream for Pain during Circumcision. N Engl J Med 1997;337:568–70.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. MacDonald V. Newborns feel pain differently than adults: research. The Montreal Gazette (August 3, 1998):A9.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Somerville MA. Death of pain: pain, suffering, and ethics. In: Gebhart GF, Hammond DL, Jensen TS, eds. Progress in Pain Research and Management. Volume 2. Proceedings of the 7th World Congress on Pain, International Association for the Study of Pain. Seattle: IASP Press. 1994:41–58.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Somerville MA. Pain and suffering at interfaces of medicine and law. University of Toronto Law Journal 1986;36:286–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Goldman R. Questioning Circumcision: A Jewish Perspective. Boston: Vanguard Publications. 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Singer F, ed. The Jewish Encyc1opedia: A Descriptive Record of the History, Religion, Literature, and Customs of the Jewish People from the Earliest Times. Vol. IV. New York: Ktav. 1964:93. (Entry: Circumcision Sub-Heading: In Apocryphal and Rabbinical Literature)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Somerville MA. Structuring the issues in informed consent. McGill Law Journal 1981;26:740–808.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. See for example, the Civil Code of Quebec, article 18 which provides: “Where the person is under fourteen years of age or is incapable of giving his consent, consent to care not required by his state of health is given by the person having parental authority or the mandatory, tutor or curator; the authorisation of the court is also necessary if the care entails a serious risk for health or if it might cause grave and permanent effects.”

    Google Scholar 

  38. Somerville MA. Structuring the issues in informed consent. McGill Law Journal 1981;26:740–808.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Somerville MA. The case against HIV antibody testing of refugees and immigrants. Canadian Medical Association Journal 1989;141:889–94.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Somerville MA. Law as an “art form” reflecting AIDS a challenge to the province and function of law. In: Miller J, ed. Fluid Exchanges: Artists and Critics in the AIDS Crisis. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 1992:287–304.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Margaret A. Somerville
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Washington, Seanle, Washington

    George C. Denniston

  2. Wellcome Unit for the History of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, England

    Frederick Mansfield Hodges

  3. National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers, San Anselmo, California

    Marilyn Fayre Milos

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1999 Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers, New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Somerville, M.A. (1999). Respect in the Context of Infant Male Circumcision. In: Denniston, G.C., Hodges, F.M., Milos, M.F. (eds) Male and Female Circumcision. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-585-39937-9_36

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-585-39937-9_36

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-306-46131-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-585-39937-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation