Iceland dumps proposed ban on male circumcision
by Michael Cook | 13 May 2018 |
The ban was proposed in February by Silja Dögg Gunnarsdóttir of the Progressive Party in the Althing, Iceland’s parliament. She described her bill as an attempt “to protect the interest of the child”. Circumcision of females had already been banned, she reasoned, why not of males? “Every individual, it doesn’t matter what sex or how old… should be able to give informed consent for a procedure that is unnecessary, irreversible and can be harmful,” she declared. “His body, his choice.”
Incredibly, Ms Gunnarsdóttir failed to consult Iceland’s tiny Jewish and Muslim communities and did not anticipate the uproar that ensued. “I didn’t think it was necessary to consult,” she told The Independent. “I don’t see it as a religious matter. Jews are welcome in Iceland. But this is about child protection and children’s rights. That comes first, and before the religious rights of the adult.”
Icelanders were divided. Polling showed that 50 percent favoured the bill and 37 percent opposed it, with the remainder undecided. Local religious leaders campaigned against it.
Some inconsistencies emerged. Intersex children are routinely operated upon, but without their consent. The bill cited the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child but Iceland has sometimes deported children born in Iceland without respecting their rights.
The bill appears to have sunk because lobbyists successfully stoked fears of religious discrimination. “The impact of this would be felt far beyond Iceland’s borders,” said a letter from the US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs. “This move would make Iceland the first and only European nation to outlaw circumcision. While Jewish and Muslim populations in Iceland may be small, your country’s ban would be exploited by those who stoke xenophobia and antisemitism in countries with more diverse populations.”
However, two bioethicists writing in the Oxford University blog Practical Ethics, Lauren Notini and Brian D. Earp, suggested that religious reasons for male circumcision are probably not justifiable: “Parental religious rights are not unlimited”. They argue that:
Non-therapeutic genital cutting deprives the child, and the adult they will become, of the opportunity to remain genitally unmodified (or intact). Plausibly, the person whose ‘private parts’ will be permanently affected by the cutting should get a chance to weigh in on whether that is what they desire, in light of their longer-term preferences and values ...However, the less clear it is that a bodily encroachment is in fact in the child’s best interests—considering the child’s strong interest in being able to autonomously make important self-affecting decisions in the future—“the more likely it is that the child’s bodily integrity rights are being impermissibly violated.”
Sunday, May 13, 2018
“Death with dignity” or “aid in dying” is gathering pace in the United States, now that Hawaii has joined the list of states which permit it. Some of the most important input in the debate comes from medical associations. The American
Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine
has adopted a position of “studied neutrality”. But how does the American Medical Association stand?
According to a recent decision by its Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, squarely against it. Below we report that in a little-noticed report, it endorses many of the arguments raised against assisted suicide: "dying with dignity" is a misnomer; it is probably not safe; and it could lead to a slippery slope. It's a very interesting read -- along with all of our other articles. Check them out.
According to a recent decision by its Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, squarely against it. Below we report that in a little-noticed report, it endorses many of the arguments raised against assisted suicide: "dying with dignity" is a misnomer; it is probably not safe; and it could lead to a slippery slope. It's a very interesting read -- along with all of our other articles. Check them out.
Michael Cook
Editor BioEdge |
NEWS THIS WEEK
by Michael Cook | May 13, 2018
Recent report gives a respectful No
by Michael Cook | May 13, 2018
Senate urged to reject Gina Haspel as CIA director
by Michael Cook | May 13, 2018
Jewish and Muslim communities alarmed
by Xavier Symons | May 12, 2018
A teenage boy has woken up just a day before he was due to have vital organs removed.
by Xavier Symons | May 12, 2018
Spain will countenance a euthanasia bill after Finland resoundingly rejects citizens initiative.
by Xavier Symons | May 12, 2018
Malta is considering liberalising its restrictive IVF laws.
by Xavier Symons | May 12, 2018
How can you avoid epistemic prejudice in clinical practice?
BioEdge
Phone: +61 2 8005 8605
Mobile: 0422-691-615
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario