Responses

PDF
Consent for non-therapeutic male circumcision: an exception to the rule?
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Re:Non therapeutic treatment on the NHS?

    Dear Editor,

    Non-therapeutic foreskin removal on the NHS? NO! At the establishment of the NHS in the 1940s, it was correctly decided that abandoning the ritualistic and cosmetic procedure was best both for the child and the service which had better things to on which to spend time and money.

    Of course, I realise that foreskin removal has a long history, but 4000 years ago human rights were largely non-existent,...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Let the owner decide the fate of his foreskin.

    It is simple to present male circumcision as the scientific and sensible thing to do. Indeed, the foreskin is one of those parts of the body, like wisdom teeth and the appendix, that seem to be ripe for the plucking.

    However, those who argue both for and against circumcision are likely to overstate their case. Guy Cox pointed out that some people have religious and philosophical objections to circumcision. How...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Consent from both parents is ethically required

    Sirs:

    This is a timely and important article. Pretermitting whether parental consent can ever be valid for non-therapeutic surgeries on minors, certainly Mr. Wheeler is correct that at the very least the permission of both parents should be necessary for the circumcision of a male child. Too often here in the U.S. the matter ends up in court. I have been involved in one way or another in seven such cases in t...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Re: Non therapeutic treatment on the NHS?

    There is a curious paradox in this debate. Male circumcision is, like immunisation, prophylactic medicine. Its benefits (protection against UTIs, HIV, balanitis, phimosis and penile and cerivcal carcinoma) are well established. The risks of circumcision are lower than those of most immunisations, and in at least some cases (where the diseases in question are now rare) its benefit is greater.

    Yet if a parent's religiou...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Non therapeutic treatment on the NHS?

    Robert Wheeler discusses the complexities of consent for non- therapeutic male circumcision, especially when both parents may not be in agreement and specifically in the religious context. The discussion could also include the wider question of whether the treatment of children is an issue for the family alone or whether society as a whole has a right or a duty to interfere in family life, for the protection of children....

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.