American Journal of Bioethics 15 (2):30-39 (2015)
AbstractOpponents of male circumcision have increasingly used human rights positions to articulate their viewpoint. We characterize the meaning of the term “human rights.” We discuss these human rights arguments with special attention to the claims of rights to an open future and to bodily integrity. We offer a three-part test under which a parental decision might be considered an unacceptable violation of a child's right. The test considers the impact of the practice on society, the impact of the practice on the individual, and the likelihood of adverse impact. Infant circumcision is permissible under this test. We conclude that infant circumcision may be proscribed as violating local norms, even though it does not violate human rights
Similar books and articles
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Male or female genital cutting: why ‘health benefits’ are morally irrelevant.Brian D. Earp - 2021 - Journal of Medical Ethics 47 (12):e92-e92.
Female genital mutilation and male circumcision: toward an autonomy-based ethical framework.Brian Earp - forthcoming - Medicolegal and Bioethics:89.
Female genital alteration: a compromise solution.Kavita Shah Arora & Allan J. Jacobs - 2016 - Journal of Medical Ethics 42 (3):148-154.
Circumcision, Autonomy and Public Health.Brian D. Earp & Robert Darby - 2019 - Public Health Ethics 12 (1):64-81.
References found in this work
Elements of a theory of human rights.S. E. N. Amartya - 2004 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 32 (4):315–356.
Minimalism about human rights: The most we can hope for?Joshua Cohen - 2004 - Journal of Political Philosophy 12 (2):190–213.
Human rights and capabilities.Amartya Sen - 2009 - In Mark Goodale (ed.), Human Rights: An Anthropological Reader. Wiley-Blackwell.