Female and infant male circumcision: is there an ethical difference?

Currently, there is widespread agreement within the U.S. medical community that female genital mutilation (FGM) is not an acceptable medical practice and that physicians ought to reject requests for clitoridectomies, or other forms of female genital mutilation. At the same time, there is relatively widespread agreement that infant male circumcision is acceptable. This is puzzling, for infant male circumcision has little to recommend it other than custom. Moreover, it harms the male infant in ways comparable to FGM.

Thus, it is not clear that the U.S. rejection of FGM is not merely arbitrary in the light of the U.S. acceptance of infant male circumcision. Either there is a significant difference between the two practices, or the two practices are morally on a par. If the practices are morally on a par, one may not consistently reject the one while accepting the other.

I note that the benefits of infant male circumcision are speculative at best while the harms are downplayed or ignored. I argue that there is not a significant difference between FGM and infant male circumcision. I conclude that the U.S. medical community ought to take its rejection of FGM as an opportunity to reconsider its currently mistaken and unjustifiable acceptance of infant male circumcision.

The Circumcision Information and Resource Pages are a not-for-profit educational resource and library. IntactiWiki hosts this website but is not responsible for the content of this site. CIRP makes documents available without charge, for informational purposes only. The contents of this site are not intended to replace the professional medical or legal advice of a licensed practitioner.

  © CIRP.org 1996-2024 | Filetree | Please visit our sponsor and host:  IntactiWiki.