title: Ritual male infant circumcision and human rights.
abstract: Opponents 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.
authors: a Stony Brook University School of Medicine.
authors: Allan J
authors: AJ
authors: Jacobs
authors: Kavita Shah
authors: KS
authors: Arora
mesh_terms: D000367:Age Factors; D002562:Ceremonial Behavior; D002755:Choice Behavior; D002944:Circumcision, Male / Q000941:ethics*; D003466:Cultural Characteristics; D018594:Human Body; D006806:Human Rights; D006801:Humans; D007223:Infant; D007514:Islam; D007599:Judaism; D008297:Male; D010146:Pain / Q000209:etiology; D033282:Parental Consent; D026684:Personal Autonomy; D012068:Religion and Medicine; D012098:Reproduction; D012449:Safety; D014554:Urination
keywords: Islam; Judaism; circumcision; human rights