Neonatal Male Circumcision – Bioethically Correct Or Not? Article Review

Philosophy

1. The author’s argument about neonatal male circumcision is on the following lines:
Neonatal male circumcision is a radical medical procedure providing little medical benefits, while being complex and carrying a risk of complications and pain.

Neonatal male circumcision is bioethically wrong on grounds of sexual violation without consent.

Arguments supporting the practice on the weight of tradition are superfluous as similar arguments supporting slavery and honor killings now stand discredited.
Arguments supporting the practice on religious grounds lack merit as similar religious injunctions for female circumcision stand discredited and are not followed.
Male circumcision is done at an early age primarily to avoid opposition from the subject; an aspect borne out from the fact that subjects oppose circumcisions attempted at later stages of life.
The argument is valid on most counts. However, the author may be deemed to be guilty of evoking false equivalence between female circumcision and male circumcision while arguing against the religious basis that supports male circumcision. The essence of the author’s religious argument is that one cannot take male circumcision as valid without taking other religious injunctions into account. This is a false dilemma created by the author. By the same token, it could be argued that nutrition science advocates diametrically opposite ideas with every research finding, and therefore none of the findings are true. In effect, just as each research finding needs to be weighed on its own merit, so do religious injunctions. Thus, clubbing male and female circumcisions to argue against the religious injunction for male circumcision suffers from the fallacy of false equivalence and false dilemma.
2. However, the overall thrust of the author has merit. I would argue against neonatal male circumcision on medical grounds. While it is possible that lack of potable water in ancient times resulted in advocacy of male circumcision for hygiene reasons, those reasons are no longer valid. Current medical research buttresses the numerous disadvantages of male circumcision. The foreskin has a specialized function, and its removal is akin to amputation. The foreskin has protective functions, protecting the penis from ulcers and infection. The foreskin has a sensory function of being an erogenous zone. Further, the foreskin has an important role in reducing friction and abrasion during intercourse (Hill).
3. Science has a role in answering questions such as the ethical permissibility of male circumcision. Religious injunctions are invariably based on the requirements of the times when religious tenets were formulated. Such injunctions need to be continuously revisited with newer discoveries as afforded by science.
4. Scientific research on the subject of male circumcision reveals arguments both in favor and against male circumcision. The arguments favoring male circumcision cite the health benefits as being increasingly significant (Short). However, even the proponents of male circumcision acknowledge the risks involved in the procedure. Therefore, the position I have taken on the subject is based on a rational judgment of both pros and cons of male circumcision, as well as the bioethical aspects impinging on the procedure.

Works Cited

Hill, George. “The Case Against Circumcision.” Journal of Men’s Health and Gender 4.3 (2007): 318-323. Web. March 20, 2015.
Myers, Alex. “Neonatal Male Circumcision, if not Already Commonplace, Would be Plainly Unacceptable by Modern Ethical Standards.” The American Journal of Bioethics 15.2 (2015): 54-55. Web. March 20, 2015.
Short, RV. “Health Benefits of Male Circumcision are Wide Ranging.” Response to John Hutson. “Circumcision: A Surgeon’s Perspective.” Journal of Medical Ethics 30 (2004): 238-40. Web. March 20, 2015.