Abstract
This paper provides a qualified defense of the permissibility of safely performed male circumcision. Permitting circumcision can contribute to the wellbeing of parents and children by facilitating intimate relationships that are grounded in joint participation in cultural traditions. However, not all cultural or religious practices that facilitate intimacy goods are permissible. Protecting children from excessive harm significantly limits the rights of parents in this domain.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
For an account of the German case, see Heimbach-Steins (2013).
- 2.
The Journal of Medical Ethics has recently devoted an entire issue to the medical, ethical, and legal dimensions of the question. See Journal of Medical Ethics, vol. 39, no. 7 (2013).
- 3.
For a sample of recent papers that reveal just how broad disagreement is among medical researchers as to the balance of potential harms and benefits associated with male circumcision, see Short (2004); AAPTF (2012); Lang (2013); Svoboda (2013). Opponents of the practice argue that there are risks associated with the practice that cannot be entirely eliminated, that it causes significant pain and discomfort, and that it can lead to later sexual dysfunction. Defenders of the right of parents to have their male children circumcised hold that risks and harms are minimal. Circumcision has, finally, been associated with significantly lower rates of HIV transmission in sub-Saharan Africa.
- 4.
Rawls’ discussion of the family in Theory of Justice occurs in various places, including p. 74, and p. 511, where he moots the idea that the family might have to be abolished to realize fair equality of opportunity (Rawls 1971). Among theorists who very early took up the challenge of thinking about the family in the context of a largely Rawlsian theory of social justice, see Fishkin (1984). See also Munoz-Darde (1998). Rawls dropped that simplifying assumption within the theory as a result of the critique that was addressed to him by the liberal feminist critique of Okin (1989).
- 5.
This point is developed at greater length in Weinstock (2013).
- 6.
Cf. De Wispelaere and Daniels (2014).
- 7.
We are indebted in particular to Brighouse and Swift (2006).
- 8.
Brighouse and Swift (2009).
- 9.
This idea was suggested to us in a paper presented by Colin Macleod to a conference at the University of Western Ontario in June 2013.
- 10.
Weinstock (2011).
- 11.
Feinberg (1980).
- 12.
E.g., Mills (2003).
- 13.
Callan (1997).
- 14.
The canonical formulation of the distinction is in Dworkin (1986).
- 15.
Cf Clayton (2006).
- 16.
Darby (2013).
- 17.
Svoboda et al. (2001).
- 18.
Mackie (1996).
- 19.
Shachar (2001).
- 20.
Ben-Yami (2013).
- 21.
Studies indicate however that information about the potential deleterious effects of circumcision do not significantly deter parents from requesting that the procedure be carried out. See for example Binner et al. (2002).
- 22.
For an account of the basic facts of the case see Lambelet Coleman (1998).
- 23.
See AAPCB (2010).
- 24.
Cf. Shell-Duncan (2001).
- 25.
- 26.
On the other meanings that female genital cutting has at various times been taken to have, see Kopelman (1994).
- 27.
Mackie (1996).
References
American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Bioethics (AAPCB). (2010). Policy statement: Ritual genital cutting of female minors. Pediatrics, 125(5), 1088–1093.
American Academy of Pediatrics, Task Force on Circumcision (AAPTF). (2012). Technical report: Male circumcision. 130(3), 756–785.
Ben-Yami, H. (2013). Circumcision: What should be done? The Journal of Medical Ethics, 39, 459–462.
Binner, S. L., et al. (2002). Effects of parental education on decision-making about neonatal circumcision. Southern Medical Journal, 95(4), 457–461.
Brighouse, H., & Swift, A. (2006). Parents’ rights and the value of the family. Ethics, 117, 80–106.
Brighouse, H., & Swift, A. (2009). Legitimate parental partiality. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 37(1), 43–80.
Callan, E. (1997). Creating citizens. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Clayton, M. (2006). Justice and legitimacy in upbringing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Darby, R. L. (2013). The child’s right to an open future: Is the principle applicable to non-therapeutic circumcision? The Journal of Medical Ethics, 39, 463–468.
Davis, D. (2010). Cultural bias in responses to male and female genital surgeries. The American Journal of Bioethics, 3(2), W1–W9.
De Wispelaere, J., & Weinstock, D. (2014). Privileging adoption over sexual reproduction? A state-centered perspective. In R. Vernon, S. Hannan, & S. Brennan (Eds.), Permissible progeny. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dworkin, G. (1986). The theory and practice of autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Feinberg, J. (1980). The child’s right to an open future. In A. Aiken & H. Laffollette (Eds.), Whose child? Parental authority and state power. Totowa: Rowman and Littlefield.
Fishkin, J. (1984). Justice, equal opportunity, and the family. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Gaelotti, A. E. (2007). Relativism, universalism, and applied ethics: The case of female circumcision. Constellations, 14(1), 91–111.
Heimbach-Steins, M. (2013). Religious freedom and the German circumcision debate. EUI working papers, RSCAS 18.
Kopelman, L. M. (1994). Female circumcision/genital mutilation and ethical relativism. Second Opinion, 20(2), 55–71.
Lambelet Coleman, D. (1998). The Seattle compromise: Multicultural sensitivity and Americanization. Duke Law Journal, 47(4), 717–783.
Lang, D. P. (2013). Circumcision, sexual dysfunction and the child’s best interest: Why the anatomical details matter. The Journal of Medical Ethics, 39, 429–431.
Mackie, G. (1996). Ending footbinding and infibulation: A convention account. American Sociological Review, 61(6), 999–1017.
Mills, C. (2003). The child’s right to an open future? The Journal of Social Philosophy, 34(3), 499–509.
Munoz-Darde, V. (1998). Rawls, justice in the family, and justice of the family. The Philosophical Quarterly, 48(192), 335–352.
Okin, S. (1989). Justice, gender, and the family. New York: Basic Books.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Shachar, A. (2001). Multicultural jurisdictions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shell-Duncan, B. (2001). The medicalization of female circumcision: Harm reduction or promotion of a dangerous practice. Social Science and Medicine, 52, 1013–1028. col.
Short, R. V. (2004). Male circumcision, a scientific perspective. The Journal of Medical Ethics, 30, 241.
Svoboda, J. S. (2013). Circumcision of male infants as a human rights violation. The Journal of Medical Ethics, 39, 469–474.
Svoboda, J. S., Van Howe, R. S., & Dwyer, J. G. (2001). Informed consent for neonatal circumcision: An ethical and legal conundrum. Journal of Contemporary Health Law Policy, 17, 61–133.
Tamir, Y. (2006). Hands off clitoridectomy. The Boston review. Accessed 26 Nov 2013.
Weinstock, D. (2011). Do the interests of children pose a limit on cultural rights? In E. Rude-Antoine & M. et Pievic (Eds.), Éthique et famille. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Weinstock, D. (2013). La famille comme institution politique. In D. Robichaud, D. et Anctil, & P. Turmel (Eds.), Penser les institutions. Sainte-Foy: Les presses de l’Université Laval.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
De Wispelaere, J., Weinstock, D. (2015). The Grounds and Limits of Parents’ Cultural Prerogatives: The Case of Circumcision. In: Bagattini, A., Macleod, C. (eds) The Nature of Children's Well-Being. Children’s Well-Being: Indicators and Research, vol 9. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9252-3_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9252-3_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-9251-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-9252-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)