Attorney Peter Adler, ARC's Legal Advisor, submitted to the American Academy of Pediatrics' AAP News a response to Jeffrey L. Brown's recent article published in the April 2013 issue, "Medical-legal risks associated with circumcision of newborn males: need for revised consent."
Attorneys for the Rights of the Child wrote to the Canadian Paedatric Society, urging the CPS to uphold children's rights to bodily integrity and genital autonomy in its policy statement on male circumcision, which is expected to appear within the next few months.
The Jewish Press favorably mentioned the article by J Steven Svoboda and pediatrician Robert S. Van Howe that was recently published by the Journal of Medical Ethics.
Oxford University's Practical Ethics Blog has issued an announcement by the Journal of Medical Ethics (JME) providing further information on the contents of the upcoming special issue on male circumcision.
Summary: Human rights attorney J. Steven Svoboda and pediatrician Robert S. Van Howe, M.D. have published a new article in one of the world’s leading journals on medical ethics arguing that the American Academy of Pediatrics' (AAP's) position regarding male circumcision lacks credible support. The article leads off the latest issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics (JME) and has already led the AAP to arrange for the JME to publish its response in what Svoboda and Van Howe consider an ill-fated attempt to justify the medically and ethically flawed arguments in its policy statement and technical report.
Germany's official Paediatric Association, the Berufsverband der Kinder- und Jugendärtze (BVKJ), has broken its silence on infant circumcision – scoring two major points for genital integrity. The BVKJ prominently cites Attorneys for the Rights of the Child and our e-letter to Pediatrics criticizing the AAP Technical Report and Policy Statement.
We are again very honored that In Search of Fatherhood magazine has featured me on the cover (along with a couple other activists) and has published, in its Autumn 2012 issue, my article on genital autonomy, that is, on the importance of protecting all children from genital cutting regardless of whether they are male, female or intersex.
The long awaited circumcision policy statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) may be most notable for what it does not address. The statement steadfastly omits any analysis of the foreskin, its erogenous, protective, and immunological functions, or crucially, the impact its removal has on normal sexual functioning and on the health and quality of life.
The recent German court case regarding circumcision upheld a child’s human and legal rights to bodily integrity. The ensuing arguments claiming that the decision violated religious rights evidence a misplaced understanding of the proper scope of options available based on a parent’s religion with respect to procedures that may infringe on a child’s rights.
Our work has borne very satisfying fruit over the past twelve months. As opposition continues and even expands in certain areas, ARC and our fellow intactivists are making unprecedented inroads in safeguarding genital integrity, achieving goals of which we could only have dreamt in past years.
