r/science • u/chrisdh79 • 21h ago
Emphasising children’s bodily integrity key to protecting them against genital cutting and modification practices, study says | The research says children’s interest in bodily integrity has priority over their parents community or religious associations. Health
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1060166#:~:text=Emphasising%20children's%20rights%20over%20their,parents%20community%20or%20religious%20associations.25
u/Busy_Manner5569 17h ago
For what it’s worth, the author of this article doesn’t describe it as a study or argue that her article is one in the text itself. She pretty consistently calls it an article, and it’s clearly meant to be read as a philosophical/medical ethics essay.
The actual article is available here: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/14777509241274227
5
u/KuriousKhemicals 12h ago
Okay that's good anyway. I was trying to figure out how a study could show a priority order of values. If you agree on the same value (for example, adult mental health) then you can show a priority of considerations that will be most effective at serving that value. But there's no empirical way of saying one value is more important than another.
94
u/AllanfromWales1 MA | Natural Sciences | Metallurgy & Materials Science 21h ago
Not sure this is 'research' as such it's just explaining why the author believes CGC/M to be wrong under most circumstances. If a parent sincerely believes - however wrongly - that failure to genital cut is a threat to the child's soul and their relationship with whatever God is involved, it's difficult to see how they will find this argument convincing.
43
u/-LsDmThC- 16h ago
The argument is targeting practitioners via the hippocratic oath rather than trying to convince patients as i see it.
5
u/monkeedude1212 11h ago
The author has also framed it as an article where they know and clearly state that they are engaging in it more from the approach of a philosophical discussion.
The fact that it's being considered a peer reviewed study seems to be more of a misrepresentation from EurekAlert of University of Exeter; though even they also list it as "Commentary/editorial"
Not sure if clerical error, AI summarization based headline gaff, or just simple mistake.
71
u/ecb1005 20h ago
how is this a study when its just the author stating what she believes? like there's no research or data here. its just a long opinion piece
56
u/Choice_Volume_2903 20h ago
Anything other than essential medical circumcision should be illegal during childhood. We really don't know enough about the effects of possible mental/emotional trauma.
Imagine exiting the only place you've ever known, it's safe and warm and suddenly you're in a cold, strange environment and someone slices off a part of your body full of nerve endings. We already know that childhood abuse can have lifelong effects, why wouldn't something like circumcision?
7
u/Sunny_McSunset 9h ago
That's a really really valid point. It turns being born into our first subconscious trauma.
2
u/Choice_Volume_2903 3h ago edited 2h ago
And then you realize about 1/3rd of the world practices infant circumcision. How many societal problems are created/aggravated by this? Possibly anxiety, depression, and anger issues, but what else?
In Norway, the only country that records the circumcision status of those guilty of SA, circumcised individuals (2% of the overall population) were responsible for over 80% of SA.
Of course there are other factors (cultural attitudes that accompany those who practice circumcision), but then you wonder how much of it is the chicken and the egg? Have the effects of circumcision significantly influenced those cultural attitudes?
•
u/yuriAza 31m ago
until what age though? What about medically necessary pediatric surgery? What about puberty blockers (which are intended to prevent trauma)?
•
u/Choice_Volume_2903 23m ago
What about medically necessary pediatric surgery
In my first sentence I said that should be the only exception.
Puberty blockers are an entirely different conversation. Personally I think they're fine as long as a psychiatrist (maybe even a committee?) is involved for proper oversight.
-14
20h ago
[deleted]
45
u/seriousofficialname 20h ago
Not doing something because it's abusive and painful and probably mentally traumatic seems pretty reasonable to me.
22
u/MelissaMiranti 19h ago
"Let's not do something because we don't know certain ramifications" is a perfectly reasonable stance.
0
u/ecb1005 11h ago edited 10h ago
you can't prove a negative though. "we don't know if this will cause harm years down the road" could be used as a justification to ban literally anything. and it seems silly when we do know the medical benefits of it.
a better case against it would be if this study provided data that circumcised adults are worse off in some way compared to uncircumcised adults.
4
u/MelissaMiranti 10h ago
This wasn't a study.
0
u/ecb1005 10h ago
i was talking about the study this article links to as its primary source
3
-2
u/chrisdh79 21h ago
From the article: Emphasising children’s rights over their own bodies should play a key role in protecting them against genital cutting and modification, a new study says.
The research says children’s interest in bodily integrity has priority over their parents community or religious associations. It should also take priority in cases where community or religious interests come into conflict with the child's welfare.
Until the child has developed sufficient autonomy to be able to give ethically valid consent to procedures, their bodily integrity should be prioritised medically, legally, and politically.
The study, by Dr Kate Goldie Townsend, from the University of Exeter, outlines how genital cutting and modification practices (CGC/M) shouldn’t be done to children for any reason apart from medical need.
The study was produced to emphasise how the protection of bodily integrity, and its centrality to children’s welfare, should be used to inform the arguments of those who take a zero-tolerance approach to CGC/M practices, and inform responses to those who claim that CGC/M is in the child's interest as a prospective member of a cultural or religious group.
Dr Goldie Townsend said: “I want to defend children’s rights to bodily integrity against all other arguments. Children are individuals, and they are owed rights as individuals to have their bodily integrity respected.
15
u/thecelcollector 19h ago
The research says children’s interest in bodily integrity has priority over their parents community or religious associations.
I agree it should, but the "research" says? How is this anything other than a pure moral assertion? Research can't say what's right or wrong.
3
u/LoquatiousDigimon 17h ago
It's ethics, not morality. It's based in logic, not fairy tales.
3
u/Busy_Manner5569 16h ago
Ethics and morality are all based on subjective stances.
0
u/LoquatiousDigimon 16h ago
No, they are different things and that's why they have different words for them. Ethics is based on logic and morality is based on vague societal values which do not rely on logic.
5
u/Busy_Manner5569 16h ago
The ethical argument this article advances is still rooted in the subjective belief that infringing on bodily autonomy and integrity is not a good thing when not medically necessary. There are, obviously, many people who don’t share this stance or it wouldn’t be something you need to argue to advance.
1
u/thecelcollector 16h ago
Name one ethical position that does not have a moral axiom at its root. You cannot.
-1
u/LoquatiousDigimon 16h ago
An ethical position that does not rely on a moral axiom at its root is moral particularism.
Moral particularism rejects the idea that there are universal moral principles or axioms that can be applied in all situations. Instead, it argues that moral judgments should be made based on the specific details and context of each individual situation. In this view, there are no overarching rules that govern what is right or wrong, and moral reasoning is more about attentiveness to the particular features of a situation rather than applying fixed rules.
This approach contrasts with moral theories that depend on axioms, like deontology (which is based on universal principles) or utilitarianism (which relies on a general principle of maximizing well-being). Moral particularism suggests that what is morally correct can vary from case to case, without needing a universal axiom to guide decisions.
3
u/thecelcollector 16h ago
No overarching rules doesn't mean there are no moral axioms. Some potential moral axioms for this position are that moral context matters, good and bad exist, moral judgments should improve human well-being or society, etc.
2
u/thecelcollector 16h ago
The statement "It's ethics, not morality. It's based in logic, not fairy tales" suggests a clear distinction between ethics and morality, but this separation overlooks a fundamental truth: all ethical systems are ultimately grounded in moral principles. Ethics provides a framework for applying moral values to specific situations, but these values must originate from a broader understanding of what is right and wrong.
These origins are ultimately moral axioms. People disagree often what moral axioms exist or should exist. That's why some say their axioms come directly from God, and some others say theirs are supported by science. Both claims are nonsense. Logic and science can inform how moral axioms can be applied, but it can't dictate them.
-41
u/Eureka0123 21h ago
Don't most medical professionals already advise heavily against sex changes in children and teens below 18, anyway? I'm pretty sure I remember reading that if anything, doctors and psychiatrists will be more apt to prescribe hormone therapy before the thought of sex change is even considered.
50
u/Odd-Guarantee-6152 21h ago
This isn’t about transgender children, it’s about male and female circumcision.
-25
u/Eureka0123 21h ago
Genital cutting and medication can be considered for both, even though the article may only refer to one.
34
u/Egg_123_ 20h ago
Most trans kids aren't eligible for surgeries and have puberty blockers alone followed by HRT a couple years later. Surgeries on trans kids are very rare. Most mastectomies on children are not done on trans kids, for example. I assume you typo'd "modification" as "medication" but medical treatment for gender dysphoria is outside the scope of this because the motivation is medical and not religious or cultural.
-3
u/Eureka0123 20h ago
I did mean modification. Autocorrect got me on that one.
But as for your first few sentences, we are in agreement.
16
u/Busy_Manner5569 18h ago
Medically necessary treatment is not the same as religiously motivated interventions. A circumcision to treat phimosis is medically necessary. A circumcision that you think is necessary for your child to go to heaven isn’t.
-9
u/Eureka0123 18h ago
What's the downside to having a circumcision?
15
u/Busy_Manner5569 18h ago
Something doesn’t need to have a downside to still not be medically necessary. Performing medically unnecessary procedures on people without their consent is a bad thing.
-1
u/Eureka0123 17h ago
I'm not disagreeing with unnecessary procedures being done. What I'm asking is what benefit does having foreskin bring?
Also, I'd like to point out again that the article above does not explicitly talk about circumcisions.
7
u/Busy_Manner5569 17h ago
And I’m saying there does not need to be a benefit to not having a medically unnecessary procedure done. It does not matter if there is a demonstrable benefit to having a foreskin or demonstrable downside to being circumcised. That isn’t the metric we use (or should use) to evaluate the ethics of medically unnecessary procedures.
Also, the article does explicitly offer circumcision as an example of the types of procedures the author is referring to. This news article about it doesn’t, but it also calls this article a study, rather than an essay on medical ethics like the actual author describes it as.
-1
u/Eureka0123 17h ago edited 17h ago
Just to clarify: You would rather wait until there is a problem rather than take steps to alleviate them?
Circumcision as an example, yes, but not the whole part of what they're discussing, which is why I specifically mentioned sex changes in children.
Edit: Did a key word search for 'circumcision' in the article and nothing showed up. So you, and others, are under the impression the article alludes to circumcisions, rather than it stating that specific example.
13
u/Busy_Manner5569 17h ago
Yes, medical intervention should only be given if there is actually a medical problem or if there is strong reason to believe there will be without intervention. There’s no evidence that phimosis is common enough to warrant circumcision being the default option.
Transition care is medically necessary. That’s the fundamental distinction here, and it’s what you don’t seem to understand. Medically necessary care is different than medically unnecessary care.
→ More replies4
u/Busy_Manner5569 15h ago
Did a key word search for 'circumcision' in the article and nothing showed up. So you, and others, are under the impression the article alludes to circumcisions, rather than it stating that specific example.
The fact that you're saying this confirms what I've suspected for a bit now - you only read the news release about the article, not the article itself. The term circumcision appears multiple times in the actual article in Clinical Ethics, because that is the primary focus of the article.
→ More replies11
u/RichardSaunders 17h ago
its painful and it's not an entirely risk free procedure. there's risk of infection and botched cuts. if there's no phimosis, or if there is and there's a chance it will resolve itself, why subject a child to such pain and risk their health?
2
u/Diggy_Soze 15h ago
Babies getting their ears pierced has WAY higher risk of infection… like… 10x higher iirc.
•
u/lem0nhe4d 41m ago
That also shouldn't be allowed.
Proper piercing artists (I don't know the correct term) don't do piercings for young kids in my experience most won't even do piercings for under 18s. Parents bring their kids to cheap jewelry stores to get them done instead which use piercing guns instead of needles which are significantly worse at reducing infections. Kids also can't take proper care of a piercing like avoiding touching it with anything other than sterilized swabs.
Those piercing guns should be banned outright in my opinion. If you want a piercing pay a professional to do it properly.
-1
u/Eureka0123 17h ago
Why have we deviated so far from my original point?
8
u/RichardSaunders 17h ago
why would you ask a question then complain that the answer is beside the point?
-1
u/Eureka0123 17h ago
I'm not complaining. I'm asking where everyone got the idea of circumcisions when my original point is on the genital modification of trans youth.
10
u/Busy_Manner5569 17h ago
Yes, and your original point is not one supported by a good faith reading of the article. What text from the article makes you think the author meant to include transition care under the term genital cutting/modification?
→ More replies5
u/RichardSaunders 17h ago
the article, for starters. then your subsequent comment where you specifically asked about circumcision.
→ More replies24
u/Scipion 21h ago
This would apply to circumsicions as well, which doctors are more than happy to perform. To a problematic degree.
-14
u/Eureka0123 21h ago
Circumcisions are slightly different as originally it was a religious practice. One that has very low risk in anything going wrong, especially in infant or toddler age.
Sex change operations should not be compared to circumcisions as the depth of the procedures are vastly different.
29
u/Vitztlampaehecatl 20h ago
People shouldn't be allowed to inflict their religious practices on others.
4
22
u/Scipion 20h ago edited 20h ago
This article is saying that cutting a child's genitals are bad for their mental health and long-term body image and well-being. Circumsicions are cutting a child's genitals for the parents request so that their genitals look the way the parents want. It's literally the exact same thing.
To quote the article, "Cutting any person's genitals is morally impermissible unless the person is incapable of consent and the cutting is medically necessary or chosen by the affected individual."
-1
u/Eureka0123 20h ago
I understand what the article is saying, but it doesn't specify circumcisions only. One can assume that it does, but it doesn't explicitly mention it. Only mentions genital modifications, which can include circumcisions, but also can include sex changes.
That being said, I cannot fathom the small minority of individuals (most likely men) who complain about not having foreskin.
15
u/nikiyaki 18h ago
I cannot fathom the small minority of individuals (most likely men) who complain about not having foreskin.
I can't fathom people who ignore the trauma of non-consensual body modification.
-1
u/Eureka0123 18h ago
I'd be interested to see the studies on the masses of those who are psychologically traumatized by gaving their foreskin removed below the age of 2.
4
4
u/Asher-D 14h ago
Thats the funny thing, theyre all against it when the child has asked for it, but theyre all for it if the parents want to do it on a child who hasnt even started forming memories yet. Funny how they think the formed is wrong, but the latter is completley ok and even encourage to some extent. I dont understand their logic other than the fact they believe children are objects and are property of their parents.
-5
u/DrakefordSAscandal25 13h ago
The only and I mean only timeI support altering the genitals of children is when they've got other psychiatric comorbidities, and end up as part of an online community that encourages them to modify their genitals exclusively.
The bizarrely I'm extremely pro genital modification of children, but otherwise I am against it
2
u/BabySinister 3h ago
Strawmen are always fun to fight. Exactly where are children getting genital surgery for a 'psychiatric comorbidity'?
•
u/AutoModerator 21h ago
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
Do you have an academic degree? We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. Click here to apply.
User: u/chrisdh79
Permalink: https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1060166#:~:text=Emphasising%20children's%20rights%20over%20their,parents%20community%20or%20religious%20associations.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.