December 11, 2007

British MDs Debate Infant Male Circumcision & Kids' Rights

The British Medical Journal has published a pro & con debate on whether infant male circumcision is neutral, harmful, or beneficial, and if there are demonstrable medical benefits should operation be put off until the guy can decide for himself. Reader responses are included, too, so the piece is long and sometimes a bit loose, but it also exhibits a high degree of sensitivity.

The New York Times' recap, meanwhile, has been cut significantly, is much shorter, and loses a lot of the flavor of the original, but it still gets the job done.

Head to head [heh -ed.]: Is infant male circumcision an abuse of the rights of the child? No
Is infant male circumcision an abuse of the rights of the child? Yes [bmj.com via nyt]
The Rights of Baby Boys [nyt]

1 Comment

Neither will I remove his appendix or eyelids, although one might argue God doesn't want those either.

Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Google DT


Contact DT

Daddy Types is published by Greg Allen with the help of readers like you.
Got tips, advice, questions, and suggestions? Send them to:
greg [at] daddytypes [dot] com

Join the [eventual] Daddy Types mailing list!


Archives

copyright

c2004-11 daddy types, llc.
no unauthorized commercial reuse.
privacy and terms of use
published using movable type

advertisements