Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. A covenant with the status quo? Male circumcision and the new BMA guidance to doctors.M. Fox - 2005 - Journal of Medical Ethics 31 (8):463-469.
    This article offers a critique of the recently revised BMA guidance on routine neonatal male circumcision and seeks to challenge the assumptions underpinning the guidance which construe this procedure as a matter of parental choice. Our aim is to problematise continued professional willingness to tolerate the non-therapeutic, non-consensual excision of healthy tissue, arguing that in this context both professional guidance and law are uncharacteristically tolerant of risks inflicted on young children, given the absence of clear medical benefits. By interrogating historical (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Why circumcision is a biomedical imperative for the 21st century.Brian J. Morris - 2007 - Bioessays 29 (11):1147-1158.
    Circumcision of males represents a surgical “vaccine“ against a wide variety of infections, adverse medical conditions and potentially fatal diseases over their lifetime, and also protects their sexual partners. In experienced hands, this common, inexpensive procedure is very safe, can be pain‐free and can be performed at any age. The benefits vastly outweigh risks. The enormous public health benefits include protection from urinary tract infections, sexually transmitted HIV, HPV, syphilis and chancroid, penile and prostate cancer, phimosis, thrush, and inflammatory dermatoses. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • The law and ethics of male circumcision: guidance for doctors.British Medical Association - 2004 - Journal of Medical Ethics 30 (3):259-263.
    1. Aim of the guidelines2. Principles of good practice3. Circumcision for medical purposes4. Non-therapeutic circumcision 4.1. The law 4.1.1. Summary: the law 4.2. Consent and refusal 4.2.1. Children’s own consent 4.2.2. Parents’ consent 4.2.3. Summary: consent and refusal 4.3. Best interests 4.3.1. Summary: best interests 4.4. Health issues 4.5. Standards 4.6. Facilities 4.7. Charging patients 4.8. Conscientious objection5. Useful addresses.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • What Makes Health Public?: A Critical Evaluation of Moral, Legal, and Political Claims in Public Health.John Coggon - 2012 - Cambridge University Press.
    John Coggon argues that the important question for analysts in the fields of public health law and ethics is 'what makes health public?' He offers a conceptual and analytic scrutiny of the salient issues raised by this question, outlines the concepts entailed in, or denoted by, the term 'public health' and argues why and how normative analyses in public health are inquiries in political theory. The arguments expose and explain the political claims inherent in key works in public health ethics. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   25 citations