Circumcising a Baby Boy, Essay Example

Circumcising a baby boy according to the principle of utilitarian

Looking at the issue of circumcision of a baby boy from deontological point of view, political, religious and public pressure must not be seen as a compelling pressure by medical professions in their efforts to uphold the rights of their patients and more specifically, the children (Van Howe, 2005).

• The parents reserve the rights of decision for or against circumcision of their baby boys.
• The experts in the health professions do not support circumcision of the baby boy as a good idea (Van Howe, 2005).
• However, most parents attribute baby boy circumcision to health reasons while others do it on religious grounds.
• Some have no elaborate reason behind baby boy circumcision and just want to resemble their family members of as a peer influence.

1. Circumcising a baby boy according to the principle of appeal to coherence

Some issues that occur in life are relatively absolute and the parents’ wishes must not be seen to be elevated to an extent of subduing the children rights (Van Howe, 2005).

• Circumcision of baby boys is considered as a violation of fundamental rights of the child.
• The infant cannot make such a decision and would rather prefer to have his pennies stay intact.
• According to the Judaism perspective of circumcising a baby boy, the baby had to be in perfect health status to be involved in circumcision which was undertaken after the 8^th day of the birth of the child (Gray, 2004).
• The Jews had a strong respect for their traditions and thus they contradicted other Christians and the broader society on issues of circumcising a baby boy
• The Christian society perceived baby boy circumcision as an act of ambivalence and meaningless.

References

Gray, D. T., (2004). Neonatal circumcision: Coast-effective preventative measure or “the unkindest cut of all”? Med Decis making 24: 688-692.

Van Howe, R. S., (2005). “Effect of confounding in the association between circumcision status and urinary tract infections”. J Infect 51: 59-68.