Contrasting ethical and legal arguments have been made concerning neonatal male circumcision (NMC) that merit the first systematic review on this topic. We performed PRISMA-compliant keyword searches of PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, LexisNexis, and other databases and identified 61 articles that met the inclusion criteria. In the bibliographies of these articles, we identified 58 more relevant articles and 28 internet items. We found high-quality evidence that NMC is a low-risk procedure that provides immediate and lifetime medical and health benefits and only rarely leads to later adverse effects on sexual function or pleasure. Given this evidence, we conclude that discouraging or denying NMC is unethical from the perspective of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which emphasizes the right to health. Further, case law supports the legality of NMC. We found, conversely, that the ethical arguments against NMC rely on distortions of the medical evidence. Thus, NMC, by experienced operators using available safety precautions, appears to be both legal and ethical. Consistent with this conclusion, all of the evidence-based pediatric policies that we reviewed describe NMC as low-risk and beneficial to public health. We calculated that a reduction in NMC in the United States from 80% to 10% would substantially increase the cases of adverse medical conditions. The present findings thus support the evidence-based NMC policy statements and are inconsistent with the non-evidence-based policies that discourage NMC. On balance, the arguments and evidence reviewed here indicate that NMC is a medically beneficial and ethical public health intervention early in life because it reduces suffering, deaths, cases, and costs of treating adverse medical conditions throughout the lifetimes of circumcised individuals.

We critically evaluate arguments in a recent Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics article by Svoboda, Adler, and Van Howe disputing the 2012 affirmative infant male circumcision policy recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics. We provide detailed evidence in explaining why the extensive claims by these opponents are not supported by the current strong scientific evidence. We furthermore show why their legal and ethical arguments are contradicted by a reasonable interpretation of current U.S. and international law and ethics. After all considerations are taken into account it would be logical to conclude that failure to recommend male circumcision early in infancy may be viewed as akin to failure to recommend childhood vaccination to parents. In each case, parental consent is required and the intervention is not compulsory. Our evaluation leads us to dismiss the arguments by Svoboda et al. Instead, based on the evidence, infant male circumcision is both ethical and lawful.

BACKGROUND:Orphans and vulnerable children (OVCs) represent a significant population worldwide, enduring poor health and living conditions. Evidence-based interventions are needed. However, without parents, ethical concerns about including OVCs in research persist. The aim of our study was to better understand the ethical challenges facing researchers who work with OVCs. METHODS:We conducted semi-structured interviews with 12 international pediatric researchers working with OVCs in seven countries. We used descriptive content analysis to characterize the ethical rationale for inclusion and associated challenges. RESULTS:Researchers believed research was justified as a necessary means for informing evidence-based interventions to benefit OVCs directly or as a population. Ethical challenges included difficulty identifying OVCs given variation among children living without parents; difficulty identifying guardians among a range of caregivers; concerns about meaningfulness of guardian consent; difficulty assessing risk; and responding to children's many needs. CONCLUSIONS:A range of caregivers bear responsibility to protect OVC's interests in place of parents in research but are often not prepared to do so. This places greater burden on researchers to assess risks and respond to children's needs. Findings suggest that we should improve support and rethink the roles of guardians, researchers and older children in research participation and protection.

We evaluate Peter Adler’s challenge to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) draft recommendations on male circumcision (this issue, see pp. 237–262 ). The CDC advocates elective male circumcision ( MC ) to improve public health in the USA based on strong scientific evidence. In marked contrast to the CDC , Adler’s criticisms depend on speculative claims and obfuscation of the scientific data. Adler’s central argument that circumcision in infancy should be delayed to allow a boy to make up his own mind as an adult fails to appreciate that circumcision later in life is a more complex operation, entails higher risk, is more likely to involve general anaesthesia and presents financial, psychological and organisational barriers. These limitations are avoided by circumcision early in infancy, when it is convenient, safe, quick, low risk, usually involves local anaesthesia and provides benefits immediately. Benefits of male circumcision include: protection against: urinary tract infections that are ten times higher in uncircumcised infants; inflammatory skin conditions; other foreskin problems; sexually transmitted infections and genital cancers in the male and his female sexual partners. Circumcision during infancy is also associated with faster healing and improved cosmetic outcomes. Circumcision does not impair sexual function or pleasure. Some authorities regard the failure to offer circumcision as unethical, just as it would be unethical to fail to encourage paediatric vaccination. Since the benefits vastly outweigh the risks, each intervention is in the best interests of the child. In conclusion, Adler’s criticisms of the CDC ’s evidence-based male circumcision policy are flawed scientifically, ethically and legally, and should be dismissed as endangering public health and individual well-being.

In recent years, rights-based approaches to health are changing the perspective and work of actors in the development sector. This article describes an NGO program that translates theory into practice by integrating human rights education and human rights principles into primary school health programs in Jakarta, Indonesia. Uplift International, an NGO affiliated with the University of Washington School of Law, aims to improve the rights of urban, poor children through teacher and parent training, uniquely designed for the madrasah (Islamic religious day schools) community. The school program links child rights and child health through human rights education and human rights-based methodologies. The Uplift International program is in its fourth year and plans to expand in scope. Positive outcomes include significant notice by Indonesian Government Ministries. Moreover, there is support from the new Indonesian Special Envoy to the UN for Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).