Analiza i Egzystencja

ISSN: 1734-9923     eISSN: 2300-7621     DOI: 10.18276/aie.2020.51-03
CC BY-SA   Open Access   DOAJ  ERIH PLUS  DOAJ

Issue archive / 51 (2020)
Etyczne aspekty "obrzezania"
(Ethical aspects of medically unnecessary child genital cutting)

Authors: Karolina Wiśniowska
Uniwersytet Jagielloński
Keywords: female genital mutilation circumcition ethics bioethics Seattle compromise harm principle best interest standard
Year of publication:2020
Page range:20 (45-64)
Cited-by (Crossref) ?:

Abstract

Female genital mutilation includes procedures which remove or cause injury to some or all women’s external genital organs. There are a lot of medical risks involved - nevertheless, in some societies it is mainstream practice, carried out mostly on girls younger then fifteen years of age. There are some similarities between female genital mutilation and male circumcision: young age of people who are being subjected to those procedures, and - to some extend - symbolic meaning and risk of harm. Female genital mutilation is strictly banned in Western countries, while male circumcision is accepted. In this paper, it is considered if it would be acceptable to make compromise in the case of female genital mutilation in the form of so-called Seattle compromise.
Download file

Article file

Bibliography

1.Bester John Christiaan, The Harm Principle Cannot Replace the Best Interest Standard: Problems With Using the Harm Principle for Medical Decision Making for Children, „American Journal of Bioethics”, 2018, 18(8), s. 9–19,
2.Coleman Doriane Lambelet, The Seattle Compromise: Multicultural Sensitivity and Americanization, „Duke Law Journal”, 1998, s. 717-783,
3.Definicja Światowej Organizacji Zdrowia: female genital mutilation, WHO, Nowy Jork, 2016 dostęp: http://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/female-genital-mutilation (22.09.2018),
4.Earp Brian D., Female genital mutilation and male circumcision: toward an autonomy-based ethical framework, „Medicolegal and Bioethics”, 2015:5, s. 89-103,
5.Fundusz Narodów Zjednoczonych na rzecz Dzieci, Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: A statistical overview and exploration of the dynamics of change, UNICEF, Nowy Jork, 2013, dostęp: http://data.unicef.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/FGMC_Lo_res_Final_26.pdf (22.09.2018).
6.Grzyb Magdalena, Przestępstwa motywowane kulturowo. Aspekty kryminologiczne i prawnokarne. Reakcja krajów zachodnich na szkodliwe praktyki kulturowe, Wolters Kluwer, Warszawa 2016,
7.Gutmann Amy (red.), Taylor Charles, Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition, Princeton University Press 1994,
8.Kallen Horace Meyer, Democracy versus the Melting-Pot. A study of American Nationality, „The Nation”, 1915, dostęp: http://www.expo98.msu.edu/people/kallen.htm (23.09.2018),
9.Kymlicka Will, Wielokulturowość, [w:] eadem, Współczesna filozofia polityczna, Fundacja Aletheia, Warszawa 2009,
10.Nussbaum Martha, Judging Other Cultures: The Case of Genital Mutilation, [w:] idem, Sex & Social Justice, Oxford University Press, Nowy Jork 1999,
11.Owings Maria, Uddin Sayeedha, Williams Sonja, Trends in Circumcision for Male Newborns in U.S. Hospitals: 1979–2010, 2013, dostęp: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/circumcision_2013/circumcision_2013.pdf (22.09.2018),
12.Silverman Eric K., Antropology and circumcision, „Annual Review of Antropology”, Vol. 33 (2004), s. 419-445,
13.Szahaj Andrzej, E pluribus unum? Dylematy wielokulturowości i politycznej poprawności, Towarzystwo Autorów i Wydawców Prac Naukowych UNIVERSITAS, Kraków 2004.