The Situation As earlier mentioned, the case involves Mr. Romulo Bernas, a staff assistant in Prime Shipping Inc. He is directly reporting to a manager and has no fixed job description. He also works closely with Mr.
Yet the reasons for such discouragement are clear. Circumcision of boys may be performed only by physicians when there are medical benefits attributed.
That is the premise of the KNMG, the organization of and for physicians. Destructiveness The International Convention on the Rights of the Child ICRC says that the government is required to ensure that harmful traditional practices be abolished.
The science is undeniable that circumcision is harmful.
A circumcision means 25 to 50 percent of the healthy tissue of the penis is removed. Immediately after the operation, an infection or bleeding occurs in two to five percent of the boys, which sometimes requires hospitalization.
Many boys up to twenty percent later get a stricture of the urethra, causing problems with urination and possibly bladder problems.
Still later circumcised men and their partners get sexual problems more often than non-circumcised men, because a circumcised penis is less sensitive. Also, many men complain about the fact that they were circumcised without their consent.
Any medical benefits - such as a possible reduced risk of HIV transmission [in unprotected heterosexual intercourse] - are relevant at a later age and are no justification for circumcision in childhood.
It is noteworthy that in the Netherlands all forms of female circumcision are forbidden - even in symbolic form, with no tissue being removed - but that circumcision of boys is tolerated. Why is it that Jewish and Muslim boys are not equally protected by law as girls?
Religious freedom or physical integrity? The debate about circumcision of boys is often presented as a conflict between the right of the child to physical integrity and the right of parents to religious freedom. This freedom implies that it is permissible for a child to be educated in religion, but also that the child should keep the freedom to choose a different opinion later.
This means that the child should remain protected from irreversible physical alterations. This legal ruling fits into a debate about circumcision of boys being conducted in almost the entire Western world, even within religious groups. In Israel, a growing group of parents refrain from circumcising.
Social pressure Many parents who still perform circumcision do so because of social pressure from their parents and grandparents, not from religious feelings. In America, a growing number of Jewish parents, together with religious leaders, have developed alternative rituals in which the child can be included in the religious community, but without violating the integrity of the child's body.
Growing resistance The growing resistance to circumcision of boys comes not only from the medical profession and secular society, but also from religious communities themselves.
The debate has nothing to do with anti-semitism or anti-religion, as is sometimes suggested. It is a manifestation of a growing awareness that children have the same fundamental rights as adults.
If it is not permissible for a man to be circumcised against his will, why is it permissible to do the same to a child? Personal choice Circumcision is a personal choice for which people have different reasons. Fortunately we live in a country where people are free to make that choice.
But let it be a choice that the person makes for himself, because ultimately there is only one person who should decide whether or not to remove a healthy part of the body, and that is the man himself.
The complainant considered that [such] interference [by] the Slovenian doctors is harmful but he does not know all the negative consequences [of prejudice] subconscious trauma, impotence, infection, etc.
Expanded expert committee for surgery Indications for professional intervention are listed in the professional urological literature. The Office of the Commission for Medical Ethics has sent us a long answer, which we summarize in its opinion of principle: The Health Insurance Institute of Slovenia [w]as asked for information concerning payment [for] circumcision annual number of interventions, the price of services and how the issue of payment is arranged, if medical intervention is not indicated, but is carried out only at the request of the individual or his legal representatives.
When intervention is not medically indicated, service is not covered by the compulsory health insurance, so [it is for] the patient or his agents to pay [for] the intervention. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child obliges States Parties to take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury and abuse, while in the care of parents, legal guardians or any other person who care for him article 19 CRC.
The Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia in the 56th Article [grants the] child special protection and care [under] the 35[th] Article as everyone is guaranteed the inviolability of physical and mental integrity.
These provisions clearly show that any intervention in the physical integrity of children is limited and justifiable only for medical reasons.
If there is a medical indication, that is, to protect the health of the child, circumcision [may] be [performed]; such intervention is a legitimate and legal, and [the] permission [of] a parent [who] has responsibility for the child's development [is] required or allowed.
If for any reason parents would not [allow an] indicated medical intervention, the competent authorities [may] determine possible dereliction of duty [in] caring for the child and take the necessary measures provided by law. However, if has medical circumcision the child is [not] indicated, but is only [a] result of his parents' beliefs religious or otherwisesuch intervention is no legal basis.
This [is so] whether [or not] the child is explicitly opposed [to] the intervention.Disclaimer: This work has been submitted by a student.
This is not an example of the work written by our professional academic writers.
You can view samples of our professional work here.. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UK Essays.
Our website is the source for the latest security and strategic research from the military's link to the academic community. The Strategic Studies Institute is . Essay about Lance Armstrong Ethical Dilemma Case Study Ethical Dilemma The decision maker for the ethical dilemma for the lance Armstrong case is Chris Carmichael, the coach.
The decisions are: To always overlook the use of PED or to never always overlook the use of PED. In identifying the principles and concepts of Evan's case, the author will use "Ethical Review", the second stage of one's approach to ethical decision-making, in conducting this element of the ethical analysis of Evan's case.
Case Study Week 2 - An Ethical Dilemma The biopharmaceutical company needs to hire two new research scientists. The lowest salary the company can pay a new research scientist is , per scientist. Normative ethics is the study of ethical action. It is the branch of ethics that investigates the set of questions that arise when considering how one ought to act, morally speaking.