Loading...
Genital Modifications in Prepubescent Minors:When May Clinicians Ethically Proceed?
Title / Series / Name
American Journal of Bioethics
Publication Volume
25
Publication Issue
7
Pages
Editors
Keywords
Children and families
circumcision
gender/sexuality
intersex
professional ethics
ritual pricking
“FGM”
Issues, Ethics and Legal Aspects
Health Policy
SDG 5 - Gender Equality
SDG 16 - Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
circumcision
gender/sexuality
intersex
professional ethics
ritual pricking
“FGM”
Issues, Ethics and Legal Aspects
Health Policy
SDG 5 - Gender Equality
SDG 16 - Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
URI
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14018/28683
Abstract
When is it ethically permissible for clinicians to surgically intervene into the genitals of a legal minor? We distinguish between voluntary and nonvoluntary procedures and focus on nonvoluntary procedures, specifically in prepubescent minors (“children”). We do not address procedures in adolescence or adulthood. With respect to children categorized as female at birth who have no apparent differences of sex development (i.e., non-intersex or “endosex” females) there is a near-universal ethical consensus in the Global North. This consensus holds that clinicians may not perform any nonvoluntary genital cutting or surgery, from “cosmetic” labiaplasty to medicalized ritual “pricking” of the vulva, insofar as the procedure is not strictly necessary to protect the child’s physical health. All other motivations, including possible psychosocial, cultural, subjective-aesthetic, or prophylactic benefits as judged by doctors or parents, are seen as categorically inappropriate grounds for a clinician to proceed with a nonvoluntary genital procedure in this population. We argue that the main ethical reasons capable of supporting this consensus turn not on empirically contestable benefit–risk calculations, but on a fundamental concern to respect the child’s privacy, bodily integrity, developing sexual boundaries, and (future) genital autonomy. We show that these ethical reasons are sound. However, as we argue, they do not only apply to endosex female children, but rather to all children regardless of sex characteristics, including those with intersex traits and endosex males. We conclude, therefore, that as a matter of justice, inclusivity, and gender equality in medical-ethical policy (we do not take a position as to criminal law), clinicians should not be permitted to perform any nonvoluntary genital cutting or surgery in prepubescent minors, irrespective of the latter’s sex traits or gender assignment, unless urgently necessary to protect their physical health. By contrast, we suggest that voluntary surgeries in older individuals might, under certain conditions, permissibly be performed for a wider range of reasons, including reasons of self-identity or psychosocial well-being, in keeping with the circumstances, values, and explicit needs and preferences of the persons so concerned. Note: Because our position is tied to clinicians’ widely accepted role-specific duties as medical practitioners within regulated healthcare systems, we do not consider genital procedures performed outside of a healthcare context (e.g., for religious reasons) or by persons other than licensed healthcare providers working in their professional capacity.
Topic
Publisher
Place of Publication
Type
Journal article
Date
2025-07
Language
ISBN
Identifiers
10.1080/15265161.2024.2353823