Reconsidering ‘Best Interests’

Abstract

Recently the ethics of infant male circumcision has generated a considerable debate in bioethics journals. In previous publications we have sought to argue that, by contrast, healthcare lawyers have unjustifi ably neglected the topic, accepting a dominant characterization of male circumcision as a standard and benign medical practice, which parents can choose for their children free of legal scrutiny. In this paper, we seek to problematize both the way in which male circumcision is debated in the ethics literature and how it is constructed as a non issue for healthcare lawyers. We are concerned here particularly with the cost/benefi t analysis that has underpinned professional guidance and court decisions on the legitimacy of male circumcision. We argue that how these costs and benefi ts have played out in the ethico-legal debates and assessments as to what is in the best interests of the child are highly problematic.