“Three-Fourths Were Abnormal”—Misha’s Case, Sick Societies, and the Law

Abstract

Law, human rights, medical ethics, and social mandates reflect, transmit, and reinforce social norms. Well over a century ago, normality was redefined, and suddenly, “three-fourths of all male babies [had] abnormal prepuces.” Genital cutting presents a cluster of interwoven discriminations that violate law, human rights, and ethics. Differential terminology—MGC and FGC—facilitates differential treatment and unequal protection. Oregon’s Boldt v. Boldt case ended in the boy’s wishes being honored, but perhaps only due to the inexcusable 5-year delay in resolving the case and the conflation of custody and circumcision issues. This case eloquently demonstrates the law’s inability to effectively address male circumcision. Numerous authors from a variety of disciplines have forcefully contested the reigning paradigm whereby FGC is outlawed and MGC is legally tolerated. Some observers also note the further irony that cosmetic FGC by wealthy westerners is permitted while traditional FGC by developing world peoples is vilified. Activists against FGC are acknowledging their support of the movement for male intact rights. HIV/AIDS is the latest attempted justification for male genital amputation but utterly fails scrutiny, as even the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is finding itself compelled to concede in the face of growing protests in favor of children’s rights. Not only do most of the reasons for FGC parallel the rationales for MGC, but a surprising number of similarities link cultures around the world that practice MGC. Parents (as in Boldt v. Boldt), doctors, and society seek treatment, not the infant. Thus, the problem cannot be solved by a medical procedure, which circumcision never was anyway. Only human compassion can end the nightmare.