Prophylactic interventions on children: balancing human rights with public health

Genital Modifications in Prepubescent Minors: When May Clinicians Ethically Proceed?

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.

Dark side of the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality: the case of mandatory vaccination

Deciding the conflict between various rights and interests, especially in medical ethics where health and lives are in question, has significant challenges, and to obtain appropriate outcomes, it is necessary to properly apply the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality. Using the example of mandatory vaccination policies, we show that this task becomes even more difficult when these principles lead us to counterintuitive and paradoxical results. Although the general purpose of these principles is to ensure that decisions and policies seek the highest and broadest possible enjoyment of rights for all (ie, the least restrictive solution), they achieve the complete opposite when applied to mandatory vaccination policies. To highlight and explain these paradoxical results, we present a typology of fifteen hypothetical mandatory vaccination policies containing various degrees of restriction and apply well-established non-discrimination and proportionality tests from constitutional law to each. We argue that mandatory vaccination policies exhibit two characteristics, namely the non-linear relationship between their general purposes and specific goals and the involvement of life and health, suggesting that more restrictive policies should prevail even though less restrictive policies might fail these tests. Using clearly structured and rigorous methodology from constitutional law, the proposed approach delivers a fresh view on the core ethical principles of non-discrimination and proportionality and a potentially useful tool in helping resolve also other challenges encountered in medical ethics beyond mandatory vaccination policies.

Neonatal Male Circumcision: Clearly Beneficial for Public Health or an Ethical Dilemma? A Systematic Review

Contrasting ethical and legal arguments have been made concerning neonatal male circumcision (NMC) that merit the first systematic review on this topic. We performed PRISMA-compliant keyword searches of PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, LexisNexis, and other databases and identified 61 articles that met the inclusion criteria. In the bibliographies of these articles, we identified 58 more relevant articles and 28 internet items. We found high-quality evidence that NMC is a low-risk procedure that provides immediate and lifetime medical and health benefits and only rarely leads to later adverse effects on sexual function or pleasure. Given this evidence, we conclude that discouraging or denying NMC is unethical from the perspective of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which emphasizes the right to health. Further, case law supports the legality of NMC. We found, conversely, that the ethical arguments against NMC rely on distortions of the medical evidence. Thus, NMC, by experienced operators using available safety precautions, appears to be both legal and ethical. Consistent with this conclusion, all of the evidence-based pediatric policies that we reviewed describe NMC as low-risk and beneficial to public health. We calculated that a reduction in NMC in the United States from 80% to 10% would substantially increase the cases of adverse medical conditions. The present findings thus support the evidence-based NMC policy statements and are inconsistent with the non-evidence-based policies that discourage NMC. On balance, the arguments and evidence reviewed here indicate that NMC is a medically beneficial and ethical public health intervention early in life because it reduces suffering, deaths, cases, and costs of treating adverse medical conditions throughout the lifetimes of circumcised individuals.

What does the best interests principle of the convention on the rights of the child mean for paediatric healthcare?

The present review analyses the implications of the best interests of the child principle, which is one of the most widely discussed principles of medical ethics and human rights, for paediatric healthcare. As a starting point, it presents the interpretation of the best interests principle by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. On this basis, it points out possible fields of application of the best interests principle with regard to paediatric healthcare and discusses the potential difficulties in the application of the best interests principle. Based on this, it illustrates the implications of the best interests principle for paediatric healthcare through four case studies, which look at ethical dilemmas in paediatric gynaecology, end-of-life care, HIV care and genetic testing.   Conclusion: The best interests principle requires action, inter alia, by health policymakers, professional associations, hospital managers and medical teams to ensure children receive the best possible healthcare. Whilst the best interests principle does not provide a conclusive solution to all ethical dilemmas in paediatric healthcare (as illustrated by the case studies), it provides children, medical teams, parents and families, and clinical ethicists with an indispensable framework for health care centred on the rights of the child. What is Known: • The best interests principle is one of the most widely discussed principles of medical ethics and human rights and one of the four general principles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. What is New: • The present review discusses possible fields of application and potential difficulties of the best interests principle with regard to paediatric healthcare. • Based on this, it illustrates the implications of the best interests principle for paediatric healthcare through four case studies, which look at ethical dilemmas in paediatric gynaecology, end-of-life care, HIV care and genetic testing.

Twelve tips for incorporating the study of human rights into medical education

In order for patients to be adequately cared for by clinicians, an awareness and acknowledgement of the factors that affect their well-being, including adherence to internationally recognized human rights, should be part of the professional education of all health care professionals. Worldwide conflicts, which have led to record forced global displacement, and ongoing international human rights violations have had profound effects on the health and well-being of millions of patients. Trainees early in their careers should be educated about these and related population-level issues that affect the health of their patients, so they can better care and advocate for their patients and communities throughout their careers.

Mandatory Influenza Immunization for Health Care Workers—An Ethical Discussion

Influenza is a serious vaccine-preventable disease affecting 20% of the U.S. population each year. Vaccination of high-risk groups has been called the single most important influenza control measure by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Studies show that vaccination can lead to decreases in flu-related illness and absenteeism among health care workers, as well as fewer acute care outbreaks and reduced patient mortality in long-term care settings. However, to date, voluntary programs have achieved only a 40% vaccination rate among health care workers, causing concern among government and infectious disease organizations. This article addresses the ethical justification for mandating influenza vaccination for health care workers. Health care workers' attitudes toward vaccination are presented, as well as historical and legal perspectives on compulsory measures. The ethical principles of effectiveness, beneficence, necessity, autonomy, justice, and transparency are discussed.

Should Surgery for Hypospadias Be Performed Before An Age of Consent?

Hypospadias is a relatively common genital condition in which the urethral opening forms on the underside of the penis, as opposed to at the tip of the glans. Patients with hypospadias are typically referred for surgery during infancy or early childhood. Recent evidence, however, indicates that many individuals with hypospadias do not experience the functional or psychosocial difficulties commonly attributed to the condition, and that surgical intervention for hypospadias carries substantial risk of adverse outcomes. In this article, we review published outcomes data and conduct an in-depth analysis of the typical rationales for hypospadias surgery, taking into consideration both the potential benefits and harms of the procedure, as well as the existence of nonsurgical alternatives. We argue, first, that most childhood surgeries for hypospadias are performed for anticipated future problems concerning function and cosmesis, rather than extant physical and/or psychosocial problems that are adversely affecting the child's well-being. Second, we contend that the surgery can be safely performed after an age of consent without increasing the absolute risk of surgical complications to an ethically meaningful degree. We conclude, therefore, that surgery for hypospadias should be performed only if requested by the affected individual, under conditions of informed consent.

Circumcision Is Unethical and Unlawful

The foreskin is a complex structure that protects and moisturizes the head of the penis, and, being the most densely innervated and sensitive portion of the penis, is essential to providing the complete sexual response. Circumcision-the removal of this structure-is non-therapeutic, painful, irreversible surgery that also risks serious physical injury, psychological sequelae, and death. Men rarely volunteer for it, and increasingly circumcised men are expressing their resentment about it.Circumcision is usually performed for religious, cultural and personal reasons. Early claims about its medical benefits have been proven false. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control have made many scientifically untenable claims promoting circumcision that run counter to the consensus of Western medical organizations.Circumcision violates the cardinal principles of medical ethics, to respect autonomy (self-determination), to do good, to do no harm, and to be just. Without a clear medical indication, circumcision must be deferred until the child can provide his own fully informed consent.In 2012, a German court held that circumcision constitutes criminal assault. Under existing United States law and international human rights declarations as well, circumcision already violates boys› absolute rights to equal protection, bodily integrity, autonomy, and freedom to choose their own religion. A physician has a legal duty to protect children from unnecessary interventions. Physicians who obtain parental permission through spurious claims or omissions, or rely on the American Academy of Pediatrics' position, also risk liability for misleading parents about circumcision.

Medullary thyroid carcinoma: a review on ethical considerations in treatment of children

Thyroid carcinoma is the most common malignancy of the endocrine system and it accounts approximately 1%-3% of all human cancers. Among the three subtypes of thyroid cancers, medullary thyroid carcinoma (MTC) is the most common cause of death in patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia (MEN) type 2A (MEN2A), MEN type 2B (MEN2B) and familial medullary thyroid carcinoma (FMTC). Generally, MTC accounts for up to 10% of all types of thyroid cancers. It is one of the aggressive forms of thyroid carcinoma which is manifested in childhood ages more than adults, and it comprises about 17% of all pediatric thyroid cancer. Like the other cancers, prevention of MTC is easier than its cure. In the recent decades (from 1993) the diagnosis of asymptomatic child carrying RET mutations in the affected families by MTC, has been provided by genetic screening, and prophylactic thyroidectomy is an efficacy therapeutic procedure. On the one hand, according to near the complete penetrance of the disease and its onset in the early years of life, it is required to accelerate the protection of at-risk children with relative affected by MTC and on the other hand, there are several obstructions to MTC treatment including: 1) the proband's refusal to disclose the RET mutation genetic testing results, 2) children's vulnerability because of their inability to participate in the informed consent, and 3) the existence of conflict between physicians and children's guardian. In this review article, the recommendations and ethical issues of MTC treatment in asymptomatic and at-risk children have been summarized.

Infant male circumcision and the autonomy of the child: two ethical questions

Routine neonatal circumcision--the non-therapeutic circumcision of infant males--has generated considerable ethical controversy. In this article, I suggest that much of the disagreement results from conflicting ideas about the autonomy of the child. I examine two questions about autonomy. First, I ask whether we should be realists or idealists about the future autonomous choices of the child-that is, whether we should account for the fact that the child may not make the best choices in future, or whether we should assume that his future choices will reflect his best interests. Second, I ask whether the child has a right to autonomy with respect to circumcision, an interest in autonomy or neither--that is, whether respect for autonomy overrides considerations of interests, whether it counts as one interest among many or whether it counts for nothing. In response to the first question, I argue that we should be idealists when evaluating the child's own interests, but realists when evaluating public health justifications for circumcision. In response to the second question, I argue that the child has an interest in deciding whether or not to be circumcised, insofar as the decision is more likely to reflect his actual interests and his own values. Finally, I show how these findings may help to resolve some particular disputes over the ethics of infant male circumcision.

A defense of compulsory vaccination

Vaccine refusal harms and risks harming innocent bystanders. People are not entitled to harm innocents or to impose deadly risks on others, so in these cases there is nothing to be said for the right to refuse vaccination. Compulsory vaccination is therefore justified because non-vaccination can rightly be prohibited, just as other kinds of harmful and risky conduct are rightly prohibited. I develop an analogy to random gunfire to illustrate this point. Vaccine refusal, I argue, is morally similar to firing a weapon into the air and endangering innocent bystanders. By re-framing vaccine refusal as harmful and reckless conduct my aim is to shift the focus of the vaccine debate from non-vaccinators' religious and refusal rights to everyone else's rights against being infected with contagious illnesses. Religious freedom and rights of informed consent do not entitle non-vaccinators to harm innocent bystanders, and so coercive vaccination requirements are permissible for the sake of the potential victims of the anti-vaccine movement.

Proteção individual versus proteção coletiva: análise bioética do programa nacional de vacinação infantil em massa

A vacinação é considerada como uma das políticas de saúde pública mais efetivas e de menor custo-benefício, utilizada no controle e na prevenção de doenças. Mas é também considerada uma das técnicas biomédicas mais polêmicas e controversas, o que torna difícil evitar uma abordagem ética, principalmente quando a vacinação é utilizada de forma compulsória em toda a população. Com efeito, visto que as vacinas não são totalmente seguras e eficazes, há um conflito ético entre o interesse individual e o coletivo, pois as crianças carregam de fato o ônus da vacinação em benefício da saúde pública quando são acometidas com reações adversas graves e que ficam alheias aos cuidados que deveriam ser oferecidos pelo Poder Público. O objetivo deste artigo foi demonstrar que as ferramentas da bioética são relevantes nesta discussão para analisar e compreender criticamente estes conflitos, fornecendo argumentos cogentes para orientar a elaboração de biopolíticas que considerem não apenas, com rigor, a prevenção, mas, também, a responsabilidade solidária de todos como fundamento para uma proteção que seja tanto individual como coletiva.

Medullary thyroid carcinoma: surgical treatment advances

Since medullary thyroid cancer (MTC) was first recognized as a distinct tumor in 1959, it became clear that MTC is more difficult to cure than papillary thyroid cancer and has higher rates of recurrence and mortality. MTC represents 5-8% of thyroid cancers. It derives from parafollicular cells of the ultimobranchial body derived from the neural crest. MTC secretes calcitonin and other hormonal peptides and is considered part of the amine precursor uptake and decarboxilation system. MTC may occur either as a hereditary or nonhereditary entity. Hereditary MTC can occur either alone as the familial MTC or as the thyroid manifestation of multiple endocrine neoplasia (MEN) type 2 syndromes (MEN 2A MEN 2B). Activating point mutations of the RET proto-oncogene have demonstrated to be causative of the familial form of medullary thyroid cancer, both isolated familial MTC and associated with MEN 2A and 2B. In the last 10 years, major improvements and new technologies have been proposed and applied in thyroid surgery; among these are molecular diagnosis with genetic screening and mini-invasive video-assisted thyroidectomy. The history of thyroid surgery starts with Billroth, Kocher and Halsted, who developed the technique for thyroidectomy between 1873 and 1910. Prophylactic surgery for patients carrying a positive RET proto-oncogene has proven to be highly effective in curing those likely to experience the development of MTC. Video-assisted procedures with central compartment dissection have proved feasible for patients carrying a positive RET proto-oncogene. This paper reviews relevant medical literature published in the English language on surgery of MTC in well-controlled trials. We discuss the particular ethical and legal issues that thyroid prophylactic surgery raises. Searches were last updated in February 2007.

Out of step: fatal flaws in the latest AAP policy report on neonatal circumcision

The American Academy of Pediatrics recently released a policy statement and technical report on circumcision, in both of which the organisation suggests that the health benefits conferred by the surgical removal of the foreskin in infancy definitively outweigh the risks and complications associated with the procedure. While these new documents do not positively recommend neonatal circumcision, they do paradoxically conclude that its purported benefits 'justify access to this procedure for families who choose it,' claiming that whenever and for whatever reason it is performed, it should be covered by government health insurance. The policy statement and technical report suffer from several troubling deficiencies, ultimately undermining their credibility. These deficiencies include the exclusion of important topics and discussions, an incomplete and apparently partisan excursion through the medical literature, improper analysis of the available information, poorly documented and often inaccurate presentation of relevant findings, and conclusions that are not supported by the evidence given.

Infant circumcision: the last stand for the dead dogma of parental (sovereignal) rights

J S Mill used the term 'dead dogma' to describe a belief that has gone unquestioned for so long and to such a degree that people have little idea why they accept it or why they continue to believe it. When wives and children were considered chattel, it made sense for the head of a household to have a 'sovereignal right' to do as he wished with his property. Now that women and children are considered to have the full complement of human rights and slavery has been abolished, it is no longer acceptable for someone to have a 'right' to completely control the life of another human being. Revealingly, parental rights tend to be invoked only when parents want to do something that is arguably not in their child's best interest. Infant male circumcision is a case in point. Instead of parental rights, I claim that parents have an obligation to protect their children's rights as well as to preserve the future options of those children so far as possible. In this essay, it is argued that the notion that parents have a right to make decisions concerning their children's bodies and minds-irrespective of the child's best interests-is a dead dogma. The ramifications of this argument for the circumcision debate are then spelled out and discussed.

The child's right to an open future: is the principle applicable to non-therapeutic circumcision?

The principle of the child's right to an open future was first proposed by the legal philosopher Joel Feinberg and developed further by bioethicist Dena Davis. The principle holds that children possess a unique class of rights called rights in trust-rights that they cannot yet exercise, but which they will be able to exercise when they reach maturity. Parents should not, therefore, take actions that permanently foreclose on or pre-empt the future options of their children, but leave them the greatest possible scope for exercising personal life choices in adulthood. Davis particularly applies the principle to genetic counselling, arguing that parents should not take deliberate steps to create physically abnormal children, and to religion, arguing that while parents are entitled to bring their children up in accordance with their own values, they are not entitled to inflict physical or mental harm, neither by omission nor commission. In this paper, I aim to elucidate the open future principle, and consider whether it is applicable to non-therapeutic circumcision of boys, whether performed for cultural/religious or for prophylactic/health reasons. I argue that the principle is highly applicable to non-therapeutic circumcision, and conclude that non-therapeutic circumcision would be a violation of the child's right to an open future, and thus objectionable from both an ethical and a human rights perspective.

Circumcision of male infants as a human rights violation

Every infant has a right to bodily integrity. Removing healthy tissue from an infant is only permissible if there is an immediate medical indication. In the case of infant male circumcision there is no evidence of an immediate need to perform the procedure. As a German court recently held, any benefit to circumcision can be obtained by delaying the procedure until the male is old enough to give his own fully informed consent. With the option of delaying circumcision providing all of the purported benefits, circumcising an infant is an unnecessary violation of his bodily integrity as well as an ethically invalid form of medical violence. Parental proxy 'consent' for newborn circumcision is invalid. Male circumcision also violates four core human rights documents-the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention Against Torture. Social norm theory predicts that once the circumcision rate falls below a critical value, the social norms that currently distort our perception of the practice will dissolve and rates will quickly fall.

Male circumcision: pain, trauma and psychosexual sequelae

Infant male circumcision continues despite growing questions about its medical justification. As usually performed without analgesia or anaesthetic, circumcision is observably painful. It is likely that genital cutting has physical, sexual and psychological consequences too. Some studies link involuntary male circumcision with a range of negative emotions and even post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Some circumcised men have described their current feelings in the language of violation, torture, mutilation and sexual assault. In view of the acute as well as long-term risks from circumcision and the legal liabilities that might arise, it is timely for health professionals and scientists to re-examine the evidence on this issue and participate in the debate about the advisability of this surgical procedure on unconsenting minors.

Not a surgical vaccine: there is no case for boosting infant male circumcision to combat heterosexual transmission of HIV in Australia

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a critical review of recent proposals that widespread circumcision of male infants be introduced in Australia as a means of combating heterosexually transmitted HIV infection.

APPROACH

These arguments are evaluated in terms of their logic, coherence and fidelity to the principles of evidence-based medicine; the extent to which they take account of the evidence for circumcision having a protective effect against HIV and the practicality of circumcision as an HIV control strategy; the extent of its applicability to the specifics of Australia's HIV epidemic; the benefits, harms and risks of circumcision; and the associated human rights, bioethical and legal issues.

CONCLUSION

Our conclusion is that such proposals ignore doubts about the robustness of the evidence from the African random-controlled trials as to the protective effect of circumcision and the practical value of circumcision as a means of HIV control; misrepresent the nature of Australia's HIV epidemic and exaggerate the relevance of the African random-controlled trials findings to it; underestimate the risks and harm of circumcision; and ignore questions of medical ethics and human rights. The notion of circumcision as a 'surgical vaccine' is criticised as polemical and unscientific.

IMPLICATIONS

Circumcision of infants or other minors has no place among HIV control measures in the Australian and New Zealand context; proposals such as these should be rejected.

Evidence-based medicine: an analysis of prophylactic bilateral oophorectomy at time of hysterectomy for benign conditions

Sackett et al. defined evidence-based medicine as “the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients.” [...]

Ethical issues in preventing mother-to-child transmission of hepatitis B by immunisation

Without intervention, a pregnant woman who is a chronic hepatitis B carrier is at risk of transmitting hepatitis B and of her infant becoming a chronic carrier and having a significantly increased lifetime risk of developing liver cancer or cirrhosis. Hepatitis B vaccine and immunoglobulin reduce the risk of the baby becoming a carrier, but with only a short window period after birth to deliver this potentially life-saving intervention. We reviewed the evidence on the magnitude of the risk. If the carrier mother is e antigen positive (highly infective), the calculated risk to the infant without intervention is 75.2%, reduced to 6.0% by giving vaccine and immunoglobulin at birth. If the mother is surface antigen positive but e antigen negative, the risk to the infant without intervention is 10.3%, reduced to 1.0% by giving vaccine and immunoglobulin. If vaccine is accepted but immunoglobulin refused, as for example by some Jehovah's Witnesses, the risk to babies of e antigen positive mothers is reduced to 21.0% and to babies of e antigen negative mothers to 2.6%. These figures can be used to inform parents and as a possible basis for child protection proceedings if parents decline vaccine and/or immunoglobulin. We argue from the perspective of the best interests of the child that the severity of the condition justifies initiating child protection proceedings whenever a baby is born to a hepatitis B carrier mother and, despite concerted attempts to persuade them, the parents refuse vaccine and/or immunoglobulin.

Parental rights and decision making regarding vaccinations: ethical dilemmas for the primary care provider

PURPOSE

To discuss the ethical dilemma that a primary care nurse practitioner (NP) must face when parents refuse to have their children immunized.

DATA SOURCES

Review of published literature on the topic.

CONCLUSIONS

By listening carefully to their concerns, responding honestly, and providing clear information about the risks and benefits, NPs may be able to build trust and to convince once hesitant parents to have their children immunized. For those parents who refuse, NPs may feel uncertain on how to respond. By considering the ethical principles to which they are bound, autonomy, beneficence, and non-maleficence, NPs can work with the parents to decide what treatment is best for the child.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Providing truthful information to parents and utilizing public awareness through recent discussions in the media and on the Internet may be able to obviate many of the concerns of parents, which may be getting in the way of universal immunization.

Immunizing children who fear and resist needles: is it a problem for nurses?

BACKGROUND

Despite increasing evidence that immunization procedures can be stressful for children, little is known about what the experience of immunizing frightened and needle-resistant children can be like for nurses.

METHOD

This article presents findings from a qualitative research project designed to explore public health nurses' feelings toward immunizing needle-resistant children. A constructivist theoretical perspective and an action research approach framed the study. Data sources included two survey questions and audio-recorded transcribed data from three focus groups. Participants included 35 public health nurses from five different health units in one Canadian province. The data were analyzed for themes and were confirmed with participants through ongoing member checking.

RESULTS

The following four overarching themes were identified and are used to explain and describe significant features of the immunization experience that were stressful and problematic for nurses: (a) nurses experience stress when immunizing children who fear and resist needle injection; (b) the strength of child resistance and some adult behavior creates an ethical dilemma for nurses; (c) some adult responses make immunizing difficult and unsafe; and (d) resources to help nurses cope with these situations are inconsistent.

Inadequate pain management during routine childhood immunizations: the nerve of it

BACKGROUND

Immunization is regarded as one of the most significant medical achievements of all time. Recently, increasing attention has been paid to the pain resulting from routine childhood immunizations.

OBJECTIVE

This narrative review summarizes existing knowledge about: (1) the epidemiology of childhood immunization pain; (2) the pain experience of children undergoing immunization; (3) current analgesic practices; (4) barriers to practicing pain management in children; and (5) recommendations for improvements in pain management during immunization.

METHODS

We conducted a search of MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for primary research and review articles published from inception of the databases through October 2008. Key search terms included immunization, pain, child/infant, vaccine, and intervention. Additional studies were identified through searches of the reference lists in the retrieved articles. No language restrictions were imposed regarding the type of article (eg, full article, abstract) or language.

RESULTS

Vaccine injections are the most common iatrogenic procedure performed in childhood and a major source of distress for children (of all ages), their parents, and the participating health care professionals, as well as a direct cause of vaccine nonadherence. In addition, lack of adequate pain management during immunization exposes children to unnecessary suffering and the potential for long-term consequences, such as fear of needles. Numerous pain management strategies are available to reduce vaccine injection pain, including: (1) physical interventions and injection techniques; (2) psychological interventions; and (3) phar-macologic and combined interventions. However, adoption of pain-relieving techniques into clinical practice has been suboptimal. The underutilization of pain management strategies can be attributed to a lack of knowledge about pain and effective pain prevention strategies, and the persistence of attitudes about pain that interfere with optimal clinical practices. Current analgesic practices could be improved substantially if all stakeholders involved in immunization (eg, policy makers, practitioners, consumers) participate in efforts to reduce pain. Treating pain during childhood immunization has the potential to reduce distress during the procedure and greatly improve satisfaction with the immunization experience through more positive experiences for children and their families. Other potential benefits include improved adherence to immunization schedules and reduced sequelae of untreated pain.

CONCLUSION

Immunization is a global health priority. Medical care can be improved if pain management becomes a routine aspect of the delivery of vaccine injections.

Prominent ears: the effect of reconstructive surgery on self-esteem and social interaction in children with a minor defect compared to children with a major orthopedic defect

BACKGROUND

In a prospective study of patients with prominent ears, the effect of reconstructive surgery on self-esteem and social interaction was examined 1 year after surgery.

METHODS

Of 42 patients with prominent ears aged 7 to 15 years, 21 were matched with a comparison group of orthopedic patients (leg lengthening) and a control group of schoolchildren. Psychological measures evaluated self-esteem, depression, anxiety, cognition, parents' ratings of child behavior and symptoms, and parent anxiety. Semistructured interviews with the child and parents were also conducted.

RESULTS

The motivation to be operated on was pain, teasing, and feelings of being different. The satisfaction rate with the result of reconstructive surgery was high. The psychological measures of the prominent ears group had results close to those of the control group, although the leg lengthening group had lower self-esteem and higher depression and anxiety scores. With few exceptions, all patients had scores within the normal range on self-rating scales. Parents reported less activity at leisure time in both patient groups than in the control group. After surgery, parents reported improved behavior on the Child Behavior Checklist total problem score.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with minor defects had fewer self-reported psychological and behavior problems than the major defect group. Interestingly, prominent ears patients also had low activity levels. Reconstructive surgery had no adverse effect on the prominent ears patients in this interim study but rather resulted in improved well-being. It is important to investigate further the effect of reconstructive surgery on children's self-esteem and social interaction.

A covenant with the status quo? Male circumcision and the new BMA guidance to doctors

This article offers a critique of the recently revised BMA guidance on routine neonatal male circumcision and seeks to challenge the assumptions underpinning the guidance which construe this procedure as a matter of parental choice. Our aim is to problematise continued professional willingness to tolerate the non-therapeutic, non-consensual excision of healthy tissue, arguing that in this context both professional guidance and law are uncharacteristically tolerant of risks inflicted on young children, given the absence of clear medical benefits. By interrogating historical medical explanations for this practice, which continue to surface in contemporary justifications of non-consensual male circumcision, we demonstrate how circumcision has long existed as a procedure in need of a justification. We conclude that it is ethically inappropriate to subject children-male or female-to the acknowledged risks of circumcision and contend that there is no compelling legal authority for the common view that male circumcision is lawful.

Anthropology and Circumcision

This chapter reviews the anthropology of male and female circumcision over the past century. After surveying classic sociocultural and psychodynamic interpretations of male circumcision, I shift to the biblical and Jewish rite, focusing on gender symbolism and counter-hegemonic practice within European-Christian society. The chapter then reviews the relationship between male circumcision in sub-Saharan Africa and reduced rates of HIV. Next, I address female circumcision, focusing again on symbolism but especially on highly impassioned debates over cultural relativism and human rights, medical complications, criticism and imperialism, and female agency versus brute patriarchy. What are the moral, political, and scientific obligations of anthropology to a cultural practice that is increasingly vilified in Western popular culture and jurisprudence? Should anthropology advocate eradication, contextualize Western opposition, or critique one's own bodily practices? Finally, I critically analyze the growing movement to ban the medical and ritual circumcision of infant boys in the West.

Ethics and vaccination

BACKGROUND

Immunization programmes are ethically defensible and society has a significant role to play in providing vaccination against measles and safeguarding herd immunity to optimize its individuals' capabilities. Since preventive actions interfere with individuals who consider themselves as healthy, public health strategies - as distinct from advice in a clinical consultation - require something approaching certainty as to benefits and possible side effects of an intervention. The principle of individual autonomy, a fundamental value in bioethics, often makes discussions covering ethical issues in public health interventions difficult and non-productive as to practical solutions. In encounters intended to provide information on vaccination, discussions regarding risks tend to simplify the issue into an individual one: either the child gets measles or not, or is affected by side effects or not.

METHOD AND CONCLUSIONS

A model is suggested for identification and analysis of the ethical conflicts in measles vaccination programmes, which contains two different dimensions: the affected persons and the relevant ethical principles. Justice as solidarity, not utility, should be paired with autonomy in ethical deliberations on preventive health interventions such as a vaccination programme for measles. If the goal is solidarity rather than conformity, the parents must be free to decide what they think is right, because that is what moral responsibility is all about. Solidarity, however, could never be accepted as an argument without parents trusting the messages from the health institutions and availability of reasonable societal support for those who claim an association between vaccinations and possible side effects.

Should routine childhood immunizations be compulsory?

Routine childhood immunizations are compulsory in a small number of countries, including the United States of America. Arguments used to justify making immunizations compulsory include enhancing the health of the community and treating as paramount the rights of the child to be protected against vaccine-preventable diseases. But compulsory immunization infringes the autonomy of parents to make choices about child rearing, an autonomy which we generally respect unless doing so seriously endangers the child's health. We present a historical review and ethics discussion on whether routine childhood immunizations should be compulsory. We conclude that, for both ethical and practical reasons, routine immunization should not be compulsory if adequate levels of immunization can be achieved by other means.

Parental refusals of medical treatment: the harm principle as threshold for state intervention

Minors are generally considered incompetent to provide legally binding decisions regarding their health care, and parents or guardians are empowered to make those decisions on their behalf. Parental authority is not absolute, however, and when a parent acts contrary to the best interests of a child, the state may intervene. The best interests standard is the threshold most frequently employed in challenging a parent's refusal to provide consent for a child's medical care. In this paper, I will argue that the best interest standard provides insufficient guidance for decision-making regarding children and does not reflect the actual standard used by medical providers and courts. Rather, I will suggest that the Harm Principle provides a more appropriate threshold for state intervention than the Best Interest standard. Finally, I will suggest a series of criteria that can be used in deciding whether the state should intervene in a parent's decision to refuse medical care on behalf of a child.

Circumcision: a consideration of some of the controversy

This article considers the procedure known as male circumcision. This is practised throughout the world for a variety of reasons, including medically essential reasons, health promotion, health protection, cultural, religious and aesthetic. It has been estimated that approximately one-third of the male population has been circumcized. As with some other surgical interventions its use is controversial, and there are a number of ethical and moral issues that are of interest to the children's nurse. The anatomy and physiology of the prepuce is summarized and the practice of circumcision and some of the risks and proposed benefits of the procedure are considered. This article is intended to be culturally sensitive and it is hoped that it will inform others and provoke discussion. It may enable the children's nurse to raise awareness of the issues among the general population.