In recent decades, struggles for recognition have increasingly dominated the political landscape.1 Recognition theorists such as Charles Taylor (1994) and Axel Honneth (1995) seek to interpret and justify these struggles through the idea that our identity is shaped, at least partly, by our relations with other people. Because our identity is shaped in this way, it is alleged that feelings of self-worth, self-respect and self-esteem are possible only if we are positively recognised for who we are. Consequently, for many political theorists, recognition is an integral component of a satisfactory modern theory of justice, as well as the means by which both historical and contemporary political struggles can be understood and justified.

The Politics of Recognition

Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers

Contact tracing is an essential tool for public health officials and local communities to fight the spread of novel diseases, such as for the COVID-19 pandemic. The Singaporean government just released a mobile phone app, TraceTogether, that is designed to assist health officials in tracking down exposures after an infected individual is identified. However, there are important privacy implications of the existence of such tracking apps. Here, we analyze some of those implications and discuss ways of ameliorating the privacy concerns without decreasing usefulness to public health. We hope in writing this document to ensure that privacy is a central feature of conversations surrounding mobile contact tracing apps and to encourage community efforts to develop alternative effective solutions with stronger privacy protection for the users. Importantly, though we discuss potential modifications, this document is not meant as a formal research paper, but instead is a response to some of the privacy characteristics of direct contact tracing apps like TraceTogether and an early-stage Request for Comments to the community. 
Date written: 2020-03-24 
Minor correction: 2020-03-30

Contact Tracing Mobile Apps for COVID-19: Privacy Considerations and Related Trade-offs

The objective of this review was to assess the trend in the US male circumcision rate and the impact that the affirmative 2012 American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement might have on neonatal circumcision practice. We searched PubMed for the term circumcision to retrieve relevant articles. This review was prompted by a recent report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that found a slight increase, from 79% to 81%, in the prevalence of circumcision in males aged 14 to 59 years during the past decade. There were racial and ethnic disparities, with prevalence rising to 91% in white, 76% in black, and 44% in Hispanic males. Because data on neonatal circumcision are equivocal, we undertook a critical analysis of hospital discharge data. After correction for underreporting, we found that the percentage had declined from 83% in the 1960s to 77% by 2010. A risk-benefit analysis of conditions that neonatal circumcision protects against revealed that benefits exceed risks by at least 100 to 1 and that over their lifetime, half of uncircumcised males will require treatment for a medical condition associated with retention of the foreskin. Other analyses show that neonatal male circumcision is cost-effective for disease prevention. The benefits of circumcision begin in the neonatal period by protection against infections that can damage the pediatric kidney. Given the substantial risk of adverse conditions and disease, some argue that failure to circumcise a baby boy may be unethical because it diminishes his right to good health. There is no long-term adverse effect of neonatal circumcision on sexual function or pleasure. The affirmative 2012 American Academy of Pediatrics policy supports parental education about, access to, and insurance and Medicaid coverage for elective infant circumcision. As with vaccination, circumcision of newborn boys should be part of public health policies. Campaigns should prioritize population subgroups with lower circumcision prevalence and a higher burden of diseases that can be ameliorated by circumcision.

https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(14)00036-6/pdf

Circumcision rates in the United States: rising or falling? What effect might the new affirmative pediatric policy statement have?

Addressing parents’ concerns: do multiple vaccines overwhelm or weaken the infant’s immune system?

Despite 30 years of advocacy, the prevalence of non-therapeutic female genital alteration (FGA) in minors is stable in many countries. Educational efforts have minimally changed the prevalence of this procedure in regions where it has been widely practiced. In order to better protect female children from the serious and long-term harms of some types of non-therapeutic FGA, we must adopt a more nuanced position that acknowledges a wide spectrum of procedures that alter female genitalia. We offer a revised categorisation for non-therapeutic FGA that groups procedures by effect and not by process. Acceptance of de minimis procedures that generally do not carry long-term medical risks is culturally sensitive, does not discriminate on the basis of gender, and does not violate human rights. More morbid procedures should not be performed. However, accepting de minimis non-therapeutic f FGA procedures enhances the effort of compassionate practitioners searching for a compromise position that respects cultural differences but protects the health of their patients.

https://jme.bmj.com/content/medethics/42/3/148.full.pdf

Female genital alteration: a compromise solution

Opponents of male circumcision have increasingly used human rights positions to articulate their viewpoint. We characterize the meaning of the term "human rights." We discuss these human rights arguments with special attention to the claims of rights to an open future and to bodily integrity. We offer a three-part test under which a parental decision might be considered an unacceptable violation of a child's right. The test considers the impact of the practice on society, the impact of the practice on the individual, and the likelihood of adverse impact. Infant circumcision is permissible under this test. We conclude that infant circumcision may be proscribed as violating local norms, even though it does not violate human rights.

Ritual Male Infant Circumcision and Human Rights

Infant circumcision has recently attracted controversy with professional groups recommending it and various individuals trying to criminalize it Circumcision is beneficial in the prevention of certain diseases, causing minimal tangible harm to those circumcised This article argues that government should affirmatively adopt policies tolerating minority practices Such activities should be banned only if they cause substantial damage to society or its members, or if they engender risks or injuries to which no reasonable person would consent The benefits and risks of circumcision are outlined Circumcision of male infants does not trigger cause for government to abolish it, and should be permitted if parents desire it This article also summarizes common arguments against circumcision and attempts to refute them These arguments are based on a desire for gender equality as well as a belief that minors should not undergo elective bodily alteration If there are no unusual risks, parents can ethically authorize, and physicians ethically perform, elective infant circumcision for prophylaxis of disease, ritual purposes, or aesthetic reasons Furthermore, the state should permit this

The ethics of circumcision of male infants.

When may government interfere with religious practices to protect the health and safety of children

Table of contentsI. Introduction 917II. To Accommodate or Not to Accommodate? 921A. Accommodation vs. Non-Accommodation: The Scholarly Debates 923B. Accommodation vs. Non-Accommodation: Tracing the Supreme Court's Approach 928C. Beyond Philosophy and Constitutionalism: Accommodationism Today 9311. Constitutional Expressions of Accommodationism and Their Limits 9342. Statutory Expressions of Accommodationism and Their Limits 941III. Understanding Inconsistency: Religious Accommodation and Non-Accommodation in the Political Economy 946A. Is Inconsistency Troubling? In This Case, Yes.........947B. Explaining Inconsistency: Religious Groups in the Political Economy 952C. The Problems with Leaving Accommodations to Politics 961IV.Balancing Religious Liberty Against Protection of Children and Third Parties: A Proposed Test 966A. The Test 966B. Explaining the Test 9681. The Thrust of the Test and Its Audience 9682. Unpacking the Test: Explanations and Definitions 971a. Identifying a "Religious Practice" 971b. Identifying a "Religious Group" 972c. The Types of Risks, Burdens, Harms, and Costs Contemplated by the Test 979d. The Likelihood of Burdens Associated with the Test 985e. The Magnitude Limitation: Tolerance of Harmful Mainstream Practices Requires Tolerance of Comparably Harmful Religious Practices 988C. The Test in Action 9931. Cases Involving Religious Practices That Allegedly Harm In-Group Children 9942. Cases Involving Potential Harm to Third Parties 1001V. The Test's Implications and Limitations 1005A. The Test Primarily Applies Only to a Limited Category of Cases, but It May Have Important Implications for Many Others 1005B. The Test Does Not Always Mandate the Prohibition of Religious Practices, Even Where Its Conditions Are Met 1008C. The Test Does Not Resolve All Cases in Which It Applies 1009VI. Conclusion 1016I. IntroductionTo accommodate or not to accommodate religious beliefs- that is the question that dominates the field of Law and Religion today.1 It is a question that confronts all modern liberal societies, and the space for accommodating religious objections to general legal obligations is increasingly contested in contemporary American legal, political, and ethical discourse.This problem is especially acute where the majority culture perceives a religious practice or requirement to impose risks, harms, burdens, or costs on children.2 A parent's refusal to supply medical treatment to a child may lead to the death of the child.3 Parents who refuse to vaccinate a child due to the demands of their religion or conscience can put their child at grave risk, as well as other children across society who cannot be vaccinated. …

/pdf/to-accommodate-or-not-to-accommodate-when-should-the-state-xp9qpj60bb.pdf

Allan J. Jacobs

Papers

Female genital alteration: a compromise solution

Ritual Male Infant Circumcision and Human Rights

The ethics of circumcision of male infants.

When may government interfere with religious practices to protect the health and safety of children

To Accommodate or Not to Accommodate: (When) Should the State Regulate Religion to Protect the Rights of Children and Third Parties?