Hainz Tobias
Bioethics. 2015 Sep;29(7):507-15. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12141. Epub 2014 Dec 17.
The application of enhancement technologies to children and non-medical infant male circumcision are both topics that enjoy the continuous attention of bioethical research but are usually discussed in isolation from each other. Yet one can show that three major arguments used by opponents of the enhancement of children are also applicable to circumcision. These arguments are based on the insecurity of these procedures, the child's right to an open future, and human nature as a foundation of human dignity. People who reject the enhancement of children because of these arguments but accept circumcision hold mutually inconsistent moral convictions or apply double moral standards to these cases. This is particularly important when legislative systems treat the enhancement of children and circumcision in a considerably different manner, which is true for many contemporary legislative systems. At least three strategies can be adopted in order to avoid such inconsistencies, two of which, however, fail for various reasons. According to a third, more promising strategy, circumcision should be subsumed under human enhancement and treated like other enhancement technologies. This strategy justifies restrictions on, but not the prohibition of circumcision. Furthermore, proponents of circumcision should be prepared for future technologies that provide similar benefits as circumcision but are not as contentious as this intervention, so that, in the future, circumcision could become more and more unacceptable.
增强技术在儿童身上的应用以及非医疗目的的男童包皮环切术，都是生物伦理研究持续关注的话题，但通常彼此孤立地进行讨论。然而，可以表明，反对增强儿童的人所使用的三个主要论点也适用于包皮环切术。这些论点基于这些手术的不确定性、儿童拥有开放未来的权利以及作为人类尊严基础的人性。因这些论点而拒绝增强儿童但接受包皮环切术的人持有相互矛盾的道德信念，或者对这些情况采用双重道德标准。当立法系统以截然不同的方式对待增强儿童和包皮环切术时，这一点尤为重要，许多当代立法系统都是如此。为避免此类不一致情况，至少可以采取三种策略，然而其中两种因各种原因而失败。根据第三种更有前景的策略，包皮环切术应归入人类增强范畴，并像其他增强技术一样对待。这一策略证明对包皮环切术进行限制是合理的，但不是禁止。此外，包皮环切术的支持者应为未来能提供与包皮环切术类似益处但不像这种干预那样有争议的技术做好准备，这样一来，未来包皮环切术可能会越来越不被接受。
