Research Hub

Earp argues for a consistent principle of genital autonomy for children and examines tensions in treating forms of genital cutting differently. The paper is relevant to bodily integrity and consent, but it is a bioethical argument rather than a clinical guideline.

This commentary critiques proposed CDC counseling guidance and asks whether its benefit-risk framing adequately addresses uncertainty, anatomy, and the child’s future interests. It represents Earp’s critical analysis of a policy proposal, not a consensus statement.

This editorial introduces ethical questions surrounding infant male circumcision, including consent, culture, harm reduction, and child advocacy. PubMed provides no abstract, so this catalog does not attribute a more detailed conclusion than the record supports.

Myers and Earp examine claims that neonatal circumcision is safer, simpler, and more cost-effective than later surgery. They argue that even accepting those claims would not by itself establish ethical permission without urgent medical necessity.

The authors connect newborn circumcision technique with informed permission and medical ethics. It is useful for understanding why the mechanics and permanence of a procedure belong in counseling, not only its proposed outcomes.

Earp examines whether possible health benefits settle the morality of genital cutting without the individual’s consent. The paper’s relevance is its distinction between evidence of benefit and ethical authority to intervene.

Earp and coauthors argue that Western health organizations apply inconsistent concepts of health to male, female, and intersex child genital cutting. The article calls for a unified ethical stance and should be read as a normative argument within an active debate.

Earp’s official website collects his publications, talks, and current work. It is an author-controlled source and is useful for discovering original publications, which should then be read at the journal or PubMed record.