We critically evaluate arguments in a recent Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics article by Svoboda, Adler, and Van Howe disputing the 2012 affirmative infant male circumcision policy recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics. We provide detailed evidence in explaining why the extensive claims by these opponents are not supported by the current strong scientific evidence. We furthermore show why their legal and ethical arguments are contradicted by a reasonable interpretation of current U.S. and international law and ethics. After (...) all considerations are taken into account it would be logical to conclude that failure to recommend male circumcision early in infancy may be viewed as akin to failure to recommend childhood vaccination to parents. In each case, parental consent is required and the intervention is not compulsory. Our evaluation leads us to dismiss the arguments by Svoboda et al. Instead, based on the evidence, infant male circumcision is both ethical and lawful. (shrink)

In the deviance literature, sexual assaults at work have not been given the sustained attention that harm to property or violation of production guidelines has received. This omission suggests that sexual harassment is considered normative and that when women fail to accommodate this reality, it is the survivor rather than the perpetrator who is considered deviant. This article reports on 64 cases of attempted or completed rape in a sample of heterosexual and lesbian women workers in a wide range of (...) occupations. Two atypical responses, quitting the job or filing a complaint as a result of a workplace sexual assault, highlight the process by which informal deviance defining occurs in everyday interactions at work. (shrink)

Professor P. Bernays has kindly drawn my attention to the fact that the assignment of Godel numbers to formulas described on page 295 of volume I of this Journal, is not correct. Under this assignment, different formulas may obtain the same Godel number and therefore the argument given on page 296 under (i) is not cogent. The correct assignment would give, for the formula considered as an example, the Godel number 28. 320. 514. 782 The correction to be made on (...) page 294, L 20 is obvious. (shrink)

Professor P. Bernays has kindly drawn my attention to the tact that the assignment of Gödel numbers to formulas described on page 295 of volume I of this Journal, is not correct. Under this assignment, different formulas may obtain the same Gödel number and therefore the argument given on page 296 under (i) is not cogent. The correct assignment would give, for the formula considered as an example, the Gödel number 23. 329. 514. 732 The correction to be made on (...) page 294, l. 20 is obvious. (shrink)