Brian David Earp is an Americans Bioethics, Philosophy, and interdisciplinary researcher. He is probably best known for his writings on Bodily integrity, the involuntary non-therapeutic (medically unnecessary) genital cutting of Child and drug use in the United States.[ Earp is an Associate Professor of Philosophy and of Psychology at NUS by courtesy.][ He is Associate Director of the Yale-Hastings Program in Ethics and Health Policy at Yale University and The Hastings Center.][ He is a Research Fellow at the Uehiro Oxford Institute. He is an elected member of the UK Young Academy under the auspices of the British Academy and the Royal Society.][
]
Earp has written on a wide range of topics, including free will,[ Brian helped to establish "experimental philosophical bioethics" (bioXphi) as an area of research.][ He previously wrote the quarterly "Philosophy in the Real World" column for The Philosopher. In 2019, Earp wrote his first book (co-written with Julian Savulescu), published in the UK as Love Is the Drug: The Chemical Future of Our Relationships]
He is Co-Editor-in-Chief of the Journal for Medical Ethics (JME) alongside Professor Lucy Frith (University of Manchester) and Associate Professor Arianne Shahvisi (Brighton and Sussex Medical School)
Personal life
Earp grew up in a Conservatism Evangelicalism Christianity household. His mother was a Housewife; his father was a Radiographer.
Work and views
Relationships and drugs
He is best known for writing Love Is the Drug: The Chemical Future of Our Relationships with Julian Savulescu.
Bodily autonomy and integrity, and children's rights
With other child genital cutting experts, Earp has argued that all forms of involuntary non-therapeutic (medically unnecessary) genital cutting or surgery — including penile circumcision, intersex interventions, and female genital mutilation — are violations of Bioethics.[
]
A near ethical consensus in the Global North forbids clinicians to perform involuntary non-therapeutic genital cutting of endosex (non-intersex) female minors (except involuntary clitoral reduction surgeries on children with congenital adrenal hyperplasia), even pricking or nicking of the clitoral hood.[ For instance, these two are less severe than a endosex male circumcison: the partial or total removal of the penile prepuce of half of the motile skin system of the penis (approximately 30–50 cm2 in the adult organ).][
]Some advocates of the permissibility of medicalized newborn penile circumcision who recognize the physical and symbolic overlaps between this custom and what they see as “minor” female genital cutting (e.g., ritual cutting of the labia or clitoral hood) increasingly argue that the latter should be permitted in Western societies even for nonconsenting girls (i.e., for the sake of parity) overlaps between this custom and what they see as “minor” female genital cutting (e.g., ritual cutting of the labia or clitoral hood) increasingly argue that the latter should be permitted in Western societies even for nonconsenting girls (i.e., for the sake of parity) (Arora and Jacobs 2016; Cohen-Almagor 2020; Porat 2021; Shweder 2022b; for analysis, see Van Howe 2011). Nonvoluntary intersex surgeries have also in some cases been justified by appeals to the presumed acceptability of nonvoluntary penile circumcision (Fox and Thomson 2005; Meoded Danon 2018; see also Earp, Abdulcadir, and Shahvisi 2024).
With other child genital cutting experts, he asks that clinicians stop involuntary clitoral reduction surgeries on children with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), as well as the non-therapeutic genital cutting of endosex male minors and intersex children.[
]
He's one of the authors of both statements made by the Brussels Collaboration on Bodily integrity.[
]
Bibliography
