Circumcision

[marshlander]

This is an old subject for discussion and one that traditionally arouses passionate debate. I am passionately against this form of male mutilation, particularly when imposed on babies who have no say in the matter. By all means let men chop bits off themselves when they are old enough to make an informed decision, or call in the surgeons if there is an otherwise unresolvable medical problem, but to do it to babies and claim it is, for example, "godswill" is abuse.

Now that all government departments in the UK are having to look for ways of saving vast amounts of money, the medical profession could do its bit for the economy by refusing to carry out these anachronistic and barbaric mutilations for any reason that could be deemed cultural, religious, or cosmetic. Let's face it, most men who grew up with cocks intact would probably not bother being circumcised anyway - far too painful and inconvenient, although it's somehow okay to do it to kids :mad:

According to Linda Massie, Director of the National Organisation Circumcision Information Resource Centre of Northern Ireland, the usual excuses for perpetuating this practice are usually that:

1. it can prevent some future infection,
   
2. it is cleaner to have part of your penis amputated,
   
3. it should be performed on unconsenting children,
   
4. somehow those of us who wish to alert the public and the medical profession that our children or partners have been harmed are invisible and
   
5. we have no respect for others religious beliefs.
   

She goes on to say quite clearly, "All these claims are bogus and yet people continue to repeat them without any evidence as to their validity".

Antony D Lempert, general practitioner principal and co-ordinator, Secular Medical Forum, wrote recently to the British Medical Journal urging the UK to follow the Dutch lead in banning the practice:

I welcome the Dutch Medical Association’s call to end ritual circumcision. Clinically unnecessary surgical excision of normal genital skin violates a child’s human right to an intact body and to be protected from harm.

A 2007 study showed that circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis. There is a risk of further harm if the operation goes wrong. This is sad when circumcision is clinically necessary but tragic when done because of parents’ religious or cultural views.

All interventions carry a degree of risk. This is why surgery should be contemplated only where there is a potential for greater good than harm, particularly in the case of non-consenting infants to whom society owes a duty of care and protection. This basic principle ordinarily guides daily practice. Were it not for the demands of traditional religious privilege it would not be up for discussion.

In January 2010 the Secular Medical Forum asked the General Medical Council to reconsider their "non-position" on ritual male circumcision. The first principle of GMC guidance is "Make the care of your patient your first concern," but we were advised that the GMC had no immediate plans to amend its guidance on ritual non-therapeutic circumcision.

The GMC and BMA should follow the Dutch Medical Association’s example of putting children’s welfare ahead of their parents’ beliefs. Legislation is needed to prevent all non-therapeutic surgery on non-consenting children. And let’s call circumcision what it is: non-therapeutic excision of the foreskin.

[Genersis]

Unfortunatly i didn't have a choice in the matter, nor did my parents.
Its all a rather sensitive matter for most people.

I completly agree with ya marshlander.
Surely there should be a law banning circumsitions before a set age where the patient is old enough to understand what is going on and can decide wheather the surgery is for them?(Bar medical reasons.):confused:

But if we did implement such a law, i'm sure several religious groups would claim the law is an "attack" on their religion. *sigh*

Its compaible to....choping off a babys little finger because its considered cleaner and less troublesome holding things without it.(ok, maybe not the best comparasion, but meh.)

[Lee]

i agree its a bit didgy!

In psychology we studied a case study concerning whether gender roles were due to genetics etc or learned, the guy was circumcised using a new technique at the time, it went horrible wrong, and the only solution was to remove the whole burned and disfigured remains of the penis. they tryed to teach him he was female, however it didnt work and he went on to comit suicide. I know a lot of those details arent relevant, but it just proves how much of an effect it can have on a persons life (although incredibly rare).

personally i think it should be for medical purposes only, and then when the child is of an age when they can give fully informed consent, it could be done for other reasons such as cosmetic or religeous.

[marshlander]

... But if we did implement such a law, i'm sure several religious groups would claim the law is an "attack" on their religion. *sigh*

Its compaible to....choping off a babys little finger because its considered cleaner and less troublesome holding things without it.(ok, maybe not the best comparasion, but meh.)

It's a perfectly valid comparison. I don't see that morally there is any difference. The only reason we are fooled into thinking there is a difference is because we don't routinely chop off babies' fingers. It's not so much that it's okay so we do it, more a case of we do it, so it's okay. :mad:

As to attacking religions, maybe it's about time, although I would only advocate that in the form of curbing inhumane excesses. Religious custom and practice is too often a mask for unspeakable cruelty and not just in the treatment of babies, but women, gays, the disabled, intellectuals, dissidents, animals ... I'm sure the list goes on and on, but I'm feeling sick. You are aware, I hope, of the current campaign to raise awareness and action against the stoning to death of women in some Muslim countries? Like I said, unspeakable cruelty. Sorry that should be in another thread. I'm side-tracking myself

[fredv3b]

If I had to choose I know which one I'd keep, it's attached to my hand. That said I do generally speaking agree.

[colinmackay]

I think we could come to a compromise. Religions can keep their ritualistic mutilation if they accept that any that go wrong will result in charges being brought ranging from assault to murder depending on the outcome. The child will still be able to sue for assault even if the procedure was a "success", took place without their consent and it took place before they reached the age of majority.

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk

[nick]

I was circumcised at birth. I'm fine with it, but if I ever have a son I'd not have him circumcised.

[marshlander]

I was circumcised at birth. I'm fine with it, but if I ever have a son I'd not have him circumcised.

You have to be fine with it. It would be tough having to live in a permanently angry state, but I think your comment about not perpetuating this act on a future generation is significant.

[dpenhall]

I was circumcised at birth. I'm fine with it, but if I ever have a son I'd not have him circumcised.

That's the same way I feel. I don't blame my parents, because it's just what was done back then. Also because I used to be in favor of circumcision, until I saw the Circumcision episode of Penn&Teller's Bullshit! about it. Brr...
If I ever have a son, I won't let that happen to him.

[Sil]

I got circumcised for phimosis when I was about 7 I think... Me and people I'd been with never had a problem with it so it didn't bother me. Heh, I actually thought foreskin was kinda gross first time I saw it pull back when I was really young and dumb, so it's just what you're used to.

BUUUT I am jealous at how awesome it must feel. I'll never get that, but I don't lose sleep over it.

Medically speaking, there's not a lot of justification in it; people live just fine with it. I don't think it should be performed on unconsenting children, and it would save money. All good points.