07-11-2010, 02:54 PM
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:
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:
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:
- it can prevent some future infection,
- it is cleaner to have part of your penis amputated,
- it should be performed on unconsenting children,
- 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
- we have no respect for others religious beliefs.
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:
Quote: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.