Should boys be made to wait until they reach eighteen to decide if they want to be circumcised?'
Earlier this week, a top Family Division judge suggested that young children should not be circumcised until they are old enough to make the decision for themselves.
Earlier this week, a top Family Division judge suggested that young children should not be circumcised until they are old enough to make the decision for themselves.
The Hon. Mrs Justice Roberts made the assertion during a landmark case in which a Muslim father and non-Muslim mother disagreed over whether or not their sons, aged four and six, should be circumcised in accordance with the Islamic faith.
The father, a 36-year old Algerian man, told both his ex-partner and the court that circumcision went to the very core of his identity as a Muslim. He said that "circumcision has both a religious and a social importance which overrides any slight risk which the procedure carries."
Justice Roberts, who refused to make a circumcision order after analysing both arguments, said: "First and foremost, this is a once and for all, irreversible procedure. There is no guarantee that these boys will wish to continue to observe the Muslim faith with the devotion demonstrated by their father although that may very well be their choice.
"They are still very young and there is no way of anticipating at this stage how the different influences in their respective parental homes will shape and guide their development over the coming years," she continued, "and there are risks, albeit small, associated with the surgery regardless of the expertise with which the operation is performed."
"When properly approached, this culturally significant procedure is very safe, and will continue to be safe if conducted in this same way."
Edited by AA
Source
The father, a 36-year old Algerian man, told both his ex-partner and the court that circumcision went to the very core of his identity as a Muslim. He said that "circumcision has both a religious and a social importance which overrides any slight risk which the procedure carries."
Justice Roberts, who refused to make a circumcision order after analysing both arguments, said: "First and foremost, this is a once and for all, irreversible procedure. There is no guarantee that these boys will wish to continue to observe the Muslim faith with the devotion demonstrated by their father although that may very well be their choice.
"They are still very young and there is no way of anticipating at this stage how the different influences in their respective parental homes will shape and guide their development over the coming years," she continued, "and there are risks, albeit small, associated with the surgery regardless of the expertise with which the operation is performed."
Was the judge, who acknowledged that "the safest point in time to have carried out the procedure has long since passed," right in her refusal to withhold the circumcision order? Should children's health be prioritised above the spirituality of parents? And can the widespread practice of male circumcision really be classed as genital mutilation?
"There can obviously be complications," says Dr Simon Hochhauser, co-chairman of pro-Jewish circumcision group Milah UK. "And, in those who carry out the procedure in an unregulated environment there will obviously be more complications. But, carried out in a safe environment by trained practitioners – people who are constantly examined – it is a safe procedure with very, very few complications.
"This latest case was unique as the parents disagreed," Dr Hochhauser continues. "And, because there was parental disagreement – in other words non-parental consent – obviously the judge fell back on the quite correct assertion that it is for the child, ultimately, to decide.
"But this is a very, very specific case of parental consent. I don’t believe that she would have made this decision in a general case. It was not concerned with the wider legality of male circumcision."
"There can obviously be complications," says Dr Simon Hochhauser, co-chairman of pro-Jewish circumcision group Milah UK. "And, in those who carry out the procedure in an unregulated environment there will obviously be more complications. But, carried out in a safe environment by trained practitioners – people who are constantly examined – it is a safe procedure with very, very few complications.
"But this is a very, very specific case of parental consent. I don’t believe that she would have made this decision in a general case. It was not concerned with the wider legality of male circumcision."
Dr Hochhauser, who believes male circumcision to be a sign of the covenant God made with Abraham, says that the minimal risks associated with the procedure are outweighed by its religious and cultural importance.
"It is probably the biggest physical manifestation of being a male member of this particular group – the Jewish community," asserts the doctor. "Obviously it is also big part of other cultures and communities, too.
"It has been passed on from generation to generation – and at no time in the Jewish culture has the practice been discontinued, ceased or in any way modified. It is a practice that we do not deem controversial, and we simply wish to continue doing it in the manner in which it has always been done."
Dr Hochhauser also points out that male circumcision is frequently practiced around the world for medical purposes, as well as spiritual. However, Professor Morten Frisch, an epidemiology researcher at the University of Copenhagen, believes that it is irresponsible to put a child through what is widely recognised as a medical procedure for the sake of tradition.
"It is probably the biggest physical manifestation of being a male member of this particular group – the Jewish community," asserts the doctor. "Obviously it is also big part of other cultures and communities, too.
"It has been passed on from generation to generation – and at no time in the Jewish culture has the practice been discontinued, ceased or in any way modified. It is a practice that we do not deem controversial, and we simply wish to continue doing it in the manner in which it has always been done."
Dr Hochhauser also points out that male circumcision is frequently practiced around the world for medical purposes, as well as spiritual. However, Professor Morten Frisch, an epidemiology researcher at the University of Copenhagen, believes that it is irresponsible to put a child through what is widely recognised as a medical procedure for the sake of tradition.
"No one can know in advance if the particular child will ever perceive his circumcision as a spiritual benefit," says Frisch, who has previously published research suggesting circumcision can impede sexual function.
"Moreover, from a medical ethics viewpoint, and in accordance with the European Convention of Bioethics, it is unacceptable medical practice to cut away healthy, protective, sensitive, erogenous, and non-reproducible tissue from a non-consenting individual in the absence of medical necessity.
"Medical ethics dictates that the bodily integrity of the child must take precedence over any spiritual feelings expressed by the parents.
Frisch, who lists threats of haemorrhage, adverse effects of the anaesthetic, wound infection, psychological trauma and post-operative pain as potential dangers relating to circumcision, has also found that 5 to 20 per cent of circumcised boys will develop a narrowing of the urethral opening at the tip of their penis, which may cause serious urinary problems.
"It is a poorly substantiated myth that safety is better the younger the boy is at the time of circumcision," he says. "So I think a ban on circumcision under a certain age – I suggest 18-years old – should go hand-in-hand with massive information campaigns and education targeted at people who practice circumcision ritually.
"Moreover, from a medical ethics viewpoint, and in accordance with the European Convention of Bioethics, it is unacceptable medical practice to cut away healthy, protective, sensitive, erogenous, and non-reproducible tissue from a non-consenting individual in the absence of medical necessity.
"Medical ethics dictates that the bodily integrity of the child must take precedence over any spiritual feelings expressed by the parents.
Frisch, who lists threats of haemorrhage, adverse effects of the anaesthetic, wound infection, psychological trauma and post-operative pain as potential dangers relating to circumcision, has also found that 5 to 20 per cent of circumcised boys will develop a narrowing of the urethral opening at the tip of their penis, which may cause serious urinary problems.
"It is a poorly substantiated myth that safety is better the younger the boy is at the time of circumcision," he says. "So I think a ban on circumcision under a certain age – I suggest 18-years old – should go hand-in-hand with massive information campaigns and education targeted at people who practice circumcision ritually.
"Ignorance about the harms of circumcision and bizarre myths about the dangers of having a non-modified penis are widespread. Religious groups should learn that it is perfectly possible to be a male Jew or Muslim with intact genitals. Already now, some Jews and Muslims do not circumcise their boys.
"If mature males decide to undergo the operation themselves, that is perfectly appropriate," acknowledges the epidemiologist. "Likewise when there is a clear medical need for circumcision - such as phimosis, balanitis and cancer of the penis.
"However, when it comes to healthy underage boys, the public should learn that exceedingly few boys – according to a Danish study, only 1 out of 250 newborn boys [0.4pc] – will need a circumcision for medical reasons before they turn 18. And then, the young man can decide for himself whether he wants to get rid of his foreskin or not."
"If mature males decide to undergo the operation themselves, that is perfectly appropriate," acknowledges the epidemiologist. "Likewise when there is a clear medical need for circumcision - such as phimosis, balanitis and cancer of the penis.
That figure stands in contrast to the fact that, globally, a third of the male proportion has a circumcised penis. The discrepancy has led some commentators to content that male circumcision bears more than passing resemblance to the widely criticised practice of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM).
Indeed, negative news stories about male circumcision do occasionally crop up . Two years ago, after an East Midlands’ psychiatrist was found guilty of misconduct for circumcising 41 boys at a “non-sterile” clinic in Leicester, many leading UK medical bodies issued very public statements on the dangers of the procedure.
The Medical Protection Society, a membership body which provides indemnity for healthcare professionals, warned doctors that the procedure can “carry considerable risks” and that there “is a significant issue related to the appropriateness of the facilities in which the operation is carried out and a lack of formal training and certification in circumcision”.
The NHS publicly acknowledged that most healthcare professionals now agree that the risks associated with routine circumcision outweigh any perceived benefits. But, despite practitioners being jailed due to the accidental deaths of children, and over 100 young boys being admitted to some UK hospitals every year with circumcision-related injuries, there still appears to be no move by religious leaders to alter their respective faith's stances on circumcision.
"There are many decisions taken on behalf of the child before the child can make decisions for themselves," comments Mr Hochhauser, a Jew, who strongly rejects the comparison with FGM. "There are some, like male circumcision, where the child will grow up within a culture and a religion and the decision is made with the understanding that they will be a part of the community. "But there are also other times when parents expose children to potentially dangerous situations, such as rock-climbing, or swimming. And quite rightly so, because that is the nature of growing up. There is no question that male circumcision falls into line with many of these decisions made by parents in the best interests of the child.Indeed, negative news stories about male circumcision do occasionally crop up . Two years ago, after an East Midlands’ psychiatrist was found guilty of misconduct for circumcising 41 boys at a “non-sterile” clinic in Leicester, many leading UK medical bodies issued very public statements on the dangers of the procedure.
The Medical Protection Society, a membership body which provides indemnity for healthcare professionals, warned doctors that the procedure can “carry considerable risks” and that there “is a significant issue related to the appropriateness of the facilities in which the operation is carried out and a lack of formal training and certification in circumcision”.
The NHS publicly acknowledged that most healthcare professionals now agree that the risks associated with routine circumcision outweigh any perceived benefits. But, despite practitioners being jailed due to the accidental deaths of children, and over 100 young boys being admitted to some UK hospitals every year with circumcision-related injuries, there still appears to be no move by religious leaders to alter their respective faith's stances on circumcision.
"When properly approached, this culturally significant procedure is very safe, and will continue to be safe if conducted in this same way."
Edited by AA
Source
No comments:
Post a Comment