Male Genital Mutilation

[ProfessorDavey]

Babies are given injections or any other non religious procedures without their informed consent,

Because there is a clear evidence base that it is clinically effective and therefore in the best interests of the child. If parents (or doctors) propose interventions that aren't beneficial then they will be prevented from intervening - just look at the recent court cases about futile treatment for a baby.

but that's ok because it doesn't feed people's religious prejudices.

Nothing to do with religious prejudice - while parents, quite rightly, have significant jurisdiction over their children that jurisdiction (thankfully) is restricted to decisions that are in the best interest of the child. Sadly religious customs are tip-toed around, with parents allowed to sanction acts on their children that would never be allowed if the justification were non religious.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm not convinced any of you are really interested in the actual babies, if you were, you would look at the research for it, and recognise that this matter has to be decided by the ones who love the baby the most, the parents with the advice of their doctors.

So are you saying that parents who choose not to have their baby boys circumcised (which would include me) are somehow failing in their duty to their babies. What offensive non-sense.

And advice of their doctors - again what a load of rubbish - I have two sons, never has any doctor given me advice that circumcision would be medically sensible. That would be preposterous.

Circumcision is, in the vast, vast majority of cases done for religious and cultural reasons for the obvious reason that there are no serious medical reasons to engage in 'precautionary' circumcision on a baby. If you are fine with that, well that's your opinion. I disagree, but don't try to pretend there are compelling medical reasons - there aren't. And there are very well established damaging effects on sexual function due to circumcision.

In any other circumstance we would call it assault.

[Bubbles]

That would be because modern medicines (inc. vaccinations) aren't administered just in order to comply with religious superstitions rooted in antiquity - I'd have thought that would be kinda obvious.

Neither are many circumcisions , and I have just spent ages quoting medical sources that says it has benefits aside from all or any religious arguments.

Nothing any of you have said has convinced me that the choice should be taken away from the parents of the boys concerned.

All you can all do, is witter on about barbaric religious practices rooted in antiquity.

So I don't think you should be allowed to dictate to other parents on their choices for their sons.

I wouldn't like to see circumcision forced on babies as standard, beneficial or not, but I do think parents have the right to make up their own minds and make their own choices.

Its that I'm defending.

Freedom from too many meddlers!

People who want to interfere in how others bring up their children, because they have this sort of grudge against religion.

Which religion doesn't matter.

There is nothing worse than this sort of "politically correct prejudice"  against anything remotely religious.
 

[ProfessorDavey]

There is nothing worse than this sort of "politically correct prejudice"  against anything remotely religious.
 

So let's check for consistency shall we. I trust you are also completely comfortable with female genital mutilation if parents justify it on religious grounds.

[Bubbles]

So let's check for consistency shall we. I trust you are also completely comfortable with female genital mutilation if parents justify it on religious grounds.

Im not going round in circles again, it's already been discussed. I gave my answer at least twice.

[ProfessorDavey]

Im not going round in circles again, it's already been discussed. I gave my answer at least twice.

Sorry - came to this thread - perhaps you'd like to reiterate please. Note too that a quick google will uncover all sorts of sites purporting to claim health benefits for female circumcision in exactly the same manner you've trawled for sites purporting to claim health benefits for male circumcision.

[Bubbles]

Sorry - came to this thread - perhaps you'd like to reiterate please. Note too that a quick google will uncover all sorts of sites purporting to claim health benefits for female circumcision in exactly the same manner you've trawled for sites purporting to claim health benefits for male circumcision.

But they are not sites like the Who.

I'm not putting it all again, you will have to read the thread.

[Gordon]

Neither are many circumcisions , and I have just spent ages quoting medical sources that says it has benefits aside from all or any religious arguments.

So you have, but some of these aren't as sound as you imagine (see my last link) and involve using babies as a means to an end, be it a strategy to deal with the future incidence of HIV or preserving religious traditions. You still haven't explained why something you are portraying as medically sound isn't routine paediatric practise here in the UK.

Nothing any of you have said has convinced me that the choice should be taken away from the parents of the boys concerned.

You certainly seek keen to defend the indefensible.

All you can all do, is witter on about barbaric religious practices rooted in antiquity.

Which is the case for virtually all routine circumcisions.

So I don't think you should be allowed to dictate to other parents on their choices for their sons.

I think this is an issue where UK society should have a role, such as it does in disallowing anyone under 18 being tattooed even if their parents consent: so, is this too a constraint on parental choice?   

I wouldn't like to see circumcision forced on babies as standard, beneficial or not, but I do think parents have the right to make up their own minds and make their own choices.

Then your position is incoherent since if circumcision is the best medical choice, which seems to be your take on this, then surely it should be mandatory and parents generally aren't qualified to determine otherwise.

Its that I'm defending.

So you are, but not very well.

Freedom from too many meddlers!

You mean such as people who want to chop bits of of baby boys to suite their agenda.

People who want to interfere in how others bring up their children, because they have this sort of grudge against religion.

Not really: my grudge is against those who seek to mutilate babies.

Which religion doesn't matter.

Oh religion matters, but only so much and not as far as it being more important than preventing unnecessary mutilation.

There is nothing worse than this sort of "politically correct prejudice"  against anything remotely religious.
 

I think there is, which is prejudice in favour of routinely mutilating babies - you see 'mutilating babies' is the key point that needs to be borne in mind.

[ProfessorDavey]

But they are not sites like the Who.

I'm not putting it all again, you will have to read the thread.

From the information I have read the only health benefit accepted by the WHO is reduction in transmission of HIV. But this only of relevance in places where HIV is endemic. There is no justification on health grounds from the WHO for circumcision in the majority of the world where HIV infections are extremely rare and transmission far better controlled via consensual methods that have no health down-sides, e.g. condom use.

So in rare circumstances (i.e. endemic HIV) I can see that a case can be made that the health benefits associated with reduction in HIV transmission rates outweigh the huge effects on sexual health. However in the vast majority of cases (certainly in the UK) there is no such justification as the negative effects on sexual health are certain while the likelihood of prevention of HIV transmission is vanishingly unlikely.

So in summary the WHO do not support your view of elective infant circumcision in countries such as the UK.

[Bubbles]

From the information I have read the only health benefit accepted by the WHO is reduction in transmission of HIV. But this only of relevance in places where HIV is endemic. There is no justification on health grounds from the WHO for circumcision in the majority of the world where HIV infections are extremely rare and transmission far better controlled via consensual methods that have no health down-sides, e.g. condom use.

So in rare circumstances (i.e. endemic HIV) I can see that a case can be made that the health benefits associated with reduction in HIV transmission rates outweigh the huge effects on sexual health. However in the vast majority of cases (certainly in the UK) there is no such justification as the negative effects on sexual health are certain while the likelihood of prevention of HIV transmission is vanishingly unlikely.

So in summary the WHO do not support your view of elective infant circumcision in countries such as the UK.

The report is on one of my links, and that isn't what it says.

They see no problems with infant circumcision in a country like the uk which has access to hygienic conditions.

Quote:
Our review of the published literature shows that there is relatively little literature on this very common surgical procedure, but that neonatal, infant and child circumcision is generally a safe procedure when conducted by trained and experienced providers in hygienic conditions.

http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/malecircumcision/neonatal_child_MC_UNAIDS.pdf

Basically, it's generally a safe procedure in the uk.

[ProfessorDavey]

The report is on one of my links, and that isn't what it says.

Really!?! Have you actually read it - all of it?

Quote:
Our review of the published literature shows that there is relatively little literature on this very common surgical procedure, but that neonatal, infant and child circumcision is generally a safe procedure when conducted by trained and experienced providers in hygienic conditions.

http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/malecircumcision/neonatal_child_MC_UNAIDS.pdf

Basically, it's generally a safe procedure in the uk.

That is an entirely different point. That the procedure is 'safe' doesn't mean it has health benefits. If a tattoo parlour operates under hygienic conditions getting a tattoo is rarely other than safe. That doesn't mean that getting a tattoo provides health benefits.

The WHO indicates that male circumcision is usually a safe operation (complications about 1%, so not zero) but in the UK there are no relevant health benefits and clear health down-sides in terms of sexual health down the line.

[Gordon]

The report is on one of my links, and that isn't what it says.

They see no problems with infant circumcision in a country like the uk which has access to hygienic conditions.

Quote:
Our review of the published literature shows that there is relatively little literature on this very common surgical procedure, but that neonatal, infant and child circumcision is generally a safe procedure when conducted by trained and experienced providers in hygienic conditions.

http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/malecircumcision/neonatal_child_MC_UNAIDS.pdf

Basically, it's generally a safe procedure in the uk.

Super: however another issue is whether it is ever a necessary procedure where there child concerned has no prevailing medical need to be circumcised. I suspect not, else it would be routine practice so that there are some competent practitioners out there says nothing about justifying circumcision so as to comply with religious or cultural traditions.   

[Bubbles]

My philosophy of life is

"Live and let live"

If medical authorities deem it generally a safe procedure, I see no reason to interfere.

Having the freedom to practice your religion within the law is a human right, I see no reason to interfere with people and take that away.

Certainly not because of a few people here that keep on about how barbaric they are, because they are a bit different or because they happen to follow a religion someone doesn't like.

[ProfessorDavey]

My philosophy of life is

"Live and let live"

If medical authorities deem it generally a safe procedure, I see no reason to interfere.

Tattoos are a safe procedure - are you happy for parents to be able to have their infants or children tattooed?

[Bubbles]

Really!?! Have you actually read it - all of it?
That is an entirely different point. That the procedure is 'safe' doesn't mean it has health benefits. If a tattoo parlour operates under hygienic conditions getting a tattoo is rarely other than safe. That doesn't mean that getting a tattoo provides health benefits.

The WHO indicates that male circumcision is usually a safe operation (complications about 1%, so not zero) but in the UK there are no relevant health benefits and clear health down-sides in terms of sexual health down the line.

Not according to that link.  Yes I read it, plus some others.

[Bubbles]

Tattoos are a safe procedure - are you happy for parents to be able to have their infants or children tattooed?

It depends.

[ProfessorDavey]

Not according to that link.  Yes I read it, plus some others.

You clearly haven't actually read it - or perhaps you have, but don't really understand what it is saying.

Complication rates are low, but not zero - often about 1%. But of course the complication rate of not having the operation is, err, zero.

[ProfessorDavey]

It depends.

On what?

Certainly in the UK it is illegal to tattoo a child, indeed even if that child is a 17 year old and has consented. And a parent cannot consent on behalf of a child.

Interestingly too on body piercing - under the age of 18 it is illegal to get a genital piercing and a parent cannot consent for one on behalf of an under 18 year old. Show the double standards - so you can permanently chop off a crucial part of the penis from a baby with parental consent, but it is illegal to have a foreskin stud (non permanent and can be removed with complete healing) if you are 17. Why the difference - because the former is justified on religious grounds.

[Gordon]

My philosophy of life is

"Live and let live"

My philosophy of life includes 'don't mutilate and disfigure children to comply with traditions. 

If medical authorities deem it generally a safe procedure, I see no reason to interfere.

I do if the procedure is carried out for non-medical reasons.

Having the freedom to practice your religion within the law is a human right, I see no reason to interfere with people and take that away.

Only so far, and in relation to societal norms: some Mormons see polygamy as a religious matter, as do JW's who reject blood transfusions, but neither is free to indulge these traditions.

Certainly not because of a few people here that keep on about how barbaric they are, because they are a bit different or because they happen to follow a religion someone doesn't like.

They can be a religious as they like provided they don't demand special privileges in the name of their religion (like being free to mutilate babies).

[ProfessorDavey]

as do JW's who reject blood transfusions, but neither is free to indulge these traditions.

Adult JW are free to refuse blood transfusions (even if that means they die) provided they are deemed to have the capacity to consent (or in this case refuse to consent).

JW parents are not permitted to refuse a blood transfusion on behalf of a child.

[ProfessorDavey]

They can be a religious as they like provided they don't demand special privileges in the name of their religion (like being free to mutilate babies).

Exactly my point regarding the astonishing double standards relating to parents being able to consent to permanently mutilate their male infant's penis involving permanent removal of key parts of the sexual organ (cos its religious) but a 17 year-old not being able to consent (or his parents consenting on his behalf) not being allowed to have a foreskin stud which can be readily reversed and will heal completely. Oh but that isn't a religious tradition.

[Bubbles]

On what?

On the reason.

For example if a child was very allergic to something and it was life threatening and they were unable to wear a bracelet or necklace or it was inclined to become lost or get pulled off. A small symbol indicating their allergy might be useful. If it was small, easily recognisable, hidden and medics knew where to look.

Or if they found a way of helping with some skin discolouration or patches and it was proved to help long term with it.

I'm not closed minded to the idea tattoos might have some useful properties, in a few cases.

Anyway this is off topic.

[Bubbles]

Adult JW are free to refuse blood transfusions (even if that means they die) provided they are deemed to have the capacity to consent (or in this case refuse to consent).

JW parents are not permitted to refuse a blood transfusion on behalf of a child.

You are wrong.

They can refuse on behalf of a child , but then it goes to court and they are overruled.

https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2014/12/15/judge-orders-blood-transfusion-for-jehovahs-witness-child/

[ProfessorDavey]

On the reason.

For example if a child was very allergic to something and it was life threatening and they were unable to wear a bracelet or necklace or it was inclined to become lost or get pulled off. A small symbol indicating their allergy might be useful. If it was small, easily recognisable, hidden and medics knew where to look.

Or if they found a way of helping with some skin discolouration or patches and it was proved to help long term with it.

I'm not closed minded to the idea tattoos might have some useful properties, in a few cases.

Anyway this is off topic.

What are you on about.

If a child is allergic to something you don't tattoo them, FFS, you get them to wear a bracelet and there will always be a material that the bracelet can be made of that they are allergic to.

You are really scraping the barrel.

But you are still using massive double standards, as you standard for circumcision is merely that the parents want it cos of their religion, while for tattooing you use totally convoluted and non-sensical examples. If you were maxing out on double standards you'd accept that parents should be allowed to tattoo their baby for no other reason than it is their cultural/religious view.

[ProfessorDavey]

You are wrong.

They can refuse on behalf of a child , but then it goes to court and they are overruled.

https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2014/12/15/judge-orders-blood-transfusion-for-jehovahs-witness-child/

No they can't - and don't get into this territory because I know what I am talking about. The decision has to be taken in the best interests of the child - to refuse a blood transfusion will not be considered to be in the child's best interests.

They aren't 'over-ruled' - the court isn't interested in over-ruling anyone - their only role is to determine what it is in the best interest of the child.