Male Genital Mutilation

[floo]

Also it's not "enforced" circumcision. It's male circumcision with the consent of parents.

Emotive language again.

Like the term " male genital multilation " the correct term is " male circumcision "

Perhaps instead of calling you a vegetarian we ought to re-label  you. " plant murderer"

It is mutilation enforced on the child, the parent have no right to agree to it unless it is a medical necessity.

[john]

Rose

Can you please state your position on FGM.

Is it the same as your position on male circumcision?

And if different why? 

[floo]

Rose

Can you please state your position on FGM.

Is it the same as your position on male circumcision?

And if different why?

You beat me to it.

[Shaker]

Also it's not "enforced" circumcision. It's male circumcision with the consent of parents.

The parents giving (vicarious, i.e. illegitimate) consent aren't being circumcised.

Somebody else is.

Therefore it's enforced on another party who has not given his consent.

Why are you struggling with this most elementary of points?

Perhaps instead of calling you a vegetarian we ought to re-label  you. " plant murderer"

Carry on. It's far less absurd than much of what you come out with on this thread.

[floo]

Parents are entitled to give permission for medical procedures for young children, when surgery is required, but not to something unnecessary, which can cause pain, and occasionally death if it is bodged.

[wigginhall]

I think in the UK, parental rights can be limited, if children's rights are harmed, as with tattoos and piercings.  It's interesting that in the US there is some outrage over the Charlie Gard case, as the view (by some) is that parents should be able to take their child anywhere they like.   But in the UK, this is not the case.

MGM is in an odd position, as by analogy with piercing, it should be banned.

[Bubbles]

It is mutilation enforced on the child, the parent have no right to agree to it unless it is a medical necessity.

No that's your opinion, the law gives them a right to agree or consent to circumcision.

[Shaker]

No that's your opinion, the law gives them a right to agree to a circumcision.

Which means the law must be changed.

[floo]

No that's your opinion, the law gives them a right to agree or consent to circumcision.

And it is WRONG, imo!

[Bubbles]

Rose

Can you please state your position on FGM.

Is it the same as your position on male circumcision?

And if different why?

It's different because it's not the same thing.

I've already answered this to, further up so am not going round and round on the subject again.

[Bubbles]

Which means the law must be changed.

Others disagree with you.

The medical profession supports the parents giving consent ATM.

[Bubbles]

And it is WRONG, imo!

Still your opinion though!

[Shaker]

Others disagree with you.

Yes, the morally bankrupt.

The medical profession supports the parents giving consent ATM.

The medical profession follows the law, not makes it.

[wigginhall]

The law in the UK is inconsistent, as far as I can see.   Tattoos, piercings, FGM, and no doubt other stuff - parental rights have to give way to children's rights.   (Also, with the Charlie Gard case, something parallel).   

But with MGM, presumably, the authorities are nervous about the backlash from Jewish and Muslim organizations, so leave the law as a mess. 

[Shaker]

The law in the UK is inconsistent, as far as I can see.   Tattoos, piercings, FGM, and no doubt other stuff - parental rights have to give way to children's rights.   (Also, with the Charlie Gard case, something parallel).   

But with MGM, presumably, the authorities are nervous about the backlash from Jewish and Muslim organizations, so leave the law as a mess.

Which is shameful cowardice, really.

[floo]

Which is shameful cowardice, really.

Agreed, if something is wrong, it should be dealt with, whomever it offends.

[wigginhall]

It's the inconsistency that is striking.  You can't tattoo a baby boy, or pierce his cheek with a stud, but you can cut his penis.   Very odd, but there are historical reasons, I suppose. 

[floo]

It's the inconsistency that is striking.  You can't tattoo a baby boy, or pierce his cheek with a stud, but you can cut his penis.   Very odd, but there are historical reasons, I suppose.

Historical reasons don't make it right.

[wigginhall]

It's interesting that a ton of kids my age were circumcised (in the 40s and 50s; ouch, I'm old), who were not Jewish or Muslim, and then it started to die out, first, because the so-called health benefits were shown to be non-existent, and second, because with the advent of the NHS, doctors were less likely to get a fee for it.   And of course,  the NHS were not keen to do it, as it is pointless, and indeed sometimes harmful. 

Well, some of these guys from  the 40s and 50s are complaining  about it, of course. 

[ProfessorDavey]

Parents are allowed to make this choice on behalf of their son, because they think it is in his best interest.

Once again you are showing scant understanding of the law and of the underlying medical ethics.

A person with parental responsibility can consent on behalf of a child in the child's best interests. Note the part in italics it has to be in their best interests, not that the parent thinks it is in the child's best interests.

Any consent deemed not to be in the child's best interests is, legally speaking, not consent.

So while it is common for the parent's view to be simply accepted, recourse to the law occurs where there is a disagreement over what is in the child's best interests - that disagreement may be between parents and medical staff, or between the two parents. The course then decides what is in the child's best interests and authorises that treatment or lack of treatment accordingly.

If the court disagrees with the parental view on what is in the child's best interests they are not over-ruling the parental consent, as by definition there is no consent, as the parents are only allowed to consent in the child's best interests, not in what they think is in the child's best interests.

[Bubbles]

Once again you are showing scant understanding of the law and of the underlying medical ethics.

A person with parental responsibility can consent on behalf of a child in the child's best interests. Note the part in italics it has to be in their best interests, not that the parent thinks it is in the child's best interests.

Any consent deemed not to be in the child's best interests is, legally speaking, not consent.

So while it is common for the parent's view to be simply accepted, recourse to the law occurs where there is a disagreement over what is in the child's best interests - that disagreement may be between parents and medical staff, or between the two parents. The course then decides what is in the child's best interests and authorises that treatment or lack of treatment accordingly.

If the court disagrees with the parental view on what is in the child's best interests they are not over-ruling the parental consent, as by definition there is no consent, as the parents are only allowed to consent in the child's best interests, not in what they think is in the child's best interests.

Good we don't need a change in the present law then!

At the moment, no one needs to involve the courts, unless the parents are disputing

[Bubbles]

Once again you are showing scant understanding of the law and of the underlying medical ethics.

A person with parental responsibility can consent on behalf of a child in the child's best interests. Note the part in italics it has to be in their best interests, not that the parent thinks it is in the child's best interests.

Any consent deemed not to be in the child's best interests is, legally speaking, not consent.

So while it is common for the parent's view to be simply accepted, recourse to the law occurs where there is a disagreement over what is in the child's best interests - that disagreement may be between parents and medical staff, or between the two parents. The course then decides what is in the child's best interests and authorises that treatment or lack of treatment accordingly.

If the court disagrees with the parental view on what is in the child's best interests they are not over-ruling the parental consent, as by definition there is no consent, as the parents are only allowed to consent in the child's best interests, not in what they think is in the child's best interests.

So at the moment then, when parents ask the medical profession to circumcise their child, they are considered as acting in the best interests of the child.

Basically you are wiggling around the issue, at the moment parents can sign a consent form for a circumcision and an agreeable doctor will perform it, no need for the courts.

For some reason you have a problem admitting this.

[floo]

So at the moment then, when parents ask the medical profession to circumcise their child, they are considered as acting in the best interests of the child.

Basically you are wiggling around the issue, at the moment parents can sign a consent form for a circumcision and an agreeable doctor will perform it, no need for the courts.

For some reason you have a problem admitting this.

Unless there is a medical problem they are not acting in the best interests of the child.

[Bubbles]

Unless there is a medical problem they are not acting in the best interests of the child.

It's not your call, Floo.

As important as you think you are!

[ProfessorDavey]

So at the moment then, when parents ask the medical profession to circumcise their child, they are considered as acting in the best interests of the child.

Basically you are wiggling around the issue, at the moment parents can sign a consent form for a circumcision and an agreeable doctor will perform it, no need for the courts.

For some reason you have a problem admitting this.

No you are a long way from reality.

If a parent asks a doctor to circumcise their child (except where it is therapeutic) then the doctor does not simply accept the parent's request as 'being in the child's best interests' - no they are obliged themselves to come to a view and I suspect in many circumstance the doctor will take the view that it is not in the child's best interests and will refuse. And the parents simply saying they want it and they'll consent is also not good enough - consent is only valid if sufficiently informed (which must include clear indication of risks) and also completely voluntary, so there should be no external pressures, for example from a community that 'expects' boys to be circumcised.

So I suspect many parents trawl around to find a willing doctor, or more likely communities with high circumcision rates already know the 'tame' doctors who will be willing to circumcise and likely will turn a blind eye to the actual requirements for valid consent.

Actually it isn't even completely clear that non therapeutic infant circumcision is lawful in the UK.