Male Genital Mutilation

[Rhiannon]

I think she was completely out of order, but now she is no longer with us, we can dismiss her opinions.

I wanted to understand her views but I found her insistence that the rights of parents and their communities matter more than the rights of babies and children unfathomable. But, ok, we all disagree about something. To then make it about antisemitism was uncalled for.

I expect Rose will be back.

[floo]

I wanted to understand her views but I found her insistence that the rights of parents and their communities matter more than the rights of babies and children unfathomable. But, ok, we all disagree about something. To then make it about antisemitism was uncalled for.

I expect Rose will be back.

Possibly, this forum is addictive.

[ProfessorDavey]

I wanted to understand her views but I found her insistence that the rights of parents and their communities matter more than the rights of babies and children unfathomable. But, ok, we all disagree about something. To then make it about antisemitism was uncalled for.

I agree - what I found infuriating was how she would phrase consent matters as if the child wasn't actually a separate person for the parents. That is like red rag to a bull if you have a principled belief in the critical importance of autonomy and consent.

And actually I found her focus on the Jewish community rather odd, with a fairly dismissive view on similar muslim ritual circumcision, despite the fact that the prevalence of muslim circumcision is massively higher than jewish (I think about four to one).

[floo]

No one should be permitted to do anything to a child's body which isn't strictly medically necessary. I put ear piercing in this category. I have seen very young children with pierced ears, it can cause infection, and the child could swallow the earring if it managed to pull it out.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

No it is because society does not want to offend religious sensibilities.

Unless there was some benefit to religious sensibilities there would be no worry about offending them.

In other area of medical ethics there is no presumption of benefit - quite the reverse. The presumptions are usually as follows for treatment (and even more so for any intervention that is not medically indicated - the best example perhaps being non therapeutic research).[

Intervention can only be permitted with parental consent where it cannot be delayed until the child themselves is old enough to be able to consent - i.e. necessity of immediacy (infant circumcision fails on that ground)

That the benefits very clearly outweigh the potential harm (again infant circumcision fails)

Where the intervention is not therapeutic (as is the case for ritual circumcision) that unless the circumstances are exceptional, it should pose no more than a minimal risk to the subject (again infant circumcision fails)

That parental consent should, as a starting point, be the presumed will of the child (again infant circumcision fails) and must be in the child's best interests

That the parent giving consent must have the capacity to consent (no reason to suspect not), be sufficiently informed (question marks here) and that the decision will be entirely voluntary, free from duress, coercion or pressure (infant circumcision fails).

In which case the perception of society is that religious sensibilities in this instance confer a benefit to society that outweighs the harm of circumcision. When that perception changes, so will the law. You need to come up with something better than just stating that there is no political will to upset religious groups - that decision was not random and did not happen in a vacuum. What is the motivation behind it? 

[floo]

Unless there was some benefit to religious sensibilities there would be no worry about offending them.
In which case the perception of society is that religious sensibilities in this instance confer a benefit to society that outweighs the harm of circumcision. When that perception changes, so will the law. You need to come up with something better than just stating that there is no political will to upset religious groups - that decision was not random and did not happen in a vacuum. What is the motivation behind it?

Mutilating a baby is not a benefit to society!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40520125

Maybe mouths should be stitched up!

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I'll challenge anyone. That isn't the same thing as 'turning on' someone. Rose specifically said that people who disagree with infant circumcision would turn on a Jewish poster. She was accusing us of mob mentality with an undercurrent of antisemitism and I find that worrying.

That's because there is a difference between challenging or disagreeing with someone and turning on someone. Turning on someone involves using emotive terms such as inhumane and barbaric etc. Challenging involves questioning their opinions without emotive terms. See the difference? She appeared to be accusing some of you of using overly emotive terms - I didn't see any accusations by Rose of antisemitism but I haven't read all the posts. Which reply # was that?

[wigginhall]

Unless there was some benefit to religious sensibilities there would be no worry about offending them.
In which case the perception of society is that religious sensibilities in this instance confer a benefit to society that outweighs the harm of circumcision. When that perception changes, so will the law. You need to come up with something better than just stating that there is no political will to upset religious groups - that decision was not random and did not happen in a vacuum. What is the motivation behind it?

You are ignoring the historical perspective.   If we were starting from scratch, it is likely that MGM along with FGM, and other forms of wounding (tattooing, piercing), would be banned for children.   But circumcision has historical prestige in certain religions, and many governments are reluctant to upset these constituencies.    The German case shows this.   I don't think Merkel calculated that religious groupings are beneficial for children, therefore we should permit MGM, but rather, that she didn't want to upset Jews and Muslims, as she wants a quiet life, in order to be re-elected. 

[ProfessorDavey]

Unless there was some benefit to religious sensibilities there would be no worry about offending them.
In which case the perception of society is that religious sensibilities in this instance confer a benefit to society that outweighs the harm of circumcision. When that perception changes, so will the law. You need to come up with something better than just stating that there is no political will to upset religious groups - that decision was not random and did not happen in a vacuum. What is the motivation behind it?

But medical ethics is very clearly not interested in the benefit to society, particularly where the individual subject (in this case the infant) cannot consent.

It is one of the most fundamental cornerstones of medical ethics that the interests of the individual always outweigh the interests of society. Indeed this is seen very clearly in non therapeutic research in which it is simply unacceptable to perform research without the individual consenting directly, or if they cannot consent that the research is seen to be in their individual best interests.

That the research might massively benefit society must not over-ride protection of and respect for the individual, especially so in cases where that individual cannot consent.

In every other case (except this one) the law changed decades ago - indeed was embedded in codes of medical ethics and regulation derived in the decade after the second world war. This isn't new.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think she was completely out of order, but now she is no longer with us, we can dismiss her opinions.

Is that the royal "we"? Speak for yourself.

There are lots of posters who are no longer posting, but I have not dismissed the opinions that they did post. I still think about points they have made even though they are no longer here.

On the other hand, there are some posters who are currently posting whose opinions I find fairly easy to dismiss...

[ProfessorDavey]

You are ignoring the historical perspective.   If we were starting from scratch, it is likely that MGM along with FGM, and other forms of wounding (tattooing, piercing), would be banned for children.   But circumcision has historical prestige in certain religions, and many governments are reluctant to upset these constituencies.    The German case shows this.   I don't think Merkel calculated that religious groupings are beneficial for children, therefore we should permit MGM, but rather, that she didn't want to upset Jews and Muslims, as she wants a quiet life, in order to be re-elected.

That's right - if circumcision didn't exist within religious cultures there isn't a hope in hell that it would be allowed in law if parents asked that their infant should be circumcised.

It is entirely about historical norm and not wishing to offend religious sensibilities.

There is also, in my view, a confusion about basic human rights in relation to religious freedom - this should be all about the individual (freedom of an individual to chose to follow a religion, to chose not to follow a religion and to be able to change their mind), however societies often see that to be about the religion itself, which makes no sense because the religion itself has no human rights, as it isn't a human. Nor can human rights be seen on a population basis (i.e. everyone does this so we should allow it regardless of the view of the individual) - where there is a collective, that collective only exists as a group of individuals each of whom must have their individual right to their individual view respected.

[floo]

That's right - if circumcision didn't exist within religious cultures there isn't a hope in hell that it would be allowed in law if parents asked that their infant should be circumcised.


I agree.

[Rhiannon]

That's because there is a difference between challenging or disagreeing with someone and turning on someone. Turning on someone involves using emotive terms such as inhumane and barbaric etc. Challenging involves questioning their opinions without emotive terms. See the difference? She appeared to be accusing some of you of using overly emotive terms - I didn't see any accusations by Rose of antisemitism but I haven't read all the posts. Which reply # was that?

Rose said

That's what concerns me, how people here would treat a Jewish person if they dared to come on here.

I would hate to think people here would turn on them because they were Jewish and wouldn't conform to the mindset on here.

That's an accusation of being anti Jewish - anti Semitic.

Some people do genuinely regard infant circumcision as barbaric and inhumane - it's not hyperbole. I don't think its a coincidence that those who regard it as such have never had a faith and so don't understand the importance of ritual and community first hand in that sense. I have had a faith and so maybe I understand it slightly more, I don't know - in the past I've defended ritual infant circumcision and it's probably no coincidence that my position has shifted since both having a son and losing what little faith I had left. I get why belonging and tradition is important, but it is possible to belong and be welcome and grow in a faith and make any decisions as to ritual commitment (spiritual as well as physical) as an adult when it is freely chosen and hugely meaningful.

[Robbie]

That's because there is a difference between challenging or disagreeing with someone and turning on someone. Turning on someone involves using emotive terms such as inhumane and barbaric etc. Challenging involves questioning their opinions without emotive terms. See the difference? She appeared to be accusing some of you of using overly emotive terms - I didn't see any accusations by Rose of antisemitism but I haven't read all the posts. Which reply # was that?

Reply #582 on: July 06, 2017, 08:21:18 PM »

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

You are ignoring the historical perspective.   If we were starting from scratch, it is likely that MGM along with FGM, and other forms of wounding (tattooing, piercing), would be banned for children.   But circumcision has historical prestige in certain religions, and many governments are reluctant to upset these constituencies.    The German case shows this.   I don't think Merkel calculated that religious groupings are beneficial for children, therefore we should permit MGM, but rather, that she didn't want to upset Jews and Muslims, as she wants a quiet life, in order to be re-elected.

Possibly. Or possibly it wasn't about re-election but about ethics.

The German case shows that courts will take a view on whether the child's right to autonomy and the child's well-being trumps the parents' right to make decisions about the best physical/ social/ psychological/ emotional interests of the child, which includes the freedom of religious practice. It is open to other courts to take the same view since the wording of the law passed in Germany, with apparently the agreement of representatives of the Muslim and Jewish community, was that the circumcision must not pose a danger to the child's well-being, and the wishes of children old enough to express them also need to be taken into account. .

[ProfessorDavey]

Rose said

That's what concerns me, how people here would treat a Jewish person if they dared to come on here.

I would hate to think people here would turn on them because they were Jewish and wouldn't conform to the mindset on here.

That's an accusation of being anti Jewish - anti Semitic.

Some people do genuinely regard infant circumcision as barbaric and inhumane - it's not hyperbole. I don't think its a coincidence that those who regard it as such have never had a faith and so don't understand the importance of ritual and community first hand in that sense. I have had a faith and so maybe I understand it slightly more, I don't know - in the past I've defended ritual infant circumcision and it's probably no coincidence that my position has shifted since both having a son and losing what little faith I had left. I get why belonging and tradition is important, but it is possible to belong and be welcome and grow in a faith and make any decisions as to ritual commitment (spiritual as well as physical) as an adult when it is freely chosen and hugely meaningful.

That's right - I am not anti semitic, I am anti infant circumcision, on principle.

I am equally anti infant circumcision regardless of whether it is justified by reference to Jewish scripture and traditions, or muslim scripture and traditions, or simply on the basis that parents want it done because 'that's what you do'.

The only justifiable claim of anti-semiticism would be if any of us here opposed infant circumcisions justified by reference to Jewish scripture and traditions but happily supported it justified on other non therapeutic grounds.

I don't think any of us here who oppose infant circumcision have done that. Indeed if anything there seems to be greater challenge to Rose who seems obsessed with there rights of jewish parents, but seems rather casually dismissive of muslim and non religious parents requests for infant circumcision.

[wigginhall]

I forgot also the massive guilt in Germany about Jewish people, for obvious reasons.   There is no way that Merkel would support criminalization of MGM, as she would expect to face accusations about German treatment of Jews.   This would be intolerable for her.

[floo]

That's right - I am not anti semitic, I am anti infant circumcision, on principle.

I am equally anti infant circumcision regardless of whether it is justified by reference to Jewish scripture and traditions, or muslim scripture and traditions, or simply on the basis that parents want it done because 'that's what you do'.

The only justifiable claim of anti-semiticism would be if any of us here opposed infant circumcisions justified by reference to Jewish scripture and traditions but happily supported it justified on other non therapeutic grounds.

I don't think any of us here who oppose infant circumcision have done that. Indeed if anything there seems to be greater challenge to Rose who seems obsessed with there rights of jewish parents, but seems rather casually dismissive of muslim and non religious parents requests for infant circumcision.

Good post.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

But medical ethics is very clearly not interested in the benefit to society, particularly where the individual subject (in this case the infant) cannot consent.

It is one of the most fundamental cornerstones of medical ethics that the interests of the individual always outweigh the interests of society. Indeed this is seen very clearly in non therapeutic research in which it is simply unacceptable to perform research without the individual consenting directly, or if they cannot consent that the research is seen to be in their individual best interests.

That the research might massively benefit society must not over-ride protection of and respect for the individual, especially so in cases where that individual cannot consent.

In every other case (except this one) the law changed decades ago - indeed was embedded in codes of medical ethics and regulation derived in the decade after the second world war. This isn't new.

Ok sorry - by benefit to society, I meant that society sees a benefit to the individual and benefiting the individual benefits society. On the basis that stable, happy individuals tend to benefit society.

[Rhiannon]

That's right - I am not anti semitic, I am anti infant circumcision, on principle.

I am equally anti infant circumcision regardless of whether it is justified by reference to Jewish scripture and traditions, or muslim scripture and traditions, or simply on the basis that parents want it done because 'that's what you do'.

The only justifiable claim of anti-semiticism would be if any of us here opposed infant circumcisions justified by reference to Jewish scripture and traditions but happily supported it justified on other non therapeutic grounds.

I don't think any of us here who oppose infant circumcision have done that. Indeed if anything there seems to be greater challenge to Rose who seems obsessed with there rights of jewish parents, but seems rather casually dismissive of muslim and non religious parents requests for infant circumcision.

Agreed. I've mentioned before that my first partner was circumcised and I know it caused him difficulties. His parents had it done because they had been influenced by American friends as to the 'medical benefits' - it certainly wasn't usual in the area that I grew up.

[ProfessorDavey]

Possibly. Or possibly it wasn't about re-election but about ethics.

The German case shows that courts will take a view on whether the child's right to autonomy and the child's well-being trumps the parents' right to make decisions about the best physical/ social/ psychological/ emotional interests of the child, which includes the freedom of religious practice. It is open to other courts to take the same view since the wording of the law passed in Germany, with apparently the agreement of representatives of the Muslim and Jewish community, was that the circumcision must not pose a danger to the child's well-being, and the wishes of children old enough to express them also need to be taken into account. .

I think you are misunderstanding the German situation.

The issue was considered within the courts, who looked at the ethics and legality of infant circumcision. They rule that it was unlawful as it contravened the fundamental rights of the child based on established medical ethics principles.

The decision was reversed, not by another court looking at the same ethical and legal issues, but by parliament. Over-turning the ban was a political decision, and had nothing to do with assessment of fundamental ethical principles in medical context, but because it was politically unpalatable to stand up against exceptionally strong lobbying from religious groups. Of course the historical context of Germany did not help in that regard.

The protection of the individual child and his individual rights was sacrificed for political expediency and the power of the religious lobby.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Rose said

That's what concerns me, how people here would treat a Jewish person if they dared to come on here.

I would hate to think people here would turn on them because they were Jewish and wouldn't conform to the mindset on here.

That's an accusation of being anti Jewish - anti Semitic.

I didn't read it as an accusation of anti-Semitism because the Jewish part was qualified by the refusal to conform to the mindset on here. I read it as Rose felt people turned on her because she would not conform to the mindset on here and therefore they would also turn on Jewish people who also did not conform to the mindset, as opposed to Jewish people who were against infant circumcision themselves.

Some people do genuinely regard infant circumcision as barbaric and inhumane - it's not hyperbole. I don't think its a coincidence that those who regard it as such have never had a faith and so don't understand the importance of ritual and community first hand in that sense. I have had a faith and so maybe I understand it slightly more, I don't know - in the past I've defended ritual infant circumcision and it's probably no coincidence that my position has shifted since both having a son and losing what little faith I had left. I get why belonging and tradition is important, but it is possible to belong and be welcome and grow in a faith and make any decisions as to ritual commitment (spiritual as well as physical) as an adult when it is freely chosen and hugely meaningful.

I am sure they do genuinely regard it as barbaric and inhumane. I thought Rose's point was that insulting people in that way if they do not want to make infant circumcision illegal, was not designed to persuade them to change their mind, but was just some posters venting, because they can and she considered that to be turning on people.

Is there an objective definition of the phrase "turning on people"? If not, then she felt bullied and turned on and her opinion on this is as valid as anyone else's.

[ProfessorDavey]

Ok sorry - by benefit to society, I meant that society sees a benefit to the individual and benefiting the individual benefits society. On the basis that stable, happy individuals tend to benefit society.

I don't disagree with that. But what does that have to do with non consensual mutilation of an infant boy's penis. And in other circumstances we do no curtail the rights of an individual to achieve some kid of top-down nirvana of happy, stable individuals. This sounds rather Orwellian, or perhaps rather lie the 1950s where all were told what to do and required to confirm to achieve stable society. We don't work like that any more, thankfully, because we have recognised that curtailing individual's abilities to chose and shape their own lives doesn't lead to 'happy, stable individuals' but unhappy and frustrated ones.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think you are misunderstanding the German situation.

The issue was considered within the courts, who looked at the ethics and legality of infant circumcision. They rule that it was unlawful as it contravened the fundamental rights of the child based on established medical ethics principles.

The decision was reversed, not by another court looking at the same ethical and legal issues, but by parliament. Over-turning the ban was a political decision, and had nothing to do with assessment of fundamental ethical principles in medical context, but because it was politically unpalatable to stand up against exceptionally strong lobbying from religious groups. Of course the historical context of Germany did not help in that regard.

The protection of the individual child and his individual rights was sacrificed for political expediency and the power of the religious lobby.

Since the wording of the law that was passed is that the circumcision must not pose a danger to the child's well-being, it was left open to the courts to interpret the law as to whether the circumcision poses a danger or not in any particular case.

Lobbying from religious groups amounted to them stating that circumcision was not harmful enough to stop the practice, as there were psychological, social and emotional benefits to the child that out-weighed the harm. It was debated in Germany before the law was passed and people's views were canvassed. As more and more people who have been circumcised come forward to lobby that the harm of circumcision outweighed the benefits, there will be a change in the law. Until then politicians can't make a decision about the harm on behalf of people who are not stating in sufficient numbers that they have been harmed. 

There is no historical context in the UK - so presumably we can expect a test case sometime soon.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I don't disagree with that. But what does that have to do with non consensual mutilation of an infant boy's penis. And in other circumstances we do no curtail the rights of an individual to achieve some kid of top-down nirvana of happy, stable individuals. This sounds rather Orwellian, or perhaps rather lie the 1950s where all were told what to do and required to confirm to achieve stable society. We don't work like that any more, thankfully, because we have recognised that curtailing individual's abilities to chose and shape their own lives doesn't lead to 'happy, stable individuals' but unhappy and frustrated ones.

It is not so much that society tells individuals to conform. It seems more that some/ many individuals seem to want family acceptance and bonding and identity and feel unhappy when they do not get it. If individuals are happy to go it alone without the family support and community network that is built on shared cultural experiences and traditions then there is no psychological or social benefit to a child to have that bond, and the harm of circumcision outweighs the benefit to the individual.