Male Genital Mutilation

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

But for pretty obvious reasons that is going to be very difficult. If you have your foreskin removed at a few weeks old it is going to be pretty difficult to understand what you have lost (other than purely anatomically) because you have nothing to compare it with - same applies to what you might potentially have gained.

But that again is missing the point - we don't permit parents to tattoo their children and accept that until we get 'more and more people who have been tattooed come forward to lobby that the harm of infant tattooing outweighed the benefits'.

And actually the issue is about consent - so it isn't about whether an individual has a view about what was done to them, but that the choice should be theirs, and theirs alone.

[wigginhall]

What I find ironic is that both Rose and Gabriella are obviously supporting Judaism and Islam respectively, in their arguments for MGM.   I don't think this is discreditable at all.    But it starts to seem disingenuous when the arguments are couched in general terms about the individual and society and human rights.   

[Rhiannon]

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.

I think you have to put an allegation of people 'turning on' Jews in the context of what has happened historically when 'the mob' has indeed turned on Jewish people, from Medieval times here in the UK and Europe through to the events of the twentieth century and beyond. It's a disgusting thing to accuse people of without justification.

Rose happens to hold a minority view on a subject that some feel very strongly about. It happens. I do think it takes courage to argue in the face of that but it doesn't mean she is being bullied.

[ProfessorDavey]

It is not so much that society tells individuals to conform.

It is exactly that - the only 'benefit' seems to be that being circumcised without your consent will allow you to confirm and fit in with society (in this case the narrow religious community). So it is pretty well exactly that the individual is being told that confirming with their societal norms is in their best interest, regardless of their individual view on the matter.

Any this seems to ride roughshod over the basic concept of consent - if there is any kind of pressure to conform then the decision isn't being taken entirely voluntarily, i.e. without any pressure, coercion or duress.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

But for pretty obvious reasons that is going to be very difficult. If you have your foreskin removed at a few weeks old it is going to be pretty difficult to understand what you have lost (other than purely anatomically) because you have nothing to compare it with - same applies to what you might potentially have gained.

But that again is missing the point - we don't permit parents to tattoo their children and accept that until we get 'more and more people who have been tattooed come forward to lobby that the harm of infant tattooing outweighed the benefits'.

That presumably is because there is no historical context in the UK of tattooing, which forms part of any shared heritage or tradition that families use to provide a sense of cultural identity for their children. For whatever reason parents providing cultural identity is considered beneficial to children, and it appears to come down to a question of whether the harm in practices they engage in to provide that cultural identity outweighs the benefit.

And actually the issue is about consent - so it isn't about whether an individual has a view about what was done to them, but that the choice should be theirs, and theirs alone.

That consent trumps all other considerations has not gained sufficient traction in this particular issue yet. As values in society change, it may well become the deciding factor in relation to this issue.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

It is exactly that - the only 'benefit' seems to be that being circumcised without your consent will allow you to confirm and fit in with society (in this case the narrow religious community). So it is pretty well exactly that the individual is being told that confirming with their societal norms is in their best interest, regardless of their individual view on the matter.

I disagree. Individuals are free to decide, based on their own experiences, that conforming is not in their best interests and then they can choose to allow their own children the freedom to not conform - and the practice of circumcision will die out. Or they can lobby for a change in the law - much like the pressure to outlaw smacking. That there are many individuals who think there is a benefit to the child of allowing parents to choose what is in the best interests of their child on this issue and do not want circumcision banned may be the current situation but that could change in the future.

Any this seems to ride roughshod over the basic concept of consent - if there is any kind of pressure to conform then the decision isn't being taken entirely voluntarily, i.e. without any pressure, coercion or duress.

Not really sure how much of my decisions on anything are entirely free of a pressure to conform.

[ProfessorDavey]

I disagree. Individuals are free to decide, based on their own experiences, that conforming is not in their best interests and then they can choose to allow their own children the freedom to not conform - and the practice of circumcision will die out.

But in the case of infant circumcision the individual is most definitely not free to choose - the operation has been performed without their consent, it is irreversible - they have not been allowed to choose.

The issue of their children is a complete red herring - that they may choose to allow their children to have freedom to choose doesn't alter the fact that they haven't had the freedom to choose.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think you have to put an allegation of people 'turning on' Jews in the context of what has happened historically when 'the mob' has indeed turned on Jewish people, from Medieval times here in the UK and Europe through to the events of the twentieth century and beyond. It's a disgusting thing to accuse people of without justification.

I think it is more relevant to put an allegation in the context of what was happening on this board at the time the allegation was made rather than look to Medieval times for context. There was no allegation that people turned on Jews. There was an allegation that people might turn on a Jewish poster because they held a particular viewpoint that was opposed on this board, and Rose thought that a Jewish poster would feel more sensitive about the issue than Rose would, as she is not Jewish but she felt bullied and turned on. That's how I read it. My mind did not leap to thoughts about Medieval mobs - I looked at the actual words and noted that she qualified her statement by talking only about Jewish people who held a particular viewpoint and that the holding of the viewpoint was what would cause them to be turned on.

Rose happens to hold a minority view on a subject that some feel very strongly about. It happens. I do think it takes courage to argue in the face of that but it doesn't mean she is being bullied.

As I said, my view is that you are entitled to your opinion that Rose was not being bullied, as much as Rose is entitled to her opinion that she was being bullied.

[ProfessorDavey]

Not really sure how much of my decisions on anything are entirely free of a pressure to conform.

But in a medical context (and that is what we are talking about) if your decision isn't entirely free from duress, pressure or coercion (and that includes the most overt and the most subtle, for example due to power relationships) then consent is not valid.

So if you are saying that in the case of surgery on an infant that the decision is subject to pressure to conform to your culture and society then there isn't valid consent. That's the law.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

But in the case of infant circumcision the individual is most definitely not free to choose - the operation has been performed without their consent, it is irreversible - they have not been allowed to choose.

The issue of their children is a complete red herring - that they may choose to allow their children to have freedom to choose doesn't alter the fact that they haven't had the freedom to choose.

I understand that for you and many others on this board, the issue of consent trumps all other considerations. My point was that the idea that consent trumps everything else regarding the cultural practice of circumcision has not gained traction yet. If it had, we wouldn't be having this debate. The test case or new law banning infant circumcision, when it happens, will demonstrate the importance of consent in the mind of the public, the judiciary or Parliament.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

But in a medical context (and that is what we are talking about) if your decision isn't entirely free from duress, pressure or coercion (and that includes the most overt and the most subtle, for example due to power relationships) then consent is not valid.

So if you are saying that in the case of surgery on an infant that the decision is subject to pressure to conform to your culture and society then there isn't valid consent. That's the law.

Then there should be no problem bringing a case to court on the matter - it should not be too difficult to show that people feel pressured to conform, even if nothing is explicitly stated. My understanding is that it is a widely held belief that people generally  like to conform and fit in in varying degrees with their peer groups. My daughter got a cartilage piercing for that very reason.

My experience is that I have felt pressure from family members to have certain medical procedures because they deemed it in my best interests and I am pretty cavalier about my well-being. I have not really considered doing anything about the procedures I seem to have had without there having been valid consent.

[ProfessorDavey]

I understand that for you and many others on this board, the issue of consent trumps all other considerations.

You seem to imply this to be some kind of 'your view, my view' nothing is settled kind of issue. It isn't - it isn't just me (and a few other on this board) who consider that consent trumps - this is fundamentally embedded in virtually all aspects of our law.

What is rape? Non consensual sex. Why is it that if a surgeon uses a knife to create a gaping wound but if a person on the street does the same one is seen to be OK the other not. It isn't the good intentions of the surgeon, nope it is consent. If a surgeon fails to get consent it is just as much assault a the knife attacker. And so on and so on.

No the critical importance of consent in all aspects of our lives is settled.

[Shaker]

Then there should be no problem bringing a case to court on the matter - it should not be too difficult to show that people feel pressured to conform, even if nothing is explicitly stated. My understanding is that it is a widely held belief that people generally like to conform and fit in in varying degrees with their peer groups. My daughter got a cartilage piercing for that very reason.

How many days old was she when that was done?

[wigginhall]

I understand that for you and many others on this board, the issue of consent trumps all other considerations. My point was that the idea that consent trumps everything else regarding the cultural practice of circumcision has not gained traction yet. If it had, we wouldn't be having this debate. The test case or new law banning infant circumcision, when it happens, will demonstrate the importance of consent in the mind of the public, the judiciary or Parliament.

I thought that consent now does trump everything in English law in relation to medicine and related stuff.   The Charlie Gard case shows this - parental rights do not supersede children's rights, but in the US, this case arouses horror in some people, as (I think) in the US parental rights are dominant.     The right wing are trying to cause a fuss over it, but I doubt if it  will gain traction, partly because in the UK, people rate medical opinion very highly.   

As to a test case on MGM, I'm not sure, as there is great fear of opposing religious groups.   As Prof. D. has said, FGM is hardly being pursued with vigour.   I was wondering about scarification, but I don't think this happens in the UK.  Correction, it does, but not to kids.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

You seem to imply this to be some kind of 'your view, my view' nothing is settled kind of issue. It isn't - it isn't just me (and a few other on this board) who consider that consent trumps - this is fundamentally embedded in virtually all aspects of our law.

What is rape? Non consensual sex. Why is it that if a surgeon uses a knife to create a gaping wound but if a person on the street does the same one is seen to be OK the other not. It isn't the good intentions of the surgeon, nope it is consent. If a surgeon fails to get consent it is just as much assault a the knife attacker. And so on and so on.

No the critical importance of consent in all aspects of our lives is settled.

No, I wasn't implying anything. I was actually stating that currently the inability of the infant to consent does not prevent circumcisions being lawful, if the parents consent on behalf of the infant. So in relation to this particular issue the infant's lack of consent is not the over-riding consideration.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

How many days old was she when that was done?

She was old enough to feel pressure to conform when she consented to the procedure.

[ProfessorDavey]

My point was that the idea that consent trumps everything else regarding the cultural practice of circumcision has not gained traction yet.

I disagree - I don't think the issue is about recognising the importance of consent - it is more about an inconsistency in assessing best interests in these cases and other cases involving surgical procedures on an infant where it is not medically required.

Actually in some respects there is an over reliance on consent (in theory), albeit a laxity in assessing best interests, and this indicates a significant level of disquiet in the medical and legal communities.

So the basic principle in medical ethics (and the law) is that someone with parental responsibility may consent to a surgical procedure on a child in their best interests. Infant circumcision is unique in this context (and almost unique in the whole of medical ethics) in requiring both parents to consent. In every other instance ethically and legally the consent of only one parent is required. This suggests to me that the medical and legal profession recognise that they are on very thin ice and feel comforted by a 'belt and braces' approach.

Just in case you are wondering about my other example (which isn't really relevant to surgery but interesting none the less). The only other example where consent from both parents is required legally is consent to treatment, storage and/ research on an embryo created via in vitro fertilisation.

[Shaker]

She was old enough to feel pressure to conform when she consented to the procedure.

Ah yes. The elusive old consent thingy.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I thought that consent now does trump everything in English law in relation to medicine and related stuff.   The Charlie Gard case shows this - parental rights do not supersede children's rights, but in the US, this case arouses horror in some people, as (I think) in the US parental rights are dominant.     The right wing are trying to cause a fuss over it, but I doubt if it  will gain traction, partly because in the UK, people rate medical opinion very highly.

I thought the Charlie Gard decision was that the likely harm from pursuing treatment in the US or keeping him on a ventilator, existing but not really living a life with any quality,  outweighed the likely benefits from the treatment.   

As to a test case on MGM, I'm not sure, as there is great fear of opposing religious groups.   As Prof. D. has said, FGM is hardly being pursued with vigour.   I was wondering about scarification, but I don't think this happens in the UK.  Correction, it does, but not to kids.

Well Prof Davey posted something to say the UK is officially not religious. Where does this incapacitating fear come from if more than 50% of the electorate are no religious?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Ah yes. The elusive old consent thingy.

Consent while feeling pressured to conform is not valid consent according to Prof Davey.

[wigginhall]

As regards the incapacitating fear about religious groups - good question.   I think in most of Europe there is massive guilt about Jewish people, so it's hard to oppose Jewish MGM, and with Islam, government probably see it like poking a wasps' nest. 

[Shaker]

Consent while feeling pressured to conform is not valid consent according to Prof Davey.

And was your daughter pressured to conform, or did she have something done that she wanted done?

[Shaker]

Prof Davey posted something to say the UK is officially not religious. Where does this incapacitating fear come from if more than 50% of the electorate are no religious?

Elements of the political class I'd venture rather than the electorate.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

And was your daughter pressured to conform, or did she have something done that she wanted done?

My view is it was a subtle pressure to conform. Is there any objective way to determine this?

[ProfessorDavey]

As to a test case on MGM, I'm not sure, as there is great fear of opposing religious groups.   As Prof. D. has said, FGM is hardly being pursued with vigour.   I was wondering about scarification, but I don't think this happens in the UK.  Correction, it does, but not to kids.

I think that is right.

It doesn't just need a water tight legal case for there to be an agreement to prosecute - the CPS will also need to decide that the prosecution is in the public interest, and this is where the CPS is often very wary at wing in on issues that will offend religious sensibilities. There tends to be a desire not to rock the boat, and we have seen this not just on FGM and MGM but also on the tardiness to investigate and prosecute in institutional abuse cases involving religions. The police and CPS has been more assiduous in pursuing non religious cases (e.g. BBC, children's homes etc) than those that might lend to claims of targeting religious groups, particularly minority religious groups.

There is a further element, which is a reluctance to go after parents to protect a child - although children may be removed by social services, there is often a reluctance to prosecute parents for abuse of their children. And this may lie behind the both parent consent approach. It means that they will shy away from probing when both parents consent (although that doesn't make the consent any more valid in principle nor does it guarantee the decision is in the child's best interests). They are much more happy when the issue is a disagreement between parents, so the issue is parent vs parent rather than parent vs child.