Male Genital Mutilation

[Shaker]

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

You could try asking, I suppose.

[Rhiannon]

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

Even if she were under pressure, she consented for a procedure done to herself. Not another who was unable to have a voice.

And piercings heal.

[ProfessorDavey]

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?

This isn't about majorities and electorates - it is about ethics and human rights, which is about protecting individuals.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

As indicated to Rose, the issue of lawfulness has not been proven. Simply because there isn't a legal challenge doesn't mean something is lawful. It seems to be pretty universally accepted that in the UK the lawfulness of infant circumcision remains unclear - it may be assumed to be lawful with parental consent, but that doesn't mean it actually is lawful unless or until there is a definitive judgement in the courts, or from parliament. We don't have that currently.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

I find it very strange that collective guilt about not helping vulnerable people during the Final Solution should lead people to refrain  from helping other vulnerable people.

As for Muslims, the silent majority in the UK probably would be ok with their kids having the op later when they could consent to it if that was the legal requirement, especially as there are non-surgical techniques being developed. There is no requirement to have it done at birth - it just seems simpler and easier to care for the wound and heals quicker if done at birth so parents think their kids will prefer it if parents got it done then. But I know people who had it done later. And it is not compulsory to be circumcised.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

As indicated to Rose, the issue of lawfulness has not been provide. Simply because there isn't a legal challenge doesn't mean something is lawful. It seems to be pretty universally accepted that in the UK the lawfulness of infant circumcision remains unclear - it may be assumed to be lawful with parental consent, but that doesn't mean it actually is lawful unless or until there is a definitive judgement in the courts, or from parliament. We don't have that currently.

Ok - currently the inability of the infant to consent does not prevent circumcisions being assumed to be 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 until a test case decides otherwise.

[ProfessorDavey]

I find it very strange that collective guilt about not helping vulnerable people during the Final Solution should lead people to refrain  from helping other vulnerable people.

As for Muslims, the silent majority in the UK probably would be ok with their kids having the op later when they could consent to it if that was the legal requirement, especially as there are non-surgical techniques being developed. There is no requirement to have it done at birth - it just seems simpler and easier to care for the wound and heals quicker if done at birth so parents think their kids will prefer it if parents got it done then. But I know people who had it done later. And it is not compulsory to be circumcised.

I suspect also there is a concern that if it is left to the individual themselves to choose, the likely response in many, if not most cases will be 'on your bike - I'm not having a part chopped off my penis'.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

This isn't about majorities and electorates - it is about ethics and human rights, which is about protecting individuals.

Ethics and human rights don't exist objectively - they are decided by consensus depending on the subjective will of people.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I suspect also there is a concern that if it is left to the individual themselves to choose, the likely response in many, if not most cases will be 'on your bike - I'm not having a part chopped off my penis'.

Maybe. But my experience of Islam is that intention is the over-riding factor - so fasting, praying, and all other expressions of faith are the responsibility of the individual and part of the belief is that individuals have to account only for their own actions and intentions on the Day of Judgement. So if children old enough to decide, choose not to fast, pray or be circumcised they alone will be responsible for that decision.

[ProfessorDavey]

Ok - currently the inability of the infant to consent does not prevent circumcisions being assumed to be 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 until a test case decides otherwise.

So far so unremarkable - in any surgery on an infant parental consent is required, but you are missing the key points, which are that:

1. The operation cannot be reasonably delayed until a point when the child is capably of consenting.
2. Parents saying they want it done is completely irrelevant (infants aren't their parents' plaything) - the decision must be in the best interest of the child.
3. That any benefit must significantly outweigh the risks

It is on these elements that the assessment seems unduly lax compared to comparable consent to surgery on an infant. And that laxity, in my view, is due to a reluctance to offend the sensitivities of religious groups.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

You could try asking, I suppose.

Would she be aware of how much she was influenced by a pressure to conform? A few of them in her class suddenly started walking around with new cartilage piercings - maybe it was a coincidence.

[ProfessorDavey]

Ethics and human rights don't exist objectively - they are decided by consensus depending on the subjective will of people.

And then they are upheld to benefit and protect individuals regardless of the 'majority view'. Which is why human rights are protected by judicial systems that are independent of government and the whims of 'the tyranny of the majority'.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

So far so unremarkable - in any surgery on an infant parental consent is required, but you are missing the key points, which are that:

1. The operation cannot be reasonably delayed until a point when the child is capably of consenting.
2. Parents saying they want it done is completely irrelevant (infants aren't their parents' plaything) - the decision must be in the best interest of the child.
3. That any benefit must significantly outweigh the risks

It is on these elements that the assessment seems unduly lax compared to comparable consent to surgery on an infant. And that laxity, in my view, is due to a reluctance to offend the sensitivities of religious groups.

Isn't that what the whole debate has been about -the opposing views of what is in the best interests of the child? There is currently a view that the psychological and social benefit is in the best interests of the child and significantly outweighs the risks of circumcision.

[ProfessorDavey]

Maybe. But my experience of Islam is that intention is the over-riding factor - so fasting, praying, and all other expressions of faith are the responsibility of the individual and part of the belief is that individuals have to account only for their own actions and intentions on the Day of Judgement. So if children old enough to decide, choose not to fast, pray or be circumcised they alone will be responsible for that decision.

But that works against the whole concept of infant circumcision - as by definition that infant has no intention to get circumcised, nor can they be held accountable for that action, as it wasn't their choice.

[Shaker]

Would she be aware of how much she was influenced by a pressure to conform?

You seem to think that you are aware of a subtle pressure to conform - if when asked she relates that there was no such pressure then surely that at the very least has equal weight to your feeling, and I would say possibly more.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

And then they are upheld to benefit and protect individuals regardless of the 'majority view'. Which is why human rights are protected by judicial systems that are independent of government and the whims of 'the tyranny of the majority'.

Which still means the views of the judges needs to be ascertained through a test case and a consensus reached. Or Parliament needs to pass a law banning circumcision. whereby MPs are not worried about losing their seats.

[ProfessorDavey]

Isn't that what the whole debate has been about -the opposing views of what is in the best interests of the child? There is currently a view that the psychological and social benefit is in the best interests of the child and significantly outweighs the risks of circumcision.

In part, but the issue is applying universal and consistent standard to assessment of best interests. There are plenty of other situations where you might make the same claim, but there wouldn't be a hope in hell that an irreversible operation with clear physical and psychological risks would be contemplated without individual (not parental) consent, or at the very least individual assent.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

But that works against the whole concept of infant circumcision - as by definition that infant has no intention to get circumcised, nor can they be held accountable for that action, as it wasn't their choice.

It's a current cultural practice because it is deemed easier for all involved if circumcision happens during infancy. If the law changes, and the child's consent is required, I am not really seeing the problem for Muslim parents since they would be off the hook anyway for the decisions their children make, once they are old enough to consent.

[floo]

It's a current cultural practice because it is deemed easier for all involved if circumcision happens during infancy. If the law changes, and the child's consent is required, I am not really seeing the problem for Muslim parents since they would be off the hook anyway for the decisions their children make, once they are old enough to consent.

It might be deemed easier but it is still not right to do it.

[Shaker]

It might be deemed easier but it is still not right to do it.

Indeed. Making it easier to do a wrong thing isn't within my parameters of moral behaviour.

[floo]

I have just found this interesting article.

https://www.circinfo.org/Jews_against_circumcision.html

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

You seem to think that you are aware of a subtle pressure to conform - if when asked she relates that there was no such pressure then surely that at the very least has equal weight to your feeling, and I would say possibly more.

Maybe other parents of girls can help with this?

My kids are constantly telling me that they feel under pressure to conform - they volunteer that information. My older daughter makes comments such as in school it is social death to be fat unless you really have something else going for you and that she has seen kids be somewhat bullied or isolated for it. Or that she was bullied and had no friends after a bad haircut in Year 3, until it grew out.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's a current cultural practice because it is deemed easier for all involved if circumcision happens during infancy.

How can you say 'easier for all involved' - how can it be easier for the infant when you don't know whether they want it to happen. If the infant doesn't want it to happen (or rather doesn't want it when they are old enough to consent) it is of course easier not to have the operation when they are an infant as they will never have the operation.

What you actually mean is that it is easier to ensure that it happens regardless of the subsequent view of the infant.

You are beginning to come over all Rose like - seemingly completely ignore the most important person in the whole situation - the baby.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

It might be deemed easier but it is still not right to do it.

Whether it is in the best interests of the child i.e. "right" still remains to be determined by a test case. Of course it won't be an objective measure of what is "right" but it will clarify the views of the judiciary.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's a current cultural practice because it is deemed easier for all involved if circumcision happens during infancy.

Was it easier for Goodluck Caubergs.

Was it easier for Angelo Ofori-Mintah

Was it easier for Amitai Moshe

Was it easier for Celian Monthe Noumbiwe

Was it easier for Oliver Asante­ Yeboah

To name just five