The Royal Netherlands Medical Association (KNMG) states that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is contrary to children`s right to autonomy and physical integrity and that there are good reasons for its legal prohibition, as there are for female genital mutilation: religious circumcision is also practiced by Muslims: The procedure is performed between the ages of four and 13. Curiously, however, the Qur`an contains no specific ordinance on this subject.27 However, according to the Sunnah (sayings and practices of the Prophet), “circumcision is a Sunnah for men and circumcision is an honor for women. 28 The literature also cites medical reasons (removal of the foreskin, under which impurities can accumulate and germs can spread and cause infection), 29 and historical and pragmatic reasons.30 There are also arguments against circumcision in Islamic doctrine, either on the basis of the Qur`an itself,31 or on the Sunnah. However, as far as I know, these arguments are only used against female genital mutilation. “It goes without saying that any deliberate physical mutilation, especially of the female genitalia, is a violation of the integrity of this person and his human right to health, as is the mutilation of male sexual organs. Female circumcision of the penis, which is equivalent to cutting of the clitoris, is immediately recognized as serious physical genital mutilation with lasting consequences and is a criminal offence. The same goes for what is done to girls, resulting in permanent health and psychological trauma. Both are human rights violations. 47 In the United States, non-therapeutic circumcision of male children has long been considered legal in any jurisdiction, provided that one parent gives informed consent to the surrogate. Adler (2013) recently questioned the validity of this assumption. [183] As in any country, physicians circumcising children must ensure that all applicable rules of informed consent and safety are followed.
[184] Although FGM is illegal in the UK, there have been no prosecutions (4) and mutilations are still practiced, both by parents taking their children abroad and by “cutters” flown in to perform FGM on a large scale in communities. (3) In 2012, Le Soir reported a 21% increase in the number of circumcisions in Belgium compared to 2006 and 2011. In the previous 25 years, one in three boys born in Belgium was reportedly circumcised. A questionnaire sent to hospitals in Wallonia and Brussels showed that about 80 to 90% of the procedures had religious or cultural motives. The Ministry of Health stressed the importance of safety conditions, doctors warned that “no surgical intervention is without risk” and that circumcision is “not a necessary procedure”. [49] Neil Howard and Rebecca Steinfeld`s article questions whether it is time to ban male circumcision and does argue for a ban. They raise important questions, and the debate on circumcision is far from over. The BMA identifies the following as relevant to assessing the best interests of non-therapeutic circumcision: Religious reasons for male circumcision In the Jewish community, circumcision (brit milah) is a religious ritual and is usually performed by a mohel on the eighth day of a child`s life.22 The rite of circumcision is one of the oldest practices in Judaism. The commandment to circumcise male children was given to Abraham in the Torah (1. Moses 17:7-14).23 Circumcision is (usually) a common denominator among movements: Reformed, Conservative, Reconstructivist, Orthodox, all circumcised their male children and requiring male converts to undergo some form of circumcision.24 Anesthesia is not used.
In 2001, the General Medical Council found a physician who botched circumcision surgery guilty of abusing his professional position and acting “improperly and irresponsibly”[174] and struck him off the register. [175] A doctor who referred patients to her and pressured a mother to accept the operation was also convicted. [174] He was sentenced to an 18-month review and retraining period and allowed to fully resume his medical practice in March 2003 after a panel found that he had met the conditions imposed on him. According to the Northern Echo, “he told the committee that he has now changed his approach to circumcision referrals and accepts that most cases can be treated without surgery.” [175] The attitude of Western societies to oppose female genital mutilation but not condemn male circumcision (perhaps because they fear being perceived as anti-Semitic81) suggests a double standard of acceptance82 and implies (racial) discrimination against circumcised boys (Jews and Muslims) by not trying to protect them from unnecessary pain, as is the case for uncircumcised girls and boys. But even if performed “successfully,” circumcision involves cutting erogenous tissue, which leads to loss of penile sensitivity and inhibits sexual pleasure. That alone should justify a change in the way we think about this issue. The General Medical Council (GMC) has also issued advice on circumcision3 and recommends protective measures similar to those proposed here. In 2004, a 22-year-old converted Rastafari was forcibly circumcised by a group of elders and relatives of the Xhosa tribe. When he first fled, two policemen took him back to those who had circumcised him.
[150] In another case, a medically circumcised Xhosa man was forcibly circumcised by his father and community leaders. He charged him with unfair discrimination based on his religious beliefs and demanded an apology from his father and the Congress of Traditional Chiefs of South Africa. According to South African newspapers, the ensuing trial has become “a historic case around forced circumcision.” [151] In October 2009, the Eastern Cape High Court in Bhisho (sitting as the Equality Tribunal) clarified that circumcision is illegal if not performed with the full consent of the initiate. [152] Those who support the procedure and parents who request circumcision of their newborn sons do so based on the shared belief that parents of minor children can make decisions for their children as they see fit, based on what they consider to be in the best interests of the child. In May 2017, the right-wing Progress Party proposed banning circumcision for men under sixteen. [148] British courts have intervened in the past to protect the best interests of children whose parental belief systems have put children at risk. However, male circumcision remains legal if both parents agree.8,9,10 However, since the implementation of the Human Rights Act, the parents` individual consent has been insufficient to demonstrate that the procedure is in the best interests of the child. [11] The prohibition of torture Male circumcision can be understood as a form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, Noting how: as often happens, and given the pain that accompanies it. The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment65 states: “States Parties to this Convention undertake to take all effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent and ultimately punish torture. Nor can States return a person to his or her country of origin if there is reason to believe that the person would be in danger of being tortured. In addition, article 16, paragraph 1, expressly provides that each State Party undertakes “to prevent, in any territory under its jurisdiction, other acts constituting cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not constitute torture within the meaning of article 1, when committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity (…).” It can also come with mental health issues. This year, a mother told her devastating story of how her 23-year-old son committed suicide after the trauma after circumcision – a practice she said should be known as “male genital mutilation.” Alex Hardy`s suicide prompted other men to talk about their own experiences with circumcision.