'No-consent' circumcision doctor will not be prosecuted
bbc.com/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-41898408Posted Nov 30, 2017, 2:11 PM UTC
7543
bbc.com
It's a sensible decision, but circumcision in itself needs to be made illegal outside of medical necessity.
72
Agreed. It has no place in modern society and shouldn't be done unless there's a medical precident that it's necessary (and that should be following the usual consultation process).
It's no less barbaric and no more necessary than cutting off an ear lobe.
44
It's Male Genital Mutilation, pure and simple
66
No it isn't, and saying that it is is insulting to a) circumcised men who don't feel that they've been 'mutilated', and b) victims of FGM whose suffering is diminished by the comparison.
-36
It's still slicing off an incredibly sensitive section of genitals, often to an infant, in some cases by someone who is not even a doctor.
Nah, that's mgm
32
a) circumcised men who don't feel that they've been 'mutilated'
-
'Circumcised' women feel the same. Why are you insulting them by calling it mutilation?
b) victims of FGM whose suffering is diminished by the comparison.
There are forms of FGM that are less severe than commonly practiced MGM. Is it insulting the victims of Type III FGM and diminishing their suffering to call Types I, II, or IV mutilation?
7
That piece of skin is there for a reason, just like all the other things you have in your body.
It's like giving a baby a tattoo; they might grow up to hate it or they'll deal with it. If it wasn't thrust upon them as a child but they want it, they can go get it with a conscious decision of their own.
6
[removed]
1
[deleted]
1
I would also say that for consenting adults it should be available, like a body mod. Some people seem to genuinely prefer it but if they want to do that as an informed adult that's their choice.
33
Its cosmetic surgery performed on babies and children. Its wrong and i never understand why it is still done.
6
I don't think anyones saying we need to force people with tight defective foreskins to suffer with it as someone with gangrene in their arm has to keep that also.
5
Cosmetic surgery on children should be banned.
59
And this is why it should be banned for people who aren't able to give consent for themselves unless it is strictly medically required.
48
Although I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment of this statement, the reality is that thousands of Jewish and Islamic parents would simply take their child to a back alley snipper and that is most definitely not in the interests of the innocent children. We should at least though have the parents jump through a few hoops. First step should be to have a meeting with someone whose job it is to explain why mutilating a child is generally a bad idea. The more people are dissauded the more chance we have of making it the exception rather than the rule for religious families. We also need the government to reach out to sympathetic rabbis and imams and see if there's a loophole and that maybe making them wear special pants counts or something. Bit of a long shot but it's worked in other areas historically. Failing that we should make it compulsory for any parents that demand circumcision 'because it's more hygenic' to have their armpits and anus surgically removed as these are also dirty areas of the body.
7
I know Jews get their kids circumcised by rabbis, which is dangerous. Rabbis are not medical experts and are probably as dangerous as back alley snippers.
In general it all sucks, especially as religion tends to get special protection when it comes to unconventional or unsafe practices.
15
Mohels. The ultra orthodox ones supposedly use a sharpened finger nail and suck the penis clean. Though I doubt that actually happens.
7
I agree we need to work with religious leaders. But I think we also need to make it an issue amongst young people.
I've found it nigh impossible to touch this topic with older generations. Tempers flare like mad. Parents who condone circumcision have a massive vested interest in not acknowledging they may have done anything to harm their children. If they cling to the beliefs it's "hygenic" (ie. beneficial) or "doesn't hurt" (ie. harmless), they don't have to feel guilty about upholding the tradition.
Young people without children are still reachable. They won't yet have this absolute emotional dependence on thinking circumcision must be okay. And they're also the only ones who can still choose not to repeat their parents' mistakes.
6
Well said, thankfully the internet reaches a lot of young people and introduces ideas about this kind of thing.
3
An outright ban was considered reasonable to end FGM, even banning a symbolic pinprick.
Back-alley circumcisions could be reduced by including a penis check in children’s health inspections (I quite like the idea of making a periodic medical compulsory for children as in some continental countries), though it is also more likely that schools will hear rumours from boys seeing each other. We would also have a big list of suspects by looking up mohels (and their Islamic equivalent) in the phone book.
As for Islam, there is the advantage that no particular age is specified for it to be done (and technically it isn’t mandatory anyway), so explaining to the imans the effect on the soles of their brothers in children have to be removed might help.
3
MGM while not as dangerous as FGM is still a perverted practice to perform on children. It should be banned.
33
At the bare minimum parliament ought to legislate something like “regardless of the religion of any person involved, circumcision shall no longer be treated differently to any other surgical procedure”, which would restrict it to only cases of medical necessity that cannot wait until 16 and limit it to being performed by competent medical workers (at the moment it can be done by anyone at the parents’ request).
I would prefer it to be incorporated into the ban on FGM, since that (if it were actually enforced) protects girls from any deliberate genital injury however slight and has a long-arm provision. I’d also like to see a law which says something like “Any person who takes or sends a child out of Britain is responsible for taking all reasonable steps to ensure that no act is performed against the person of that child which would be illegal in Britain. Reliance on local police is sufficient provided that the equivalent offence under local law is no more common and the offence was not personally targeted on the child, or if the person directly responsible is convicted and penalised at least as severely as they would be under British law.” That would eliminate the defence of “It wasn’t us, it was her aunt in the old country and we didn’t know she was planning that , honest,” because the law can answer “well you shouldn’t have sent her to the old country without making sure she was safe”.
7
I don't really care how it's worded as long as it stops
3
I agree with you, but what's to stop a parent who has some perverse fixation on their son's penis from getting a sympathetic doctor of questionable morals to lie and say "Yep, this boy's cock has problems. He'll definitely need to be circumcised". It would almost certainly happen.
1
You could detect dodgy doctors statistically: the rate of circumcision with good care should be very low, so any GP referring more than a few cases should ring bells and a urologist recommending too many should be fairly obvious, and he could then be reviewed by his peers.
An alternative might be to require the surgery to be approved by a doctor who is not circumcised, married to someone who is, or has circumcised sons. That would at least eliminate those doctors who might have religious sympathies.
A bigger problem is deliberate injury by the parents: forcibly retracting the foreskin can cause scarring especially if it has to be torn from the glans, and that means that circumcision can become necessary.
2
You could detect dodgy doctors statistically: the rate of circumcision with good care should be very low, so any GP referring more than a few cases should ring bells and a urologist recommending too many should be fairly obvious, and he could then be reviewed by his peers. An alternative might be to require the surgery to be approved by a doctor who is not circumcised, married to someone who is, or has circumcised sons. That would at least eliminate those doctors who might have religious sympathies.
I'd be all for this. Sadly, it just isn't practical.
A bigger problem is deliberate injury by the parents: forcibly retracting the foreskin can cause scarring especially if it has to be torn from the glans, and that means that circumcision can become necessary.
This would almost certainly happen. I don't know what the fuck's wrong with some people, I really don't.
2
Should he not have explicitly checked with the mother? I can understand why he thought what he did but would it not have been best to get explicit from the mother anyway?
Police also arrested the boy's father and paternal grandmother on suspicion of conspiracy to commit grievous bodily harm, but they were released without charge.
I think many people would disagree with this more than the doctor not being prosecuted.
12
From a medical perspective, he clearly didn't have the relevant informed consent as a typical layperson would consider it!
4
Disgraceful.... the child was mutilated without consent. Either ban it outright or at the VERY least insist on written consent from both parents.
11
Any parent wanting their child to be circumcised at least owes them to watch a horrific video of a baby screaming while a sensitive part of his body is permanently exposed with a knife.
5
I guarantee that this would greatly reduce the practice. Of course, some cold-hearted bastards won't be swayed, but that's practically a given.
2
Eh, the MPTS will ruin his life.
3
Interesting that he's not subject to an interim order. Very unusual that the GMC wouldn't have referred him to the MPTS for consideration of interim action by this point.
5
As an (American) male circumcision victim, reading these comments is very encouraging to me.
3
[deleted]
1
The boy underwent the procedure when his paternal grandmother took him to a surgery in Nottingham.
I really don't remember that bit of information in the original articles.
2
I do. That's why it's not a sensible decision. Doctor cut a bit off a baby on the say-so of someone who wasn't even a parent. Everyone who was any where near this case should be in prison.
20
Doctor cut a bit off a baby on the say-so of someone who wasn't even a parent.
The only reason a doctor should ever cut into someone who can't make their wishes known is if they're fucking dying.
12
The procedure happened when the child was three months old and the woman fears he'll suffer long-term psychological damage? Sounds like she's the one that's psychologically damaged.
-28
I think maybe you are too, since you think it's acceptable for anyone to strap a baby down and take sharp objects to their genitals.
I bet you'd have no trouble arresting a pedophile, yet when it comes to stuff like this, it's no big deal to you.
This double standard is why I believe circumcision is in fact a sexual mutilation designed to control society and condition them that pleasure from sex is evil and sinful. It seems that sexually assaulting an infant, as long as it is to deprive them of future pleasure, gets a special pass.
It's no wonder I want to kill people who do this to infants.
18
My point was that it's ridiculous to assume that the baby has any kind of psychological damage as a result of the procedure.
-14
Really? Wait until they learn the truth about genital cutting, realise that they were a victim, and realise that someone tried to protect them but failed. At the very least that could cause serious anger problems.
16
There are plenty of circumcised men who you can talk to who feel sad and angered by their scars, lack of choice and reduced sexual pleasure.
7
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/135910530200700310
Science says you're wrong.
5
Some people play classical music to their babies because it allegedly makes them more intelligent. I can't speak to that, but if Beethoven, or whatever can have a permanent effect on a child's mind, then mutilating his penis almost certainly will.
1
You know I rather think that's why she said "I have psychological damage".
At some point he's gonna ask why he looks different to everyone and is going to be told "well, your dad and grandparents decided it'd look better that way when you where little so took you away and did it in secret"
8
Can we really not agree that lopping bits off children for no good reason is a bad thing? Fucking hell.
well, according to the CPS its ok as long as the parent hasn't specifically told you not to... what a fucked up set of child protection rules we have in this country.
Naw, he thought she approved.
He assumed she wanted part of his dick cut off.. even just typing that, i cannot believe you do not need at least written consent of the parents before mutilating a kid.. to be honest i can't believe we live in a country that this is still something we do to children.
I tend to go by the rationale of if you think it's ok you belong in a gas chamber. If you have a problem with that your priorities are fucked.