In June 2012, the center-right Centre Party proposed banning the circumcision of men under the age of eighteen after the death of an Oslo infant after being circumcised in May. [145] The Slovenian Commissioner for Human Rights notes that circumcision for non-medical reasons is a violation of children`s rights, that ritual circumcision for religious reasons in Slovenia is unacceptable for legal and ethical reasons and should not be performed by doctors: the courts have also identified some factors that are important when deciding on circumcision. J was a 5-year-old boy who lived with his mother, a non-practicing Christian. His father, a non-practicing Muslim, wanted him circumcised. When asked whether J should be circumcised, the court considered all factors relevant to J`s upbringing and concluded that J should not be circumcised on the basis of three essential facts: The Royal Netherlands Medical Association (KNMG) notes 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 Their There is a ban. As with female genital mutilation, UK 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 Human Rights Act came into force, individual parental consent has been insufficient to demonstrate that the procedure is in the best interests of the child.11 As with any aspect of medical practice, physicians must use their skills to promote the interests of their patients. They must act within the limits of the law and their own conscience and weigh the advantages and disadvantages of circumcision for the child concerned. These guidelines outline best practices and protective measures that the BMA believes physicians should follow when circumcising babies and male children. The debate over male ritual circumcision – the surgical removal of the foreskin of a young boy`s penis for religious and cultural reasons – is gaining momentum every year. A BBC documentary aired this week provides further evidence that the tide is beginning to turn towards the historic carte blanche given to infant circumcision.
Advocates of male circumcision sometimes try to justify the practice with “health benefits.” Throughout history, male circumcision has been advocated as a pseudo-medical remedy for a variety of diseases ranging from tuberculosis and epilepsy to warts and excessive masturbation. Male circumcision is generally considered legal, provided that: The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) notes that routine circumcision of infants is not justified in Australia and New Zealand and that since circumcision involves physical injury, doctors should talk to parents and consider the possibility of leaving circumcision at a later date. When the boy is old enough to make a decision for himself: In a small minority of cases, circumcision is for explicitly religious reasons, as in Orthodox Judaism. In the vast majority of cases, this is done for something closer to cultural habit, or for a vague sense of health or hygiene. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and CDC working groups recently highlighted the potential health benefits associated with foreskin removal. But the main data they relied on were about voluntary adult circumcision and heterosexual transmission of HIV in sub-Saharan Africa. These data do not apply to baby circumcision in Western countries, where HIV is mainly transmitted among people who inject drugs and men who have sex with men. As with any medical procedure, complications may occur during circumcision. The complication rate is very low, but if significant complications occur, legal recourse is possible. The circumcision controversy begs the question: “Should we leave it to the child to decide on circumcision later in life? Ultimately, this decision should be left to the judgment of the parents, after carefully weighing the risks and benefits of the procedure, the ample medical evidence supporting its use, and the selection of an experienced and competent doctor (most often a pediatrician). A complete ban on neonatal circumcision, with its important religious and social effects, as well as its well-described health benefits, is certainly not the solution. In addition to religious justification, there have been many false and now unsubstantiated health claims about circumcision – including penile cancer prevention, masturbation, blindness and insanity3 – most of which, like the recent reduction in HIV transmission, relate to adult sexual behaviour rather than genital anatomy or the best interests of the child.
There may be a case where male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV in sexually active adults, but the decision on whether or not to perform this procedure should be made until the person is old enough to make their own informed health decisions.