Should circumcision of both sexes be outlawed unless medically indicated?
False
General clinical
Should circumcision of both sexes be outlawed unless medically indicated?
Discuss any specialty in this open forum for all healthcare professionals
Offence of female genital mutilation & Male Genital Mutilation (1)A person is guilty of an offence if he excises, infibulates or otherwise mutilates the whole or any part of a girl’s labia
6
Cat:OpenClinicalForum:GeneralClinical
Cat:OpenClinicalForum:GeneralClinicalDiscussion:acd0f21c-e092-407a-ab2b-38fd88f8f5c6
Forums » Open clinical » General clinical » Should circumcision of both sexes be outlawed unless medically indicated?
Forums
»
Open clinical
»
General clinical
»
Should circumcision of both sexes be outlawed unless medically indicated?
|
Re: Should circumcision of both sexes be outlawed unless medically indicated?
posted at 16/6/2012 4:22 PM BST
on bmj.com
|
Posts: 1257
First: 13/4/2010 Last: 17/5/2013 |
In Response to Re: Should circumcision of both sexes be outlawed unless medically indicated?: I'm struggling to see exactly what is maleficent about performing the perfectly safe, sterile, surgical procedure that is male circumcision? Suprised by the level of opposition :-O Posted by David.Jones Sorry Dave - but you, like others, are missing the point. This debate is NOT about circumcision per se. It's about the ethics of performing an elective surgical procedure without the recipient's consent. So, if we forget about circumcision for a moment, suppose parents came to you with their infant child who happened to have a small, congenital hairy naevus asking for it to be removed because they were worried about the minute risk of it turning malignant in later life. Would you agree to do that or would you wait until the child was old enough to understand the issue and allow them to exercise informed consent given that such a delay would make no perceptable difference to the already tiny risk? Or what if they said they wanted it removed because their particular cultural tradition suggested that was how it should be? |
|
|
Re: Should circumcision of both sexes be outlawed unless medically indicated?
posted at 16/6/2012 6:13 PM BST
on bmj.com
|
Posts: 958
First: 15/7/2011 Last: 15/5/2013 |
In Response to Re: Should circumcision of both sexes be outlawed unless medically indicated?: Closing remarks from my point of view: I would react differently were the subject introduced in a scientific way and not in a way of such a sensational negative title and with so much negative emotion, not discussion, but emotion. Establishing a "verdict" prior to civilized scientific discussion is unacceptable in my point of view. Accusing all performing circimcision as criminals against humanity is not science. And that is exactly where some took it. Were the discussion :"Circumcision is performed in .....% of males around the world and especially prevalent in..... " and saying that "there are debates about the procedure and how it stands in light of minors right etc...." and asking about opinions is one thing. Stating it is self mutilation against law and then stating it should be outlawed is another issue. Well. I am done with this. You are invited to continue this discussion according to your wishes. I think I said all I can on this subject., Posted by yoram chaiter Ok Yoram I have a response but note you have decided to leave the debate . Note that this is a debate. My initial post did not actually state anywhere that all people who cirumcise infants were criminals. In fact my initial emphasis was on FGM then went on to discuss male circumcision. It surely must be reasonable as a proposition that a medically unneccesary surgical procedure should not be performed on any person who cannot consent to it. I think that premise is simple, logical and humane. However if one adopts religious precepts then one has to abandon such reasonableness and remove an infants foreskin. Another statement that I cannot see how anyone could dispute. Arguing that infants and youngsters would be safer from STDs is no argument at all. The anger shown by some who believe that circumcision is mandatory illustrates that a nerve has been touched because they know it is a very difficult position to maintain. I will be keen to see the answer to skysteves question above. |
|
|
Re: Should circumcision of both sexes be outlawed unless medically indicated?
posted at 18/6/2012 3:18 PM BST
on bmj.com
|
|
*Moderator*
Posts: 1436
First: 7/4/2011 Last: 17/5/2013 |
Hi everyone It's good to have a lively debate but we also need to be careful not to write anything that could be construed as personally offensive towards other members. I don't want to tame the debate because some valid questions are being asked but we wary of not letting the discussion go off-topic. |
|
|
Re: Should circumcision of both sexes be outlawed unless medically indicated?
posted at 18/6/2012 3:42 PM BST
on bmj.com
|
Posts: 223
First: 15/5/2012 Last: 29/4/2013 |
In Response to Re: Should circumcision of both sexes be outlawed unless medically indicated?: Billions of males from the Islamic and Jewish faith have undergone ritual / Religious circumsicion in the last so many centuries. Please don't confuse genital mutilation with surgically performed circumcision in males. Apart from this there is scientific evidence in favor of male ( not female ) circumsion. http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1104451 http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=203169 http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm http://sti.bmj.com/content/74/5/368.full.pdf But this procedure": ritual circumcision with oral suction" doesn't make sense . Circumcision should not be outlawed and one cannot out law a practice which is part of the religious practice of billions aroud the globe and has positively contributed towards reducing the risk of HIV, penile cancer and STD But There is NO room for female circumcision though. Posted by drrathore CIRCUMCISION IS A BARBARIC PRACTICE AND SHOULD NOT BE TOLERATED. |
|
|
Re: Should circumcision of both sexes be outlawed unless medically indicated?
posted at 18/6/2012 9:20 PM BST
on bmj.com
|
Posts: 83
First: 20/5/2010 Last: 1/4/2013 |
In Response to Re: Should circumcision of both sexes be outlawed unless medically indicated?: In Response to Re: Should circumcision of both sexes be outlawed unless medically indicated? : Sorry Dave - but you, like others, are missing the point. This debate is NOT about circumcision per se. It's about the ethics of performing an elective surgical procedure without the recipient's consent. So, if we forget about circumcision for a moment, suppose parents came to you with their infant child who happened to have a small, congenital hairy naevus asking for it to be removed because they were worried about the minute risk of it turning malignant in later life. Would you agree to do that or would you wait until the child was old enough to understand the issue and allow them to exercise informed consent given that such a delay would make no perceptable difference to the already tiny risk? Or what if they said they wanted it removed because their particular cultural tradition suggested that was how it should be? Posted by skyesteve I appreciate the point you're trying to make but if we're making such a fuss about consent and babies then should we stop immunising babies or giving them vitamin K injections as neonates? - they are unable to consent after all! Babies can't consent to anything - that's why parents exist to protect and support them and make decisions. Providing the surgeon is skilled and the op is extremely unlikely to be botched - I don't see the problem with circumcision or the removal of a congenital hairy naevus. Wouldn't the procedure (circumcision) carry considerably higher risks if undertaken later on in life? And let's face it - in deeply religious communities where circumcision is seen as identifying males as members of the faith - chances are they will feel strongly a need to be circumcised... I really feel that here we are really dealing with 2 issues. Placing female "circucision" and male circumcision in the same box doesn't seem right. Just my opinion. |
|
|
Re: Should circumcision of both sexes be outlawed unless medically indicated?
posted at 19/6/2012 9:56 PM BST
on bmj.com
|
|
Posts: 1257
First: 13/4/2010 Last: 17/5/2013 |
Sorry Dave - the argument re vaccination in infancy is a false one. There is over-whelming evidence for real risk of harm from not doing vaccinations in infancy/childhood. There is no such firm evidence for infant circumcision. Even if one accepts the benefits of circumcision (and these are disputed) the risk of penile cancer is incredibly small such that the overall impact of circumcision in the male population as a whole, even if every male infant had it, would be miniscule. |
|
|
Re: Should circumcision of both sexes be outlawed unless medically indicated?
posted at 20/6/2012 7:22 PM BST
on bmj.com
|
Posts: 311
First: 7/5/2009 Last: 2/4/2013 |
In Response to Re: Should circumcision of both sexes be outlawed unless medically indicated?: In Response to Re: members of the faith - chances are they will feel strongly a need to be circumcised... I really feel that here we are really dealing with 2 issues. Placing female "circucision" and male circumcision in the same box doesn't seem right. Just my opinion. Posted by David.Jones Placing female "circucision" and male circumcision in the same box doesn't seem right Right on Two separate things with different meaning and results. One is an accepted , centuries old religious practice validated by modern science and studies. The other is an inhuman barbaric act mostly confined to few African Countries and has a cultural background.
|
|
|
Re: Should circumcision of both sexes be outlawed unless medically indicated?
posted at 12/7/2012 7:35 PM BST
on bmj.com
|
|
Posts: 174
First: 13/10/2009 Last: 18/5/2013 |
I am one of those who sees male circumcision and FGM as totally different by degree but not necessarily in principle. I fail to see why we should accept either of them just because certain religions see them as OK. I also object to the torture of children to expel demons etc .... as I gather is not quite so infrequent as one had hoped and associated with religious belief. Society should protect the vulnerable from religious excess until the invdividual can make their own choice. At some stage we simply have to take a stand against religious convention when it causes harm to individuals who cannot give informed consent. Nor do I believe in belief in a particular religion as an inherited characteristic . If an adult chooses to follow a particular belief that requires circumcision , then he can make that choice when the time comes - also coinciding with the time when the main risk fot STI occurs - if the protective value is borne out. I question some of the data on the ill effects of circumcision - sensory testing as described seems an odd endpoint on its own but is often quoted. Perhaps circumcision reduces problems with premature ejaculation -or even enhances sexual satisfaction in the partner. All we need is an MRC grant and a host of volunteers....... |
|
|
Re: Should circumcision of both sexes be outlawed unless medically indicated?
posted at 13/7/2012 4:37 AM BST
on bmj.com
|
Posts: 1593
First: 24/12/2008 Last: 14/5/2013 |
The current issue of NEJM features neonatal circumcision procedure with video (step by step): ========================== VIDEOS IN CLINICAL MEDICINE Neonatal CircumcisionColleen K. Cagno, M.D., and Paul R. Gordon, M.D., M.P.H.N Engl J Med 2012; 367:e3July 12, 2012 Neonatal circumcision is one of the most frequently performed surgical procedures. This video demonstrates circumcision as performed with a clamp device. ========================== |
Forums » Open clinical » General clinical » Should circumcision of both sexes be outlawed unless medically indicated?
