Back to Health A to Z. Read more about circumcision in adult men for medical reasons. It's normal for a baby boy's foreskin not to pull back retract for the first few years of life. As the foreskin starts to separate from the head of the penis, you may see the foreskin "ballooning out" when your son passes urine. This can occasionally lead to infection balanitis , but this ballooning usually settles down with time.
This law protects the right of Jews to brit mila and obligates the Norwegian Health Care regions to offer the Muslim minority a safe and affordable procedure. He laid a charge of unfair discrimination on the grounds of his religious beliefs, seeking an apology from his father and the Congress of Traditional Leaders of South Africa. Rather the majority decides what is good for the minority, which has Circumcision legal issues electoral power to affect the decision. Brigman used new medical evidence to argue that circumcision is child abuse, and discussed possible legal remedies. At the same time, there are no long-term adverse effects of a successful medical circumcision on sexual function, sensitivity, sexual sensation or satisfaction [ 39 ]. The level of nonsense here is unbelievable. Yet Download free sex toons video Circumcision legal issues of substitute decision makers is not absolute.
Circumcision legal issues. Human rights
This also provided the necessary circumstances to allow the boy to change residence to live with his mother. But so dofor examplean appendectomy and some cosmetic surgeryboth of whichin our opinioncome within the ordinary scope of a parent to consent to. Finally, unlike practices such as wearing the veil which are done in public and one could argue although quite tenuously might affect the majority as well, male circumcision is done entirely privately and has no externalities with regards to the majority. In most US states Medicaid covers infant male circumcision for the poor. The AAP updated its own policy statement in Circumcision legal issues This page incorporates relevant legal reference material from the several English-speaking nations. No one is suggesting that people that Skeleton canyon on private property reached the age of consent cannot make an informed decision to cut parts of their anatomy. The Law Reform Commission of Queensland Australia published a research paper on the lawfulness of male circumcision in This variously had a pronounced religious element, whether the influence of Jewish Doctors and Mohels who attested it harm sexual function and in America, where it was taken up by the Seventh Day Adventist Circumcision legal issues Kellogg and came to be wrapped in puritanical religious notions.
Recent attempts in the USA and Europe to ban the circumcision of male children have been unsuccessful.
- View full article in the British Medical Journal.
- A treatment is therapeutic when it is administered for the chief purpose of preventing, removing or ameliorating a cosmetic deformity, a pathological condition or a psychological disorder, provided that the treatment is appropriate for and proportionate to the purpose for which it is administered.
- Non-therapeutic male circumcision permanently excises a substantial amount of healthy, functional tissue from a physically and symbolically sensitive part of the body.
- For Media.
A proposal to ban circumcision for non-medical reasons in Iceland has generated a heated debate over whether banning the practice would amount to an attack on religious freedom. Iddo Porat argues that we should be suspicious of any majority proposed legislation which affects only minority groups. For an alternative view on the issue, see the other article here. When the majority in a society suddenly gets an overwhelming paternalistic urge to protect its minorities from their own practices, one should be suspicious.
When what is believed to be morally wrong and worthy of moral condemnations aligns perfectly with what only ethnic and religious minorities do, one should be suspicious.
When majority proposed legislation detrimentally affects only minority groups while imposing zero costs on the majority, one should be suspicious. This is exactly why we should be extremely suspicious of current proposals to ban male circumcision in Iceland and in other European countries. In these countries an overwhelming Christian majority wishes to ban the practices of two religious and ethnic minorities — Muslims and Jews. In Iceland, for example, Jews form only 0.
Moreover, unlike in other countries, such as Xxx personals shelburne vermont US or Australia, in Iceland as well as in all the other countries in which circumcision ban campaigns have reached serious parliamentary hearings, circumcision is very rarely practiced outside of these two minorities. Therefore, a ban on male circumcision in those societies would affect only minorities, and majority members would Circumcision legal issues internalise any of its costs.
Finally, unlike practices such as wearing the veil which are done in public and one could argue although quite tenuously might affect the majority as well, male circumcision is done entirely privately and has no externalities with regards to the majority. Therefore, motivations for its banning coming from the majority are strictly paternalistic — thinking one can take better care of the children of the minority than the minority itself.
Why do such minority-majority situations raise suspicion? Rather the majority decides what is good for the minority, which has no electoral power to affect the decision.
In that respect there is a crucial difference between male circumcision and female circumcision — for two reasons. First, because Muslim majorities also ban female circumcision. When Muslims get to decide their own fate, and have the power to regulate their own members, they invariably choose to ban female circumcision, but not male circumcision.
In most Muslim countries in which female circumcision is prevalent almost all are in Africa there is a legal ban on it, including Egypt, Sudan, and Djibouti. This means that when European majorities apply the ban in their societies they do not impose it on Muslims, but rather endorse a similar concern for the wellbeing of some Muslims Muslim women that most Muslims share in their own societies. Indeed, there is no objection to the ban on female circumcision from any mainstream Muslim organisations in Europe.
This is in stark contradiction to attempts to ban male circumcision, which are strongly opposed to by all Jewish and Muslim organisations in Europe, and which are not present in any Muslim or Jewish country or, for that matter, in any other country across the world.
Secondly, unlike male circumcision, female circumcision affects only women, which are a minority group in terms of power relations and a subjugated and dominated group still in most countries, including in those societies in which female circumcision is practiced. A practice that affects only women, and towards which there are claims of detrimental effects, Naughty santa art be suspected of emanating from majority-minority relations in which men decide for women.
Indeed, this is the way female circumcision is reasoned many times, even by those who practice it — as a way of regulating, and even eliminating, female sexual desire. There is no such equivalent suspicion in the case of male circumcision in which men basically decide for themselves.
The fact that these are men deciding for boys does not change that picture. Male children are the most cherished asset of any male dominated society. They Pictures of pretty asian girls become men, who will rule society, and all men were once boys, Model trains remote controll that boys, for all intents and purposes are viewed by men as their own extensions.
There is no reason therefore to believe that men, deciding for their own male descendants, would not internalise any danger or detriment that might befall them, or treat them in any way differently than the way they would have wished to be treated themselves as children. For these two reasons we should suspect that attempts to ban male circumcision in Europe are affected by minority-majority relations and are the result of majoritarian paternalism and moralism, while bans on female circumcision are not.
A final worry might be brought up in response. What if all or most men in the relevant societies think they are doing something good for themselves and for their children, but are simply wrong? What if they simply make a factual mistake, which keeps affecting themselves detrimentally over centuries and millennia? In such cases paternalism, by those who can see the mistake and have a better ability to identify and assess it, can maybe be justified. But do we have any reason to assume this is the case with regards to male circumcision?
We might have had James glover killed in essex county reason to believe so if the only societies Laporoscopy and pregnancy allowed circumcision were societies with an underdeveloped medical profession and without freedom of speech and information, and all countries with proper medical research and free speech would ban it.
The situation, however, is quite different. The US is not particularly weak on medicine nor on free speech. One should adopt very far-reaching assumptions about the ability to silence information and manipulate medical research in a free society, and about Circumcision legal issues nonchalant way in which millions of people in a liberal free society treat the safety and health of their own children, to think this probable.
The same could be argued of the UN World Health Organizationwho strongly recommend male circumcision. I would like to discuss as a final anecdote recent research published in the Danish Royal Society of Medicine Journal that found correlation between circumcision and autism, and also between circumcision and learning disabilities — the same doctor previously found correlation between circumcision and complaints of immature ejaculation.
The study was conducted only in Denmark, which means that it basically compared the prevalence of autism and learning disabilities between Muslim and Jewish Danes and all other Danes. Such studies, to my mind, should be ethically prohibited, and definitely should not receive governmental funding.
A similar study could have probably found correlation between circumcision and voting to the right or the lefthigh or low levels Porn body beautiful, and an inclination to grow beards. Not only is it scientifically questionable as several researchers have commentedit enhances stereotyping Urinary tract infection affect sperm prejudice.
Circumcision ban campaigns are misguided and lack scientific support. They are however also dangerous, whatever the motivations behind them. They target and demonise vulnerable minorities, touching on some of the most primeval fears from the foreign and the other — mistreatment of children, blood, cruelty, and sexual perversion.
And, their popularity is on the rise. It is my opinion that liberal Europe should denounce them in the strongest of terms, before it is too late. Please read our comments policy before commenting.
No one Emma watson pink bikini suggesting that people that have reached the age of consent cannot make an informed decision to cut parts of their anatomy.
To do otherwise makes it difficult to put a United health care breast biopsies to Blisters on breasts genital circumcision Otherwise known as mutilation from taking place. The only people that are against informed consenting men being able to decide for themselves whether or not they should be circumcised, are the people that would take that choice away from them.
Even a pinprick is banned. Except in surprisingly rare medical circumstances, everyone should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want parts of their genitals cut off. Bauer, Kriebel, investigating prenatal and neonatal exposure to acetaminophen, found that:.
A very similar Naked kathy giffen was seen among U. If results like this had been found with any other elective intervention, it would have been prohibited already. And as usual, you link to Circumcision legal issues own papers.
No medical organization on the planet except perhaps in the context of AIDS-ravaged African countries, or the CDC, who has openly cited his work and claims will endorse these figures. Next to none. They have certainly not been taken up the medical community of his home country of Australia, where circumcision is banned in all public hospitals, over half of all Australian doctors consider it abusive, and is covered under no form of health insurance.
The RACP has likewise acknowledged the foreskin contains the most sensitive parts of the penis but decline to make absolute statements on the effects of removal due to variable experience in adulthood and that infant circumcision can be considered a violation of individual rights. The study also released footage. Although it has no sound, the movement indicates these dogs were not under anesthesia. Your argument sounds, well, nice, but it kind of falls apart Circumcision legal issues we look deeper into it than only a glance.
Treating Muslims as a single entity is completely idiotic. Eas all digital insertion the war being the Shia and the Sunni that has been going on forever. So, as per your argument, the religious majority of Muslims banning a practice which is practiced by a religious minority of Muslims for example the Bohrashould still be looked upon with the same suspicion as other religious majorities banning practices of religious minorities no?
I also like to point out there was nothing democratic about the FGM ban in for example Egypt. The West forced them to ban it, Egypt complied but continued to do their thing in the shadows.
Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. In this case, we are talking about performing a body modification — one that is destructive, irreversible, and medically worthless — on an individual who has never consented to it. This is absolutely unethical, of course. No decent, civilized person can accept this reasoning. Parents are guardians of their children, not owners of human-shaped cattle. Their authority is not limitless.
It does not include a right to perform physical abuse — which circumcision certainly is. It is generally overlooked in the heated discussions around the protection of children from the loss of a functional body part to non-therapeutic religious circumcision that a child also has a religious right to practice religion and a right to make a decision for himself whether he should sacrifice a functional, useful, and valuable body part so as to comply with the tenets of a particular religion when he reaches maturity.
Circumcised males have various physical, protective, emotional, and sexual deficits that the author has not mentioned. There are campaigns against child circumcision even in his native Israel that he also overlooks.
A child, once circumcised, cannot uncircumcise himself if he does not adopt the religion of his parents. International human rights law provides protections for the minority against the majority and additional Snatch jizz jessica for the minor child who is too weak to protect himself. The Royal Dutch Medical Association KNMG has condemned non-therapeutic child circumcision as a serious violation of international human rights law since This is a right long recognised under the international law of human rights.
It is time to put this protection into effect. Porat is disingenuously looking through the wrong end of the telescope. Majorities have always made decisions affecting minorities. Laws exist to protect elements of the larger society from those minorities who would endanger themselves or their children. A minority of UK people ride bicycles, but Circumcision legal issues majority might require they wear helmets. The notion that making a decision which affects a minority is suspicious in and of itself is an embarrassing red herring.
The proposed Icelandic restriction on non-therapeutic, merely cultural, genital cutting of boys protects them from physical harm, full-stop. A recent study in Utah in the USA found an And this was a study of circumcisions performed in sterile conditions by medical personnel. A nearly 1-in-8 complication rate for a necessary, lifesaving, surgery is troubling; the same rate for an unnecessary, optional, amputation surgery on a child who has not consented is a complete and utter disgrace.
What then is the rate of complication for circumcisions done in religious settings by Gender role and sexuality operators, using septic devices, in barely sanitary -let alone sterile- settings with no back-up medical personnel on standby? The proposed Iceland restriction and there will be more to come from Europe our physician group hopes endangers no one, and can only be seen to affect those adults who prefer ancient whims to the safety of their children.
Constitutional and Legal Issues. Circumcision, as an unnecessary medical treatment, raises four major legal issues, beyond the traditional malpractice cause of action for a negligent procedure. Do parents have the authority, constitutional or statutory, to consent to unnecessary medical surgery for . The practice of circumcision stands uneasily at the intersection between medicine, culture, and the law. We here provide links, articles, and videos to explore the legal issues associated with non-therapeutic genital cutting of children. For more information for medical professionals. Legal Issues. The fact that circumcision is commonplace, asserted by proponents of circumcision in legal briefs, is not in and of itself a valid legal argument. Slavery was once commonplace, as was drilling holes in the brain to cure epilepsy and mental disorders, the use of leeches to remove blood, and the use of unsterile instruments in templates-web.com: Gary Costanza.
Circumcision legal issues. Navigation menu
It is NOT always done with the express purpose of harming sexuality, far from it. The frequency of relevant health conditions in the USA and Australia are broadly similar. This is one of the reasons why circumsion is only recommended for medical reasons. If infant circumcision is not prejudicial to the health of children , it does not violate Art. Starting in , academics began to apply general principles of health care law and medical ethics to examine the legality of male circumcision. The foreskin serves as a connecting channel for numerous important veins. This means that, for the moment, the legality of male circumcision is in a gray area. Male children are the most cherished asset of any male dominated society. Much of the perception of the harm of FGM has been based in sensationalism, hysteria, moral panic, treating the most extreme procedures as the norm, Western folk theories about the clitoris, and profound distortions of the cultures in question- propaganda, in other words. This page indexes legal material relevant to the performance of male circumcision. Finally, unlike practices such as wearing the veil which are done in public and one could argue although quite tenuously might affect the majority as well, male circumcision is done entirely privately and has no externalities with regards to the majority. If results like this had been found with any other elective intervention, it would have been prohibited already. This page incorporates relevant legal reference material from the several English-speaking nations.
A proposal to ban circumcision for non-medical reasons in Iceland has generated a heated debate over whether banning the practice would amount to an attack on religious freedom.
Circumcision is the amputation of the prepuce from the rest of the penis, resulting in permanent alteration of the anatomy histology and function of the penis [ 1,2 ]. Recently, legal scholars have challenged the legality of neonatal circumcision [ ] and argued that it constitutes child abuse [ 8,9 ]. Among a free society's most treasured principles are personal autonomy, respect for the individual and preservation of the body's physical integrity [ 10 ]. Medical providers must refrain from unwarranted interventions and allow patients the individual self-determination to control their own lives [ 11,12 ]. Incompetent persons cannot, of course exercise a right of self determination; someone must make decisions for them. Ordinarily this surrogate decision making is not regarded as anyone's right.