The Circumcision Debate in the UK
The circumcision debate is becoming more prominent each year and it is interesting to see how each country is reacting. This year in the UK the BBC have approached the debate on multiple occasions. They have shared views from both sides of the debate by taking the religious opinions expressed by Jewish and Islamic faith leaders. On the other side, they have acknowledged the men who have been harmed by this (usually unnecessary) surgery. When discussing infant surgery, it comes down to rites versus rights. (See “Child Rights & Religious Freedoms” by Saxon Norgard). First however, let’s look at the change in pressure on the medical establishments for medical circumcisions.
Circumcision: The Dilemma
The burden of more and more scientific research exposing the harm that can be caused and the full importance of the foreskin is straining the UK medical establishments to commit to an official stance on the subject. So far, they have avoided the subject, but apathy is no longer good enough.
With circumcision alternatives easily available and awareness growing, medical professionals must acknowledge less invasive methods and commit to an evidence based position.
NHS Begin to Acknowledge the Harm:
“In most cases, circumcision will only be recommended when other, less invasive and less risky treatments have been tried and haven’t worked. Mild cases of phimosis can be treated with topical steroids to help soften the skin and make it easier for the foreskin to retract. In paraphimosis, a healthcare professional may rub a local anaesthetic gel onto the glans to help reduce pain and inflammation. They may then apply pressure to the head of the penis while pushing the foreskin forward. In severe cases of paraphimosis, local anaesthetic gel can be applied to the penis and a small slit is made in the foreskin to help relieve the pressure.” – NHS Website on Circumcision.
The Iceland Bill
An article RightsInfo.Org (rebranded as EachOther) wrote an article titled: “Could the UK ban infant male circumcision” and the article is still highly relevant 2 years on.
The article explores what the ramifications for the UK may be if the Icelandic Bill is successful. Interestingly, there are statistics on the attitudes of the public towards infant male circumcision.
Although the debate is still ongoing the press have finally picked up this story ensuring a more informed public opinion. 62% of the public polled supported a ban on infant circumcision and 13% were against, the rest undecided. As time goes on, these statistics are sure to drive public discourse as more men share their stories. Whether this will lead to an outright ban of the practice remains to be seen as the circumcision debate continues.
Why do some religions demand healthy flesh to be cut off. It’s a sacrificial offering. It’s outrageous that some religions have not moved on!
Could 15 Square not get up a petition to raise 100,000 signatures so that the matter must be debated in parliament?
What should be banned is not circumcision per se but INVOLUNTARY circumcision (except in medical emergencies). Adults who want to get circumcised should still have the right to. Analogously, involuntary tattooing is apparently banned in Britain though consenting adults can get tattooed if they want to.
The same distinction between voluntary and involuntary male genital mutilation (MGM) ought to be extended to voluntary and involuntary female genital mutilation (FGM).
If MGM and FGM are so wonderful, let’s see how many men and women embrace those procedures of their own free will !
It is high time this barbaric practice was outlawed in the UK – as has female genital mutilation. In a modern world that understands human biology and infection, it is laughable to claim that is done for hygienic reasons! Label it for what it is: a primitive and outrageous assault on a child.