Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Stop these operations

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 06 March 2008
Isn't it ironic that as the United Nations launched a campaign to eradicate all types of forced female circumcision, proclaiming it a "violation of the rights of a child", NHS Lothian launched a service providing for the involuntary genital modification of Scottish boys?
NHS Lothian claims non-therapeutic circumcision protects the "health and wellbeing" of a boy (if he's an ethnic minority). Yet this is an operation that removes 50-80 per cent of the penile skin system, and most of its fine-touch neuroreceptors, leaving the sexual senses altered forever. How can the Scottish NHS justify this irreversible sexual amputation with neither medical need nor patient consent? It seems the answer is political correctness.

Yet political correctness has never been applied to forced female circumcision, even though its mildest forms, as practised in many Islamic communities, are similar to male circumcision. Removing a girl's foreskin (or that of an animal) is punishable by a jail sentence.

LAURA MacDONALD, De Beauvoir Crescent, London





The full article contains 166 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 05 March 2008 9:53 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Colin Wilson,

Aberdeen 06/03/2008 06:52:03
Laura MacDonald is right. Circumcision should be only for those old enough to choose to have it done. It should not be performed on infants, unless there is a specific medical reason for it.
2

Colin Wilson,

Aberdeen 06/03/2008 08:18:07
Re #2 : if girls were involved, people would have no hesitation in telling them.

The whole situation is symptomatic of how society considers boys' well-being as less important than that of girls.
3

A.P.,

06/03/2008 08:23:16
Health care shouldn't be getting into the business of providing bronze age body mod rituals on kid's sex organs. Unlike religion, there are issues of individual autonomy and bodily rights that need to be respected in medicine. I think male's rights over their OWN body ought to be respected before third party religious 'rights' of the cultural group they happen to born into.

I think valid religious rights are about *individual* religious rights. A parent can take their child to church but at the end of the day, when they are grown up, it is their choice to decide how and what (if any) religion to follow. If someone were to, say, suggest a ban on baptism, that would be absurd, because it is completely benign to in terms of it's effect on the individual. Permanently altering someone's genitals is not. To say it is ethically sound is to say that if I belonged to some Christian sect that felt it necessary to tattoo the Virgin Mary on female infant's butts on the 8th day, I should be able to do so - and maybe the NHS should act as the facilitator.

"Yet political correctness has never been applied to forced female circumcision, even though its mildest forms, as practised in many Islamic communities, are similar to male circumcision. Removing a girl's foreskin (or that of an animal) is punishable by a jail sentence."

I agree, there is clear double standard. Female circumcision is often times much worse, but even the types that are analogous to male circumcision are outlawed. Presumably, in observance of individual rights over their own body in the face of unnecessary genital surgeries performed mainly for cosmetic reasons.

I'm shocked that the NHS saw this as appropriate in the 21st century. They'd do better to work towards eliminating medically questionable surgical customs that infringe on individual rights than cater to them.

They talk about the "health and wellbeing" of the boy; but really it is about the peace of mind of parents, based on their c
4

A.P.,

06/03/2008 08:25:31
.... cultural attitudes
5

Colin Wilson,

Aberdeen 06/03/2008 08:30:53
AP (#4) is right. There is a clear double standard at work here; and this particular development, involving NHS Lothian, is indeed shocking. If this unnecessary practice, which some of us find repugnant, is to continue then at the very least it should not be paid from from public funds when there are genuinely ill people who need treatment.
6

,

06/03/2008 09:59:11
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
7

Mark Lyndon,

Manchester 06/03/2008 10:36:24
From the summary statement of the paediatric policy on circumcision of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians:
"After extensive review of the literature the RACP reaffirms that there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision." (those last 9 words in bold on their website).
http://www.racp.edu.au/download.cfm?DownloadFile=A453CFA1-2A57-5487-DF36DF59A1BAF527

Most of the people responsible for this statement will be circumcised themselves or married to circumcised men, since the circ rate in Australia was 90% in 1950 (down to 12.6% now). Now why would a bunch of circumcised doctors say that routine circumcision was unnecessary?

Routine male circumcision is now *banned* in public hospitals in all Australian states except one. The children's commissioner in Tasmania wants to ban it there altogether. Why is it being provided on the NHS in Scotland?
8

A.P,

06/03/2008 13:26:49
Infidel #7 raises the issue of medical benefits. While the potential of a male receiving some medical benefits exist, the vast majority of males do not receive any benefit to their health whatsoever.

The potential medical benefits cited are not unique to circumcision. These 'health benefits' can virtually all be achieved without invasive (and unconsented) excision of tissue. If a problem even arises it can be treated in less invasive ways - like medicinal cream. Even more rare, a boy may actually need to get circumcised for medical reasons... the exact same surgery as the prevention. Why not follow the laws of overwhelming probability and not remove healthy anatomy unless it is necessary? That seems to be the general rule doctors are bound to when it comes to removing body parts.

At the very least it should virtually *guarantee* a significant enough benefit to the unconsenting individual to warrant removing sexual tissue. It's only because of cultural baggage that infant circumcision doesn't get held up to the normal standards of ethics and professional conduct in the health system.

As far as AIDS goes, a man can decide if he wants to get circumcised as a preventative. Though the more traditional approaches to avoiding AIDS and other STDs are far more effective and don't involve penis surgery. Acquiring AIDS from heterosexual sex is not relevant to children's health. As far as I know, no anti cutters are saying grown males shouldn't be allowed that choice for themselves. It's interesting how so few intact men in educated countries want to be/or wish they were circumcised even in light of these African studies. That should tell you something about what erring on the side of caution actually constitutes when people use the excuse that it should be done early before a man will remember it - in the off chance he actually will have wanted or need to get it done.

If removing the clitoral hood from females was found to reduce HIV risk from unprotected s
9

A.P,

06/03/2008 13:27:55
...

If removing the clitoral hood from females was found to reduce HIV risk from unprotected sex, I doubt there would be much, if any, talk about the acceptability of excising genital tissue from females without their direct consent.

The potential medical benefits aren't considered as compelling as even the religious reasons according to the NHS and most other mainstream national medical organizations. That speaks volumes right there.

There are plenty of permanent cosmetic things that could potentially be done to someone's body when they are an infant (see my Virgin Mary tattoo analogy above); that does not make them ethically acceptable or inline with respect for individual autonomy and rights obver their body.

Whether or not circumcised men are 'missing much' is entirely subjective. A man might simply not want to have a scar on his penis, or may want to have an anatomically complete penis that he was born with ... it is HIS body.

10

J0N0,

Auckland 06/03/2008 16:32:23
....
__________
Dave from Barra says "Tell that to the Jewish community."
~~~~~~~~~~

this isn't about ritual circumcision,its about medicine. Jewish doctrine specifically forbids circumcision for non-religious reasons. it is a covenant with G-d, and should not be carried out for earthly gains. to quote Jack Engel, Rabbi of Auckland NZ (where i live): "If one would not be doing this for religious purposes, and one is just doing it for the prevention of possible medical illnesses, then it's not a Holy purpose and it's not perfecting one's body, it's mutilating one's body." ["Separated at Birth", 60 Minutes, TV3 New Zealand, 24 Sep 2007]

so tradition is one thing, and i believe that aspect of circumcision must be dealt with sensitively, as must its female correlates. i don't agree with it, but i don't live in a culture that practices it.

on the other hand, i do live in a culture that practices post-enlightenment values, and pretends to operate a secular, rational system of health care.

it is depressing and extremely offensive that western medical establishments continue to abet genital cutting. to skip so lightly over the intrinsic ethical problems is a sign that they retain the malignant and persistent patronizing culture that many in the profession have worked hard to root out. in a medical context, routine infant circumcision is barely distinguishable from human experimentation, and a casual purview of the history of the practice supports that assertion.
__________
Infidel said: "Doing it because it confers clear medical benefits is another matter, and those who rush to condemn it should read the recent African studies showing clearly a much reduced incidence of HIV amongst those cut. ... As I said, those snipped young are not missing much."
~~~~~~~~~~

using terms like 'clipping' and 'snipping' merely demonstrates your lack of the appropriate gravitas this discussion warrants. we aren't talking about a tetanus booster here. routine circum
11

J0N0,

Auckland 06/03/2008 16:35:32
__________
Infidel said: "Doing it because it confers clear medical benefits is another matter, and those who rush to condemn it should read the recent African studies showing clearly a much reduced incidence of HIV amongst those cut. ... As I said, those snipped young are not missing much."
~~~~~~~~~~

using terms like 'clipping' and 'snipping' merely demonstrates your lack of the appropriate gravitas this discussion warrants. we aren't talking about a tetanus booster here. routine circumcision involves forcibly amputating part of a child's body -- that it is an erogenous structure just makes it more problematic.

the purported medical benefits, themselves very controversial, have no impact on the ethical debate. even if the medical benefits were compelling, circumcision would still cut directly across all established ethical guidelines. as it is, the argument is far from compelling. for example, the clit0ris has a concentration of Langerhans cells, just like the foreskin, so is what's good for the goose good for the gander? and what about risk compensating behaviour among circumcised men? being "60%" less likely to be infected by HIV will make men more likely to engage in risky sexual practices, and no reduction in HIV transmission has been found from men to women, or men to men, so how will that impact on the epidemic? you see, many questions stacked up against an already unconscionable proposition.
12

J0N0,

Auckland 06/03/2008 16:36:18

__________
A.P said: "If removing the clitoral hood from females was found to reduce HIV risk from unprotected sex, I doubt there would be much, if any, talk about the acceptability of excising genital tissue from females without their direct consent."
~~~~~~~~~~

actually A.P., there is already evidence that many of the 'benefits' of male circumcision also pertain to its female variants. there's the distribution of Langerhans cells mentioned above, but also the elimination of mucosa and warm, moist environments that might encourage bacterial growth. many who argue for female circumcision, including until very recently the medical establishments of Cairo and elsewhere, often mention hygiene, absence of offensive odours and protection from bacterial infections like UTI's as reasons for female genital mutilation.

actually, one thing i find particularly irritating is the attitude among some western feminists that comparing male circumcision with FGM is somehow trivializing the latter. this ideological paranoia is just another clue that this is not a gendered issue, it is a question about the rights of children and why they are being routinely violated under official sanction.

that NHS Lothian is actively abetting this violation in the UK in the 21st century is simply a reminder that it is necessary to speak strongly against the practice. circumcision is pernicious and resistant to treatment.


13

Frank McGinness,

San Francisco, CA, USA 12/03/2008 07:12:27
To: #7 Infidel. There is not less scaring when done as an infant as the foreskin is torn from off the glans like a fingernail is torn from the finger. Therefore the the true scaring starts from the cut line up to and including the tip of the glans. There is less sensitivity of the glans and mucosal and even so after foreskin restoration compared to those who did not ave forced separation. Visit sites circumstitions.com, circumcisionandhiv.com, doctorsopposingcircumcision.org (D.O.C.) for better reporting on HIV/circumcision. All mucosal of the body has Langerhans cells as the first line of defense in the immune system The tonsils as more than the foreskin yet tonsillectomies are not offered up. All penises are not the same, circumcisions are not done the same, so circumcisions are not the same. Yours may be done kinder with most of the frenulum (20% sexual receptors) still intact letting you retain a total of 35% sexual receptors (15% located in the corona of the glans). Most (some are done by removing a cuff of skin at the base thereby preserving the sexual receptors) all circumcisions remove the ridged band (65% sexual receptors) as discovered by Dr. Taylor in 1995. Further loss of sensation is quite noticeable at 5-7 years post circ. caused by keratinization. This callousing does help to control Premature jaculation. More over, Premature jaculation can be caused by circumcision because without nerves you "can't feel the road so you skid off it". Circumcised men will never experience an ogasm by thought alone as is common among intact men. It's near impossible for the circumcised man to experience full body ogasms unless drug induced. It also kills the brain cells that are not longer receiving signals from the foreskin gone with adjacent cells then growing in place chaotically. Can this be good especially for a developing child? The African studies are about "cirCONcisions". Also visit www.violence.de/ , James W. Prescott's Origins of Peace and Violence: Introduc
14

Frank McGinness,

12/03/2008 10:56:14
From NOCIRC 2008 Newsletter:
LANGERHANS CELLS PROTECT AGAINST HIV-1
“Human immunodeficiency virus-1 (HIV-1) is primarily
transmitted sexually...Langerin is a natural barrier to HIV-1
infection, and strategies to combat infection must enhance,
preserve or, at the very least, not interfere with Langerin
expression and function.” Lot de Witte, et al. Langerin
is a natural barrier to HIV-1 transmission by Langerhans
cells. Nature Medicine, published online 4 March 2007;
doi:10.1038/nm1541.
“Langerhans cells in the skin and mucosa have been
thought to mediate the spread of HIV-1 in the body during
sexual transmission. Instead, it seems that the cells protect
against the virus, a finding with implications for the devel-
opment of microbicides.” Olivier Schwartz. Langerhans cells
lap up HIV-1. Nature Medicine 13(3):245-246, March 2007.

PROSTITUTES AND HIV/AIDS
“[I]t is the number of infected prostitutes in a country that is
highly significant and robust in explaining HIV prevalence lev-
els across countries.” John R. Talbott. Size Matters: The Number
of Prostitutes and the Global HIV/Aids Pandemic. Plosone.org,
Issue 6:1-8, 1/2007, e543.

AUSTRALIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION BACKS LAW TO BAN CIRCUMCISION
Tasmania’s Children’s Commissioner, Paul Mason, says non-
medical circumcision is a breach of human rights. “[E]veryone
is entitled to equal protection under the law, regardless of
gender, culture, or race.” AMA’s Tasmanian President, Haydn
Walters, says they would support a ban on the practice,
except when there is a rare medical need.” ABC News, 9/12/07.


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.