Circumcision Arrests
Discussion
amusingduck said:
mybrainhurts said:
Why does everybody think this is only a religious thing?
It was thought thst male circumcision reduced the risk of cancer in female partners' naughty bits.
You know what reduces the risk infinitely more? It was thought thst male circumcision reduced the risk of cancer in female partners' naughty bits.
Not getting HPV in the first place.
mybrainhurts said:
Why does everybody think this is only a religious thing?
It was thought thst male circumcision reduced the risk of cancer in female partners' naughty bits.
Pointless when HPV vaccination is available. It is an increased incidence of HPV transmission that is linked to increase in cancer, however as HPV vaccination is a available in 1st world countries and this is a better preventative measure, there is no need to cut up babies genitals.It was thought thst male circumcision reduced the risk of cancer in female partners' naughty bits.
wsurfa said:
mybrainhurts said:
Why does everybody think this is only a religious thing?
It was thought thst male circumcision reduced the risk of cancer in female partners' naughty bits.
Pointless when HPV vaccination is available. It is an increased incidence of HPV transmission that is linked to increase in cancer, however as HPV vaccination is a available in 1st world countries and this is a better preventative measure, there is no need to cut up babies genitals.It was thought thst male circumcision reduced the risk of cancer in female partners' naughty bits.
matchmaker said:
Dindoit said:
Halmyre said:
Dindoit said:
CoE is our national religion.
The Commandments are the backbone of most of our laws.
No it's not and no they aren't.The Commandments are the backbone of most of our laws.
Laws we can debate but state religion is a simple yes/no.
mybrainhurts said:
wsurfa said:
mybrainhurts said:
Why does everybody think this is only a religious thing?
It was thought thst male circumcision reduced the risk of cancer in female partners' naughty bits.
Pointless when HPV vaccination is available. It is an increased incidence of HPV transmission that is linked to increase in cancer, however as HPV vaccination is a available in 1st world countries and this is a better preventative measure, there is no need to cut up babies genitals.It was thought thst male circumcision reduced the risk of cancer in female partners' naughty bits.
If you're being serious then, do I need to explain the circumcision/HPV/cervical cancer links?
Leaving aside for a moment the opinions about whether male circumcision *should* be illegal, I'm struggling to understand how a case can be brought here, as currently, as far as I'm aware, it's not illegal?
Presumably the doctor operated under consent from the grandparents, which, as they had the child in their care was consent loco parentis?
Am I missing something big here (I'm no lawyer) or is this going to be a real struggle to prosecute?!
Presumably the doctor operated under consent from the grandparents, which, as they had the child in their care was consent loco parentis?
Am I missing something big here (I'm no lawyer) or is this going to be a real struggle to prosecute?!
bmwmike said:
Disgusting. Didnt know that circumcision "cleansing" practice existed. What is it with religions and their generally dubious approach to children.
Edit to add I thought this is a very odd statement too "male circumcision in the UK is generally assumed to be lawful provided there is valid consent". Assumed? Can a child give consent? Presumably they can't go out and get a tattoo for instance.
Its considered way too normal by the medical profession as well. My son had a tight foreskin when he was a child, and the doctor said he should be circumcised. I questioned this and was then told there are alternatives.Edit to add I thought this is a very odd statement too "male circumcision in the UK is generally assumed to be lawful provided there is valid consent". Assumed? Can a child give consent? Presumably they can't go out and get a tattoo for instance.
Edited by bmwmike on Thursday 29th June 10:50
As it happens he did need circumcision, but that was a medical decision taken in the operating theater by the surgeon once the corrective procedure was under way (with our agreement).
I'm happy that it was done for proper medical reasons, not just because its the default answer.
pip t said:
Leaving aside for a moment the opinions about whether male circumcision *should* be illegal, I'm struggling to understand how a case can be brought here, as currently, as far as I'm aware, it's not illegal?
Presumably the doctor operated under consent from the grandparents, which, as they had the child in their care was consent loco parentis?
Am I missing something big here (I'm no lawyer) or is this going to be a real struggle to prosecute?!
It is all about consent and as a side note I doubt the medical qualifications of the person who performed the procedure. Presumably the doctor operated under consent from the grandparents, which, as they had the child in their care was consent loco parentis?
Am I missing something big here (I'm no lawyer) or is this going to be a real struggle to prosecute?!
The baby was staying with the grandparents, the article doesn't suggest this was anything other than an extended social visit and consent is needed for a non-vital medical procedure. The grandparents cannot give this and an NHS doctor would know this and refuse to operate.
It really is about time this was made illegal as it's just not medically necessary in 94% of cases. When the boy is old enough to understand he can give consent for his body to be altered. We have age related laws surrounding tattoos, why not have similar for this unnecessary procedure?
pip t said:
Presumably the doctor operated under consent from the grandparents, which, as they had the child in their care was consent loco parentis?
Am I missing something big here (I'm no lawyer) or is this going to be a real struggle to prosecute?!
Only people with parental responsibility can give consent for medical procedures on children.Am I missing something big here (I'm no lawyer) or is this going to be a real struggle to prosecute?!
Without this consent, it's wounding/assault etc
Cold said:
pip t said:
Leaving aside for a moment the opinions about whether male circumcision *should* be illegal, I'm struggling to understand how a case can be brought here, as currently, as far as I'm aware, it's not illegal?
Presumably the doctor operated under consent from the grandparents, which, as they had the child in their care was consent loco parentis?
Am I missing something big here (I'm no lawyer) or is this going to be a real struggle to prosecute?!
It is all about consent and as a side note I doubt the medical qualifications of the person who performed the procedure. Presumably the doctor operated under consent from the grandparents, which, as they had the child in their care was consent loco parentis?
Am I missing something big here (I'm no lawyer) or is this going to be a real struggle to prosecute?!
The baby was staying with the grandparents, the article doesn't suggest this was anything other than an extended social visit and consent is needed for a non-vital medical procedure. The grandparents cannot give this and an NHS doctor would know this and refuse to operate.
It really is about time this was made illegal as it's just not medically necessary in 94% of cases. When the boy is old enough to understand he can give consent for his body to be altered. We have age related laws surrounding tattoos, why not have similar for this unnecessary procedure?
So I'm assuming the grandparents could give consent for emergency medical treatment while the child is visiting them, but not elective? I didn't realise there was a distinction with consent between the two, but happy to learn there is.
pip t said:
Leaving aside for a moment the opinions about whether male circumcision *should* be illegal, I'm struggling to understand how a case can be brought here, as currently, as far as I'm aware, it's not illegal?
Presumably the doctor operated under consent from the grandparents, which, as they had the child in their care was consent loco parentis?
Am I missing something big here (I'm no lawyer) or is this going to be a real struggle to prosecute?!
People without parental responsibility cannot consent to non-emergency care. Loco parentis doesn't cover it AIUI. (I may well be understanding it wrong, I'm not a lawyer.)Presumably the doctor operated under consent from the grandparents, which, as they had the child in their care was consent loco parentis?
Am I missing something big here (I'm no lawyer) or is this going to be a real struggle to prosecute?!
There's a long way to go before we eradicate this, but it seems progress is being made.
If it's necessary for a therapeutic reason then yes, sure - sometimes it's necessary to do something irreversible to a child because the consequence of not doing so would be worse. Otherwise, nope, informed consent in adulthood only please.
The mother did not give consent, the paternal grandparents (muslim) had it done. I think the parents were separated too, so I can't see how in any legal sense there hasn't been a crime committed. This is GBH, incitement to commit GBH and those involved should be jailed.
On a side note, the reason some religions advocate circumcision is due to locality. I lived in Turkey for a large chunk of my childhood and you had to keep it clean, the heat, the dust, the general crumminess in the air would build up. It does have legitimate reasoning in hot arid climates. The school had notices on the wall of the boys toilets complete with 1950's diagrams about personal hygiene. Only as an adult do I realise quite how important that sort of thing was.
Another report elsewhere suggests the boy has had recurrent issues with the circumcision, including scarring and urine infections. The bottom line is for this mother, her ex partners parents felt it was ok to mutilate a boys penis. Then not tell her when the child was returned. To undo the nappy and find it all bloodied must have been horrific.
On a side note, the reason some religions advocate circumcision is due to locality. I lived in Turkey for a large chunk of my childhood and you had to keep it clean, the heat, the dust, the general crumminess in the air would build up. It does have legitimate reasoning in hot arid climates. The school had notices on the wall of the boys toilets complete with 1950's diagrams about personal hygiene. Only as an adult do I realise quite how important that sort of thing was.
Another report elsewhere suggests the boy has had recurrent issues with the circumcision, including scarring and urine infections. The bottom line is for this mother, her ex partners parents felt it was ok to mutilate a boys penis. Then not tell her when the child was returned. To undo the nappy and find it all bloodied must have been horrific.
98elise said:
Its considered way too normal by the medical profession as well.
No it's not. 98elise said:
My son had a tight foreskin when he was a child, and the doctor said he should be circumcised. I questioned this and was then told there are alternatives.
As it happens he did need circumcision, but that was a medical decision taken in the operating theater by the surgeon once the corrective procedure was under way (with our agreement).
I'm happy that it was done for proper medical reasons, not just because its the default answer.
Doing something for medical reason is one thing, and is of course supported by doctors. Doing it because it was done to a parent or 'because religion', is butchery, and parents are not suitable to be parents. As it happens he did need circumcision, but that was a medical decision taken in the operating theater by the surgeon once the corrective procedure was under way (with our agreement).
I'm happy that it was done for proper medical reasons, not just because its the default answer.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff