German court: Circumcision infringes boys' physical integrity, 'The rights of the child outweigh the rights of the parents' Options

[octavian]

From today's Independent:

Germany’s Jewish and Muslim communities responded with outrage today to a highly controversial court ruling which stipulated that the circumcision of young boys on religious grounds caused bodily harm and infringed a child’s right to physical integrity.

The divisive verdict, delivered by an appeals court in Cologne, involved the case of a Muslim boy who became seriously ill after undergoing the procedure, and ruled that the individual rights of the child took legal precedence over the religious rights of its parents.

The judges concluded that “circumcision contravenes the interests of the child to decide later on in life about his religious beliefs” and “the fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity outweighs the fundamental rights of the parents”.

Male circumcision is not illegal in Germany, but until the court ruling it had inhabited a legal ‘grey area’ which had allowed doctors to carry out the operation. Some medical organisations advise doctors to draw up a contract with their patients before performing the operation to guard against possible legal action.
Dieter Graumann, the President of Germany’s Central Council of Jews denounced the ruling today as “outrageous and insensitive”. He described it as an “unprecedented and dramatic intervention in the right of religious communities to self-determination” and demanded that parliament intervene to “protect religious freedom”. Aiman Mazyek of the Central Council of Muslims said the ruling was both “inadmissible” and “outrageous.”

The Cologne ruling centred on the case of a four-year-old Muslim boy, who was circumcised in one of the city’s clinics in November 2010 on the wishes of his parents.

Two days after the operation, the child’s mother took the boy to the accident and emergency unit at Cologne University hospital because he was suffering from severe bleeding. State prosecutors subsequently charged the doctor who had performed the operation.

A lower court found that the doctor had carried out the operation properly and ruled that the child’s circumcision was in his interests as it signified his membership of the Muslim community. However the prosecution appealed to a higher Cologne court which overruled the lower court’s verdict and concluded that circumcision caused bodily harm and was therefore not justified. It was not clear today whether a higher court could overturn the Cologne court's decision.

The Cologne court also took issue with the idea that circumcision was more hygienic and helped to prevent cancer in men. It concluded: “In central Europe there is no necessity to carry out circumcision as a form of preventive medicine.”

The ruling seems certain to provoke further controversy. Circumcision has been a hotly debated topic among German doctors and lawyers for several years. Muslim groups have complained about being discriminated against by critics of circumcision.

[Astron]

I think I agree with that.
I mean shouldn't everyone have the right to decide whether or not they want a part of their body cut off?

[Parsifal]

Here in the US circumcision is routinely performed on newborn boys with (I think) 70% or 80% of newborns receiving the operation.

The result, however, based on my annecdotal evidence, is that many adult circumcised American men experience emotion pain at the loss of their foreskin. Many even resort to foreskin restoration procedures.

My own opinion is that circumcision is a decision that should be left to the individual to make when he is old enough to knowingly make that choice. The exception being medical necessity.

Overruling religious custom is a difficult decision to make, especially here in the US (First Amendment to the Constitution). I'd be inclined to let Jewish and Muslim communities perform the procedure, but no one else except in medical cases. I know many men who are hurt by the decision that was made by their parents when they were infants, but none of them to my recollection were Jewish or Muslim. And I thought that Muslims circumcise their boys around age 10 and not at age 4 as mentioned in the article.

[Astron]

Yeah try to disagree with the Jewish lobby in Germany
Still I don't think religious groups should get any special rights/laws, I mean what message does that sent?

[Struan]

Unless it is life or death why cut off parts of children when they have no say in the matter.

This post has been edited by Struan: Jun 28 2012, 22:34

[Phoenix19]

I don't have a problem with parents who feel entitled to have bits chopped off their vulnerable and defenceless children.....

.....just so long as those same adults don't mind their grown-up children instructing Doctors to chop a few bits off their elderly parents around 40 years later.

This post has been edited by Phoenix19: Jun 28 2012, 18:37

[CyanIsland]

A sensible decision by the German court. It's disgusting that children's rights aren't taken into consideration.

[Parsifal]

I wouldn't be surprised if a firestorm of anti-Semitic (and anti-Muslim) accusations are made. We might hear the word "Aryan" thrown around during this debate.

[Astron]

Oh that's a given. That card is always played.

[nomadwa85]

About time someone had the intellectual honesty to challenge these entitled obscurantists. Why is it so surprising that in 2012 a court of law has declared that one's religious rights do not extend to the physical mutilation of another human being?

Judaism is just as crazy as Islam in this regard. Religious lunacy of two similar stripes.

[nantha]

A sensible decision by the German court. It's disgusting that children's rights aren't taken into consideration.

Agreed. The mutilation of children in the name of religion should be outlawed absolutely; it is a practice that belongs in the dark ages and should have no place in any civilised society.

[ladsnet]

Yep.

When you get to the age where you, yourself, can make an informed decision on whether your god in all his infinite wisdom made a huge cockup by giving you a bit of extra skin on the end of your willy..... then you can decide to get it chopped off.

For someone to decide this for you.. when you are too young to object, is frankly disgusting.
And, as stated above, how this is still allowed in this day and age is beyond me.

I might start a religion where my god decides people with only one ear go to heaven.. so start chopping babies ears off.
I suspect I would end up in a strait-jacket in Broadmoor though.

[AndyJ]

Parents permanently mutilating the genitals of their own baby due to a belief. It's sick and can't believe that it still goes on in this day and age. They should be asked the question at 16 or 18 if they want it to be done.

[stretchmonkey]

I find the whole process absolutely disgusting in a modern civilised world. Sexually mutilating males babies? If we condone that in the West then why not add in female circumcision? After all, there are long religious traditions supporting this practice.

[sanitynotincluded]

I'll be amazed if it doesn't get overturned. from genital mutilation to infanticide, the rights of the innocent are second to the rights of favoured groups.

[your_master]

if boys were supposed to not have foreskins then we would be born without them.

[stevo]

I wouldn't be surprised if a firestorm of anti-Semitic (and anti-Muslim) accusations are made. We might hear the word "Aryan" thrown around during this debate.

... and yet, in the US, circumcision is very much a 'white boy' activity. Far more WASP families routinely circumcise their sons than, say, African Americans do.

Then again, medical necessity aside, circumcising baby boys is nothing less than an outrage if simply carried out for the hell of it, which is precisely what religious (aka mythical mumbo-jumbo) and 'cultural' (aka placeholder for any old shit you like) reasons are.

[jumbler]

I wouldn't be surprised if a firestorm of anti-Semitic (and anti-Muslim) accusations are made. We might hear the word "Aryan" thrown around during this debate.

... and yet, in the US, circumcision is very much a 'white boy' activity. Far more WASP families routinely circumcise their sons than, say, African Americans do.

Is that really true??

Anyway, I like the cut look...

[Parsifal]

I wouldn't be surprised if a firestorm of anti-Semitic (and anti-Muslim) accusations are made. We might hear the word "Aryan" thrown around during this debate.

... and yet, in the US, circumcision is very much a 'white boy' activity. Far more WASP families routinely circumcise their sons than, say, African Americans do.

Is that really true??

No it's not.

Based on my observations in the gym and elsewhere (ahem! ), if you exclude the foreign-born I would guess:
80% of white boys are cut
60% to 70% of black boys are cut
50% of Hispanic boys are cut.

As for WASP families, I understand that New England Irish families did not circumcise (case in point: the Kennedys, JFK was circumcised as an adult for medical reasons. Actually, the Kennedys are Catholic. But close enough? Or not?)

This post has been edited by Parsifal: Jun 30 2012, 02:24

[slayersw]

I agree. I think it's horrific. I'm circumcised, because of problems though, I was about 13/14 glad i was able to make the choice myself. My friend is Jewish and he is cut as well. He was angry that he was.

I reckon it will get overturned. It's wrong that it's still done. I must confess, I do like it when a guy is cut..