Today I'm angry about.....

[bobo the clown]

^^ apparently can't get a tattoo until aged 16 (it may even be 18) and the tattooist needs to see proof of age if there's any doubt. A parent cannot even give permission under that age.

I'm sure plenty do, but I recall some parlour being closed down for this recently.

[Prufrock]

There are two issues here:

Firstly there's the medical question. I think Bob slightly over-egged it to say there's no medical evidence, but there's not much. Much like the issues of climate change and animal slaughter, the majority if not all of the "evidence" saying circumcision has health benefits comes in reports commissioned by interest groups or with their support, so I'm far from convinced!

Secondly and more relevant to the point I took Bob to be making, even if you accept there are or may be health benefits such that it should be an option, there can be absolutely no justification for a random untrained fella to be doing it with his nail and sucking the blood out. If at all iit should be in a hospital with trained professionals.

On the issue of ear-piercing I think it technically is illegal though completely ignored. I agree wholeheartedly with the campaign to specifically ban it.

[bobo the clown]

There are two issues here:

Firstly there's the medical question. I think Bob slightly over-egged it to say there's no medical evidence, but there's not much. Much like the issues of climate change and animal slaughter, the majority if not all of the "evidence" saying circumcision had health benefits

I'm sorry ... and I may be on my own here .... but I'm convinced that there is NO conclusive evidence that circumcision has any impact on climate change.

Well. Not much anyway.

[Worthy4England]

There are two issues here:

Firstly there's the medical question. I think Bob slightly over-egged it to say there's no medical evidence, but there's not much. Much like the issues of climate change and animal slaughter, the majority if not all of the "evidence" saying circumcision had health benefits

What happened to "secondly"?

[Worthy4England]

There are two issues here:

Firstly there's the medical question. I think Bob slightly over-egged it to say there's no medical evidence, but there's not much. Much like the issues of climate change and animal slaughter, the majority if not all of the "evidence" saying circumcision had health benefits

I'm sorry ... and I may be on my own here .... but I'm convinced that there is NO conclusive evidence that circumcision has any impact on climate change.

Well. Not much anyway.

[Prufrock]

There are two issues here:

Firstly there's the medical question. I think Bob slightly over-egged it to say there's no medical evidence, but there's not much. Much like the issues of climate change and animal slaughter, the majority if not all of the "evidence" saying circumcision had health benefits

What happened to "secondly"?

I pressed send on my phone too soon! It's there now!

[Bijou Bob]

There are two issues here:

Firstly there's the medical question. I think Bob slightly over-egged it to say there's no medical evidence, but there's not much. Much like the issues of climate change and animal slaughter, the majority if not all of the "evidence" saying circumcision had health benefits

And the second issue?

I can't get my head around parents forcing children to undergo genital mutilation because a line in a 2000 year old book states it's a necessity. It is utterly barbaric, goes against everything I believe in terms of self determination, freedom of choice and basic human rights.

[Prufrock]

There are two issues here:

Firstly there's the medical question. I think Bob slightly over-egged it to say there's no medical evidence, but there's not much. Much like the issues of climate change and animal slaughter, the majority if not all of the "evidence" saying circumcision had health benefits

I'm sorry ... and I may be on my own here .... but I'm convinced that there is NO conclusive evidence that circumcision has any impact on climate change.

Well. Not much anyway.

I'm glad you accept it kills animals though!

[Prufrock]

There are two issues here:

Firstly there's the medical question. I think Bob slightly over-egged it to say there's no medical evidence, but there's not much. Much like the issues of climate change and animal slaughter, the majority if not all of the "evidence" saying circumcision had health benefits

And the second issue?

I can't get my head around parents forcing children to undergo genital mutilation because a line in a 2000 year old book states it's a necessity. It is utterly barbaric, goes against everything I believe in terms of self determination, freedom of choice and basic human rights.

There are two issues here:

Firstly there's the medical question. I think Bob slightly over-egged it to say there's no medical evidence, but there's not much. Much like the issues of climate change and animal slaughter, the majority if not all of the "evidence" saying circumcision has health benefits comes in reports commissioned by interest groups or with their support, so I'm far from convinced!

Secondly and more relevant to the point I took Bob to be making, even if you accept there are or may be health benefits such that it should be an option, there can be absolutely no justification for a random untrained fella to be doing it with his nail and sucking the blood out. If at all iit should be in a hospital with trained professionals.

On the issue of ear-piercing I think it technically is illegal though completely ignored. I agree wholeheartedly with the campaign to specifically ban it.

[Worthy4England]

I wouldn't allow my daughter to have her ears pierced (or a tattoo) until she was 18. Then, her pick. I don't think you can pick and choose which mutilations to allow. Either you're against them or you're not.

[Bijou Bob]

Oh and Bobo is wrong on the issue of circumcision affecting climate change. Have you any idea how much fossil fuel it takes to incinerate umpteen million foreskins every year??!

[Prufrock]

I wouldn't allow my daughter to have her ears pierced (or a tattoo) until she was 18. Then, her pick. I don't think you can pick and choose which mutilations to allow. Either you're against them or you're not.

Totally agree in principle, with the caveat that if something has proven medical benefits it can no longer be considered a "mutilation". It's indisputable for example that circumcision is justified in specific cases as treatment for specific conditions and so would be perfectly acceptable as a medical procedure to treat phimosis for example. The issue is whether it's justified as a general preventative procedure. The only quibble I have with Bob's initial post is that I think there is "almost no" evidence that it has health benefits as a general preventative measure, rather than "no"!

There is also an argument (specious in my opinion) that having it done when the child is very young is far less painful and traumatic than when they are older. No justication IMO!

[thebish]

There are two issues here:

Firstly there's the medical question. I think Bob slightly over-egged it to say there's no medical evidence, but there's not much. Much like the issues of climate change and animal slaughter, the majority if not all of the "evidence" saying circumcision had health benefits

And the second issue?

I can't get my head around parents forcing children to undergo genital mutilation because a line in a 2000 year old book states it's a necessity. It is utterly barbaric, goes against everything I believe in terms of self determination, freedom of choice and basic human rights.

I agree with you - except that an awful lot are not really doing it because a line in a 2000 year old book states it's a necessity. (aboriginals certainly aren't, and a heck of a lot of Americans aren't!) I suspect this was a widespread ancient practice - probably health related in their world-view (not a religious thing) that BECAME associated with Judaism (but also continued in other groups/cultures) and has now (in parts of America) reverted to being basically a cultural thing - or a habitual thing whislt also being a religious thing for others...

I am generally against bodily mutilation without consent - and this seems very much to fit that!

as you point out in your original post - it is a very different issue from FGM even though on the surface it might seem to be the same thing. Also - there is a massive political dimension to this in America as nobody wants to piss off the Jewish lobby...

[thebish]

Oh and Bobo is wrong on the issue of circumcision affecting climate change. Have you any idea how much fossil fuel it takes to incinerate umpteen million foreskins every year??!

no - not having that... everyone knows they are made into purses - when you rub them, they grow into handbags...

[Worthy4England]

Oh and Bobo is wrong on the issue of circumcision affecting climate change. Have you any idea how much fossil fuel it takes to incinerate umpteen million foreskins every year??!

no - not having that... everyone knows they are made into purses - when you rub them, they grow into handbags...

I'm surprised we got this far without a Lemuel and bacon slicer joke.

[Worthy4England]

I wouldn't allow my daughter to have her ears pierced (or a tattoo) until she was 18. Then, her pick. I don't think you can pick and choose which mutilations to allow. Either you're against them or you're not.

Totally agree in principle, with the caveat that if something has proven medical benefits it can no longer be considered a "mutilation". It's indisputable for example that circumcision is justified in specific cases as treatment for specific conditions and so would be perfectly acceptable as a medical procedure to treat phimosis for example. The issue is whether it's justified as a general preventative procedure. The only quibble I have with Bob's initial post is that I think there is "almost no" evidence that it has health benefits as a general preventative measure, rather than "no"!

There is also an argument (specious in my opinion) that having it done when the child is very young is far less painful and traumatic than when they are older. No justication IMO!

That's about where I'm at with it.

[Montreal Wanderer]

I wouldn't allow my daughter to have her ears pierced (or a tattoo) until she was 18. Then, her pick. I don't think you can pick and choose which mutilations to allow. Either you're against them or you're not.

Totally agree in principle, with the caveat that if something has proven medical benefits it can no longer be considered a "mutilation". It's indisputable for example that circumcision is justified in specific cases as treatment for specific conditions and so would be perfectly acceptable as a medical procedure to treat phimosis for example. The issue is whether it's justified as a general preventative procedure. The only quibble I have with Bob's initial post is that I think there is "almost no" evidence that it has health benefits as a general preventative measure, rather than "no"!

There is also an argument (specious in my opinion) that having it done when the child is very young is far less painful and traumatic than when they are older. No justication IMO!

That's about where I'm at with it.

I'm there as well. In my initial post I said I would leave aside my personal views. However, I do tend to agree with my friend and former colleague, Margaret "Margo" Somerville, a medical ethics academic lawyer, who believes that circumcision for religious reasons should be considered technical criminal assault. She has written extensively on the subject including a chapterin her book the Ethical Canary. Some of the response she got when she reaped the whirlwind was hysterical accusations of being a Catholic anti-Semite, other parts were more rational. I was present for many a discussion in the Faculty Club with Margo and those who disagreed.

I don't know about the research being paid for by the pro-circumcision lobby group. The American Academy of Pediatrics should be above that sort of thing. While Jews and Muslims may produce doctors in greater proportion to their numbers than Christian America, they are still far out-numbered in the ranks of pediatricians. Against this Bob quotes the NHS, although I would like to see the source and context. I was only able to uncover the following:

There are several potential advantages and disadvantages associated with circumcising boys shortly after they are born.

For example:
•Circumcision may reduce the risk of developing a urinary tract infection (UTI), such as a bladder infection.
•Circumcision may reduce the risk of getting some types of sexually transmitted infections, such as HIV and genital herpes.
•Circumcision may reduce the risk of female partners developing some types of sexually transmitted infections, such as bacterial vaginosis and trichomoniasis.
•Circumcision may reduce the risk of developing cancer of the penis.

However, there are much more effective and less invasive ways of preventing these conditions. For example, practising good hygiene to prevent UTIs, or using a condom to prevent STIs.

Read about when circumcision may be necessary for more details.

Most healthcare professionals maintain that the potential benefits of circumcision are not strong enough to justify routine childhood circumcision. Critics of circumcision argue that it has disadvantages, such as:
•Reduced sensitivity – an uncircumcised penis is more sensitive than a circumcised penis, meaning that circumcised men may experience less pleasure during sex.
•Potential complications of circumcision – these include excessive bleeding, post-operative infection and, in rare cases, injury to the urethra. These complications are thought to outweigh any potential benefits.

Critics have also argued that routinely circumcising baby boys on medical grounds violates the principle of consent to treatment. They say that circumcision should only be performed when a boy is old enough to make an informed decision about whether he wishes to be circumcised.

From NHS Choices.

Note they say exactly the same as the AAP using much the same language. The "potential benefits are not strong enough...." is not the same as 'no medical benefits' IMHO. I would like to see Bob's source for that extreme view as, frankly, the debate is an important one and I would like evidence to strengthen my view.

[Bruce Rioja]

Firstly there's the medical question. I think Bob slightly over-egged it to say there's no medical evidence, but there's not much. Much like the issues of climate change and animal slaughter, the majority if not all of the "evidence" saying circumcision has health benefits comes in reports commissioned by interest groups or with their support, so I'm far from convinced!

Here you go again, Know All. Has it ever entered your head that some people are circumcised for medical reasons? Thought not. I am.

[bobo the clown]

^^^^ NOW you have to tell us what those "medical reasons" are.

.... & frankly I'm not sure I'm up to knowing.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Worthy mentioned more than 50% in America are circumcised. I have no idea about the comparative UK stats. However, in the 1950s when I was a school in Hale, Cheshire one quick way of selecting teams for our various games was simply to play Roundheads against Cavaliers. The teams came out surprisingly equal although I doubt our Jewish pupil population was above 5%.