German court bans circumcision of young boys

[Orphia Nay]

I sincerely hope he wouldn't be dissuaded by a bunch of irrational extremists. Circumcision = mutilation sure sounds a lot like meat = murder to me....

People against slicing healthy flesh off a baby's genitals are extremists?

Where on earth are you coming from?

 

[Dave Rogers]

I sincerely hope he wouldn't be dissuaded by a bunch of irrational extremists. Circumcision = mutilation sure sounds a lot like meat = murder to me....

A classic form of medieval punishment was cutting off an ear, which I think nobody would regard as anything other than mutilation. Healthy tissue was removed which it was known would not grow back. The appearance of the head was irreversibly changed. However, only a very minor loss of function resulted, as the inner ear was not damaged and the eardrum continued to function; people with ears removed were not deaf. The big differences, as far as I can see, between cutting off an ear and cutting off a foreskin are the fact that the foreskin isn't generally seen, because it's covered by clothing (which casts a poor light on the "he'll look like his dad" reasoning), and the fact that circumcision is not generally seen as a form of punishment. Neither of these differences seems sufficient, to me, to invalidate the term "mutilation". I agree that it's a very small mutilation, but "not very wrong" =/= "right".

Dave

 

[Rolfe]

I think the pulling out of toenails analogy is probably the most valid. Some people do need to have their toenails pulled out in later life because of medical problems - including a friend of mine, so I know what it looks like. The end result is quite acceptable, and her feet don't look gross.

Supposing a society decided, say 80 years ago, to pull out the toenails of all babies in order to protect against ingrowing toenalis and onycholysis and so on in later life. After all, they're too young to remember it, and the pain only lasts a fairly short time, and only a very few infants will develop serious complications from the operation. Toenail-less feet function pretty much OK. Mostly. So better just get it done now and then it won't be an issue.

People start defending their toenail-less condition. Look how hygienic it is! I don't need to bother with all this toenail trimming and I'm not going to get toenail fungus. What's not to like? And if I don't have it done to my kids, they'll get a complex because their feet don't look like Dad's!

And people in countries that never took up the toenail removal procedure sit back in amazement and consider the low incidence of ingrowing toenails and oncholysis, and consider that these things are easily treated in the cases where they do occur, and wonder how on earth a society can justify ripping the toenails out of newborn babies.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Except that every single decision we make for our kids cannot be consented to. As parents, we are forced to make choices for them. Jenny McCarthy aside, we choose to get our kids vaccinated. That modifies their body from millions of years of evolution.

No, it really doesn't. It just lets their body do what millions of years of evolution left it able to do, in the most optimum way possible.

Yes, we do have to make choices for our kids. And vaccination is not 100% safe. It's a risk/benefit analysis. The benefits of vaccination have been well rehearsed and I think we know what they are. In contrast the "benefits" of circumcision are pretty much illusory. That's what making a choice is all about. Weighing up the risks and benefits in an evidence-based manner, not just falling in with some ill-founded mantra.

Once again, I'm not in "America." It's funny, because I often find myself arguing the European side of things to Americans (we Canadians being socialists and all )!

Yes, I did realise that, but I was commenting on the situation in America.

The masturbation thing is interesting, I have to admit, although I don't understand that, because it seems to work just fine, but that's another conversation...

It is interesting. The word is that as a deterrent, it doesn't work. But it seems some people were so keen to find something that might work, they promoted it anyway. It does seem to make is slightly more difficult, from what most people say.

... also, I don't know too many MDs making a tidy little profit off circumcisions around here.

The NHS refused to do the procedure unless there was a medical indication for it. I wonder why your healthcare system coughs up for it?

The reason I am asking about the passion of this issue, is that we've only really started to encounter it around here recently. The few occasions where we've run into an advocate (one I mentioned), it became obvious that the person had other issues. I'm sorry if it's a case of signal being lost in the noise.

I think people do get quite worked up about healthy organs being surgically removed from small children for no discernibly good reason. I can understand it. Men who feel very resentful in later life that this was donw to them without their consent can also get worked up about it and I can see why.

It's a human rights issue, fundamentally. It's quite common to find people passionate about human rights issues. Why do you think people who are neither Jewish nor Moslem (nor Coptic Christian) are passionate about slicing bits off their baby boys?

I think a lot of them are. But it's a different issue. Maiming a child because you believe this is a necessary sacrifice to enter him into the covenant of Abraham is an entirely different issue from "well we just thought we'd get it done and then it wouldn't be an issue later on".

Rolfe.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Supposing a society decided, say 80 years ago, to pull out the toenails of all babies in order to protect against ingrowing toenalis and onycholysis and so on in later life.

This bit is the only part of the analogy I have an issue with. I would phrase it more like, "Supposing a religious sect decided, say 4000 years ago, to pull out the toenails of all babies, society had decided, say 80 years ago, to do the same to protect children from the evils of playing football, and then somebody had hit on the justification qute recently that the practice protected against ingrowing toenails and onycholysis and so on in later life." Your justification for pulling out babies' toenails is actually a lot better reasoned than the justification for circumcision, in that it isn't an obvious ex post facto justification.

Dave

 

[Rolfe]

Yes, I agree. I was over-simplifying.

Rolfe.

 

[jdp]

I'm Canadian. I come from a generation where it was almost universally applied as, "medically necessary." Today in Canada it stands at being applied just under 50%. Overall, this may show a decrease, but still occurs in a significant portion of the population. These stats are from two M.D.s: our doctor and the performing doctor. A quick google search turns up some widely varying stats (and some from dubious sites)

It was my impression that in Canada, the rate is largely dependent on where you live with all places in decline. Coastal regions already have very low rates some interior regions much higher with Alberta the only province that still covers the procedure. Out of curiosity, which part of Canada are you in?

I didn't know about Canada.

The Canadians were almost as big on this as the Americans but they've been curbing the practice starting in the late 80s or so. It's one of those things though that is difficult to stamp out. Both Australia and New Zealand also practiced circumcision in significant numbers. New Zealand has essentially eliminated it and Australia rates have be stubbornly stuck at around 15% overall for the last 10 or 15 years. In both cases, which is what led to the success, doctors took a strong stance against it. US, and to a degree Canadian, doctors are less willing to put their foot down. Some doctors in the US and Canada even still encourage it.

But why? What reasons were being given? Necessary to prevent what?

Given that there are entire countries where nobody who isn't Jewish or Moslem circumcises their sons, where nobody would even think about it, and the men in these countries go through life blissfully unaffected by any dire consequences, how could any healthcare professional seriously take that attitude?

That is the million Dollar, Loonie, Pound? , question. And if anyone has insite on that I'd love to hear and perhaps explore it.

Except that every single decision we make for our kids cannot be consented to. As parents, we are forced to make choices for them. Jenny McCarthy aside, we choose to get our kids vaccinated. That modifies their body from millions of years of evolution.

This is really a poor analogy though. There is a chasm of difference between vaccination and circumcision. I've asked this in the other thread, and haven't gotten a meaninful response. What is it about circumcision that makes it a rational, even a lawful, choice for a parent to make for their child? Similar body modifications like tattoos, ritual scaring, and perhaps even branding, some of which I would argue are less damaging and less risky, would not be permitted. So why do circumcision get a pass?

The masturbation thing is interesting, I have to admit, although I don't understand that, because it seems to work just fine, but that's another conversation...

Well, this was the original justification and you can see how well that went. I suspect the efficacy in other areas are similar.

The reason I am asking about the passion of this issue, is that we've only really started to encounter it around here recently. The few occasions where we've run into an advocate (one I mentioned), it became obvious that the person had other issues. I'm sorry if it's a case of signal being lost in the noise.

How and in what context did you meet this individual?

 

[catsmate]

I think catsmate1 got it mostly right. I would probably quibble slightly on the 'no benefits' because I think that this is a question for an individual and their specific context.

Well no demonstrable medical benefits.

I'd probably change that to non-therapuetic but the long and short of it is that for an infant or child there is simply no reason for circumcision for the large majority of individual boys.

Yes,

It's no more an issue then wondering if you'll have to pull teeth or perform any other type of therapeutic procedure on them. Some small number may need circumcision later in life but that number is very small, just like some small number need an appendix or tonsils removed.

This is an interesting comparison; proponents of circumcision claim medical benefits but don't seem to support routine appendectomy.

Except that every single decision we make for our kids cannot be consented to. As parents, we are forced to make choices for them. Jenny McCarthy aside, we choose to get our kids vaccinated. That modifies their body from millions of years of evolution.

Vaccination has definite benefits. Circumcision does not.

The reason I am asking about the passion of this issue, is that we've only really started to encounter it around here recently. The few occasions where we've run into an advocate (one I mentioned), it became obvious that the person had other issues. I'm sorry if it's a case of signal being lost in the noise.

Perhaps because men are becoming more open and more vocal? And there are some who are pushing for routine infant circumcision in Africa as a HIV preventative, despite the evidence.

 

[pgwenthold]

I feel a bit uncomfortable criticising a father who obviously didn't intend any harm, and isn't driven by dogma, but if that's the level of critical thinking going on when considering the health of America's children, God help them.

Yes, it is reflective of the level of critical thinking that goes on.

Above, we discussed some of the most common justifications that people (in the States, mostly) use. While I appreciate that this thread has mostly stuck to a rational discussion real medical issues, don't think for a second that is representative of the thinking that is applied in the US, which most usually boils down to cultural issues - effectively, "Everyone else is doing it" (I find that odd, since parents basically invented the line about how if all your friends are doing it, that doesn't mean you should, but then again, we know that is lip service, because parents are the worst when it comes to superficial conforming). I came to realize a long time ago that it is completely a cultural phenomenon, and post hoc attempts at medical justifications are simply that - post hoc justification, and not the reason it is done.

Long ago, I started a circumcision thread, not trying to start anything, but because I was flabbergasted when I heard someone say, "We investigated the issue, and concluded there was no reason to do it, but no reason not to, so we did it." I was FLOORED because I couldn't comprehend it. The person concluded there was no reason to do it, but did it anyway? Since when do we do medical procedures for no reason? Remember, I'm not the one saying there was no reason to do it, the other person did, so don't tell me about reasons it should be done. The person did it despite admitting there was no reason to.

What other medical procedure would we do without having a reason to do it? It doesn't matter that there is no reason not to, we just don't run around doing medical procedures for no reason.

But that's what people will do with circumcision.

You won't encounter that in Europe, because the culture doesn't drive circumcision to take place.

 

[Jimbo07]

The insults here are completely unproductive, and I admit I've been playing a role in it. I've basically put forward that grown men who are up in arms about this must have some kind of underlying (mental health/family/relationship) issue. For this, I am sorry, and will henceforth try to refrain from either stating or implying this. Furthermore, I do not live in a jurisdiction where this is considered child abuse, so I'd appreciate it if everyone would abstain from that insult.

...

The interesting thing about the decision making process is that if something is a slam-dunk, there's really no decision to be made. We feel this way about immunization.

With circumcision, had it been clearly abusive, forbidden by law, a cultural taboo, and shunned by our MDs, we would not have had it done. On the other hand, if it were clearly medically necessary, there would be little controversy. On the whole, for a number of factors, including some debated here and some not, we decided that it was the right decision to make for our little guys.

Like pgwenthold, I've been flabbergasted. Not by an excuse, but by the way these threads have taken off! If one comes from a jurisdiction where it's never been pushed, I can see someone asking, "why start?" If, like us, you come from somewhere where it's been more common, you ask, "what's the bother?"

Some of the arguments I've seen against circumcision are decidedly unscientific, such as:

i) Would you want someone to touch your penis? - An obvious appeal to my emotions
ii) The sex is better. - Really? Care to show how a randomized, controlled trial could even be conducted, much less whether one exists?
iii) It's against evolution. - A poor analogy, granted, but vaccinations render it a moot question. Humans obviously do things which are "against evolution." I don't buy this argument in GMO food discussions, and I don't here.
iv) You're a (insert insult here) - Seriously?
v) There's a risk of complications - Get a better MD.

The better arguments are:

a) That it is becoming more commonly seen as less medically necessary.
b) That, at heart, not having one's foreskin removed is a fundamental human right.

The better counter-arguments are:

c) There is some cultural weight to it (culture cannot be discounted entirely, as we have to live somewhere)
d) At heart it's a fundamental parental human right.

The decision making process for conscientious people involves weighing a) through d) (and others, although some private reasons may be brought under d).

 

[Ryokan]

v) There's a risk of complications - Get a better MD.

All surgery, even the most routine, carries a non-zero risk. People have died on the table having their tonsils removed. And even the best MD in the world can't guarantee zero chance of complications or even death during a circumcision.

 

[Rasmus]

Furthermore, I do not live in a jurisdiction where this is considered child abuse, so I'd appreciate it if everyone would abstain from that insult.

I for one won't.

Intentionally hurting your child for no good reason makes you a bad parent. It is child abuse, whether the law has caught on or not.

 

[tsig]

The insults here are completely unproductive, and I admit I've been playing a role in it. I've basically put forward that grown men who are up in arms about this must have some kind of underlying (mental health/family/relationship) issue. For this, I am sorry, and will henceforth try to refrain from either stating or implying this. Furthermore, I do not live in a jurisdiction where this is considered child abuse, so I'd appreciate it if everyone would abstain from that insult.

...

The interesting thing about the decision making process is that if something is a slam-dunk, there's really no decision to be made. We feel this way about immunization.

With circumcision, had it been clearly abusive, forbidden by law, a cultural taboo, and shunned by our MDs, we would not have had it done. On the other hand, if it were clearly medically necessary, there would be little controversy. On the whole, for a number of factors, including some debated here and some not, we decided that it was the right decision to make for our little guys.

Like pgwenthold, I've been flabbergasted. Not by an excuse, but by the way these threads have taken off! If one comes from a jurisdiction where it's never been pushed, I can see someone asking, "why start?" If, like us, you come from somewhere where it's been more common, you ask, "what's the bother?"

Some of the arguments I've seen against circumcision are decidedly unscientific, such as:

i) Would you want someone to touch your penis? - An obvious appeal to my emotions
ii) The sex is better. - Really? Care to show how a randomized, controlled trial could even be conducted, much less whether one exists?
iii) It's against evolution. - A poor analogy, granted, but vaccinations render it a moot question. Humans obviously do things which are "against evolution." I don't buy this argument in GMO food discussions, and I don't here.
iv) You're a (insert insult here) - Seriously?
v) There's a risk of complications - Get a better MD.

The better arguments are:

a) That it is becoming more commonly seen as less medically necessary.
b) That, at heart, not having one's foreskin removed is a fundamental human right.

The better counter-arguments are:

c) There is some cultural weight to it (culture cannot be discounted entirely, as we have to live somewhere)d) At heart it's a fundamental parental human right.

The decision making process for conscientious people involves weighing a) through d) (and others, although some private reasons may be brought under d).

What culture do you live in where you show your penis?

 

[zeggman]

I've met many young girls who thought some sort of lubrication was required for boys to masturbate, because it's often referred to in American movies. They're surprised that this doesn't apply to Norwegian boys, and that they can just grab it and have their fun without any form of preparation..

Uhm, so can American boys. I'm surprised anyone could think otherwise.

 

[Ryokan]

Uhm, so can American boys. I'm surprised anyone could think otherwise.

Not as easily, and from what I understand most prefer to use lubrication. I can't even imagine rubbing my dry and exposed penis head for pleasure. Ouch.

(And if you contend that no one uses it, then I'm curious to know where all those lubrication/masturbation jokes in American moves come from.)

ETA: Googling 'lubrication for masturbation' gives the impression that it's very common, but that you can do without.

 

[Ryokan]

Well, it's not the strangest thing I've googled, I guess.. I found this interesting article on masturbation and lubrication that talks about both cut and uncut penises.

http://www.jackinworld.com/techniques/the-basics/lubrication

Other sites I read also indicates that the success of 'dry' masturbation when you're circumcised depends on how much of the foreskin remains. If you've lost too much of it, you can't.

This short thread on a relevant forum, though anecdotal, talks a bit about it.

 

[Jimbo07]

What culture do you live in where you show your penis?

You know what's funny? I wondered that about both sides. Are boys really comparing them in locker rooms?

Anyway, sorry for touching a nerve about all this here (and again, I brought a lot of it on myself, I admit). It wasn't my intent to hijack this thread. It's been done over and over. Back to the decision...

 

[Rolfe]

From where I'm sitting, you seem to have got that nerve-touching bit the wrong way round....

Rolfe.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Re: "Look like Daddy", boy and adult penises have always looked different, AFAIK.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Not as easily, and from what I understand most prefer to use lubrication. I can't even imagine rubbing my dry and exposed penis head for pleasure. Ouch.

I suppose circumcised penis heads have thicker skin than ours. Makes sense to me, at least.