Circumcision divide between Denmark and Israel

[shaarona]

Circumcision divide between Denmark and Israel

Denmark may soon be the first country in the world to issue a ban on non-therapeutic circumcision of boys. Meanwhile, Israel tries hard to block changes that are broadly perceived in Europe as a clear step forward in children's human rights.

In two fresh statements, Danish doctors express deep concern over ritual circumcision of boys. The Danish Society of Family Physicians, whose 3,000 members include two thirds of all general practitioners in Denmark, announced in December that circumcision of underage boys with no proper medical indication is nothing short of mutilation. In a separate statement, the overarching Danish Medical Association recommended earlier this week that non-therapeutic male circumcision should wait until the boy or young man is old enough to provide informed consent. An editorial in Jyllands-Posten, the second largest national newspaper in Denmark, urged the Danish government yesterday to ban ritual circumcision of underage boys, and a result poll among readers of BT, another large national newspaper, showed that 87 percent of well over 26,000 votes were in favour of such a ban.

Not surprisingly, Israel has a quite different view on this matter. In December 2013, an Israeli delegation of Knesset politicians travelled to Paris in an attempt to overturn a visionary, human rights-based resolution that was passed by a comfortable majority of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) on 1 October 2013. The PACE resolution 1952 recommends that member states start moving towards abolishing all kinds of physical assaults on children, including non-therapeutic circumcision of boys and girls. The Council of Europe is the continent’s leading human rights organization with a current total of 47 member states, each of which has signed the European Convention of Human Rights. Israel is neither a member, nor has it signed the European Convention of Human Rights but, since 1957, Israel has held observer status in the Council of Europe.

In the Israeli media, readers have repeatedly been told that the widely-held European stance against ritual circumcision is rooted partly in anti-Semitism, and partly in fear of an expanding Muslim population in Europe. Such anti-religious rhetoric is unjustified. The vast majority of Europe’s opponents of ritual circumcision are religiously tolerant, but consider cutting off an important part of a non-consenting, healthy child’s genitals to be contrary to modern ethics. This view was clearly expressed in September 2013 in a common statement of the ombudsmen and spokespersons for children in Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Greenland and Denmark. To most Europeans circumcision is an ethically problematic ritual that is intrinsically harmful to children: every child has the right to protection of his or her bodily integrity and the right to explore and enjoy his or her undiminished sexual capacity later in life.

Infant circumcision’s negative long-term impact on human sexuality has been recognized by Jewish authorities for ages. Scholars like Philo of Alexandria (appr. 20 BC - 50 AD) and Moses Maimonides (1135-1204) knew well that reduced penile sensitivity was not an unfortunate side effect of the brit milah; rather it was part of the point: to diminish the animalistic sexuality of men. It takes more than a strongly media-promoted literature review by the world’s leading circumcision advocate, Brian Morris of Sydney University, to eradicate the bulk of scientific evidence and several thousands of years of knowledge. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive part of a boy’s penis and thereby diminishes his sexual sensitivity for the rest of his life. In October 2013, the Nordic Association of Clinical Sexologists stated that the bodily injury associated with circumcision is a violation of the boy’s sexual autonomy.

The head of the Israeli circumcision delegation, Reuven Rivlin (Likud Beytenu), has repeatedly referred to a series of highly questionable benefits from circumcision. His source of information is a 2012 policy paper on the topic by the American Academy of Pediatrics. However, Rivlin has unfailingly forgotten to inform readers that this policy paper has been seriously criticized for cultural bias by pediatric societies, general medical associations and 38 medical professors, doctors and researchers from 17 countries across Europe and Canada. Unlike their US colleagues, European doctors do not accept the postulated health benefits of circumcision as being well-documented, including the claimed reduction in risks of urinary tract infections, sexually transmitted infections, HIV/AIDS and penile cancer. And, importantly, even if the claims were valid, they would still not constitute a compelling argument for circumcising boys before an age at which they can make the decision themselves.

Moreover, while parents are generally told that circumcision is a safe and painless procedure, the truth is that no available local anesthetic is able to provide pain relief, but only some level of pain reduction, and even the most efficient method has a failure rate of six to eight percent. Additionally, a non-trivial proportion of boys – five percent according to a recent Danish study - will experience significant procedural or post-operative complications, even when the operation is carried out by experienced pediatric surgeons in a university hospital. In rare instances, complications can be fatal. This little-heard of, but well-known fact is the humane Talmudic reason for permitting Jewish parents to forgo circumcision of their son if two older brothers died as a result of the procedure.

On January 27, a motion for a new resolution, conceived by the Knesset’s circumcision delegation to marginalize the recently passed PACE resolution, will be discussed in the Bureau of the Council of Europe. If successful, it will lead to a new debate and a new vote in the Parliamentary Assembly during the spring of 2014. Hopefully, the Bureau of the Council of Europe will have the resolve to stand up for children’s rights, despite this pressure.

continued.

http://cphpost.dk/news/circumcision-...rael.8440.html

[jillian]

anti-semites have always liked opposing circumcision. it enables identification of jews.

otherwise, they'd worry about their own decisions.

just saying.

[shaarona]

anti-semites have always liked opposing circumcision. it enables identification of jews.

otherwise, they'd worry about their own decisions.

just saying.

Muslims and Christians are also circumcised.

[jillian]

Muslims and Christians are also circumcised.

christians aren't circumcised as a function of religious tradition.

i didn't see your article refer to muslims. it intentionally referred to israel.

[shaarona]

christians aren't circumcised as a function of religious tradition.

i didn't see your article refer to muslims. it intentionally referred to israel.

In the Israeli media, readers have repeatedly been told that the widely-held European stance against ritual circumcision is rooted partly in anti-Semitism, and partly in fear of an expanding Muslim population in Europe.

Such anti-religious rhetoric is unjustified. The vast majority of Europe’s opponents of ritual circumcision are religiously tolerant, but consider cutting off an important part of a non-consenting, healthy child’s genitals to be contrary to modern ethics. This view was clearly expressed in September 2013 in a common statement of the ombudsmen and spokespersons for children in Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Greenland and Denmark.

(I think the issue is circumcision not religion)

[Common]

Im not a jew and im circumsized and I still go to a gym and all I see are circumsized men. Most men are circumsized.

[Captain Obvious]

anti-semites have always liked opposing circumcision. it enables identification of jews.

otherwise, they'd worry about their own decisions.

just saying.

Catholics are circumcised also. Part of my "Catholic" upbringing.

For the record, I want my foreskin back!!!

[Heyduke]

Point #1: A hospital is a good place to get an infection, whatever the procedure. And a village hut in Africa is probably not the most sterile of operation venues. Point #1 is going to contradict the rest of my points.

Contrary to prevailing attitudes, circumsision is not a backwards religious rite. Desert nomads, like the ancient semetic peoples, travel through deserts where bathing opportunities are few. A man with sand inside his foreskin is a very grumpy man, indeed. In modern times, uncircumsized American soldiers who fought in the North African theater had a much higher frequency of nasty crank irritations.

American medical associations and med schools have since the 1970s taught that there is no health benefit to being circumsized. Today, despite the new research, they defend that belief as if it were a dogmatic tenet of their fundamentalist religion. Some studies have simply been defunded before completion, as the numbers were not in their favor.

"Implementation of male circumcision (MC) for HIV prevention in sub-Saharan Africa remains disappointingly slow despite its proven efficacy of greater than 60% based on the results of three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in the region [1-3]. These data received support from a Cochrane review [4] and confirm more than two decades of data from observational studies [5]. An as-treated meta-analysis for the 15 observational studies that adjusted for potential confounders gave a summary risk ratio indicating a protective effect of 65% that was identical to the initial findings from the three RCTs [6,7]. Another meta-analysis of the RCT data reported a relative risk reduction of 56%"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3207867/

I go on extended backpacking trips where the hygene isn't that great. My circumsision is an advantage, to say nothing of a possible zombie apocalypse scenario .

Think about it rationally. Use your education in biology class. Germs love warm, dark, wet environments. And if you have a shmeg pocket on the end of your unit, it harbors more germs. That can especially be a negative for your intimate partner, and could aid in the transmition of anything from uninary tract infection to STDs.

[Mainecoons]

Circumcision is an obvious public health practice that was adopted by religion. I'm Catholic also and was circumcised. Oh, and Jillian?

Catholics are Christians. Once again, another one of your "fact" statements is made up.

[Common]

Where did she say catholics arent christians ?? show us