Call for circumcision safeguards after baby death

[SerendipityJane]

No excuse in the UK. Ever.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqj2r8x2k4yo

Well no it’s about circumcision. Of which most posters are saying should be banned or for medical need only. Which knowing our countries nhs makes me a bit nervous. But yes I am posting here solely in my own interest. I can’t see any justification for circumcising a newborn.

Does the baby get any pain relief? Do people use scalpels or scissors? I feel sick thinking about it

I don’t know about prevalence in different ethnicities but it’s not massively rare to have medical issues that lead to circumcision. I think it’s about 2-3% of men (DH was circumcised for medical reasons at about 8yrs old). Maybe nowadays they try more things before going for surgery, I don’t know.

Definitely more likely to be cultural there rather than anything to do with Christianity. My dh was circumcised as a baby in Zambia, it was the culture there at the time, as it was in a lot of Africa. All of his South African mates are circumcised. However as a Dr he’s very against it - unless for a medical need obviously.

If elective circumcision was illegal until boys were medically competent it would end as a practice within one generation.

I believe you mean kosher, seeing as the majority of halal slaughter is identical to usual british slaughter.

As someone married to a Jewish Scandinavian, its also far less common among Jewish and Muslim Scandinavians.

I just wanted to make the point that ear piercing is not remotely comparable to genital mutilation. I’m personally glad to have had it done. It should never be compared FGM/MGM/circumcision/whatever we call it.

On MGM, yes it is common in Africa and the Middle East like pp said due to religion. My M’s sons from her second marriage were all done by a rabbi at home. I was a teen at the time and there was less screaming than expected (local anaesthetic I’m guessing), but I still find it awful and a massive risk to take with a child’s life. Not to mention the expected or desired effects of reduced sensation.

This article highlights exactly why it needs to be restricted and it’s pretty appealing that this isn’t already the case. There was also a news article the other day about the mass circumcisions in South Africa killing dozens of boys.

If you do it with a new born they put numbing cream on and also use a numbing ring block. The one time I saw it performed the newborn didn’t even cry and they cried in plenty of other circumstances.

For general reference, the AAP (the American association of Paediatrics) who have reviewed the practise substantially have concluded that on balance the health benefits (reduced risk of UTI’s, HIV and penile cancer) actually outweigh the risks, just not significantly enough to routinely recommend it.

The WHO/AAP also are clear on why they consider it different to FGM as commonly practised - in circumcision the primary function of the penis remains intact and this is not the case in FGM (at least the manner of FGM largely practiced).

But it wouldn't just be the NHS, if you wanted to go private you could. The only difference would be that you would have to go to a registered doctor who could only say yes if they believed it was medically necessary. Rather than being allowed to just go to the kitchen and get the scissors out. If you went private and the private doctor agreed with the NHS that it was unnecessary, you would not be allowed to do it, anymore than you'd be allowed to remove his spleen if all the doctors believed it unnecessary.

Nobody is arguing that medical circumcision should be illegal, but you're on a thread about a baby who died because his parents basically did get the kitchen scissors out, arguing that you want to be allowed to do the same for your son, even if every doctor tells you he doesn't need it?

That's interesting - so culture, societal pressure (or lack of) and education can work

Yes, as I mentioned up thread I believe a lot of this is cultural rather than religious.

She could and should be struck off. Religion of a nurse has no place in healthcare settings

I’d like to see the evidence that says that there are benefits such as this?

AAP is funding by its members - many make a lot of money from circumcising babies. Paediatricians also pierce babies ears in the USA - I wouldn’t support that either

Are you Christian? Why did she open up that discussion. I'm interested because I have experience of various Christian sects and I've never come across circumcision as being part of their practices.

An awful lot of "religion" is really just culture in glad rags.

A plague on all their houses, to coin a phrase.

Well yes I am on the thread for the main purpose of arguing against banning it. Because that just makes things difficult for everyone. Not on the same level but you can see this in people who need abortions for missed miscarriages in America not getting the care they need because law is interfering in medicine.

But if you want me to comment from the perspective of saving babies lives from dodgy circumcision then no again I dont think making it illegal is likely to help things.

The coroner says there are no national safeguards governing non-therapeutic male circumcision, with no requirements for training, accreditation or registration of those carrying out the procedure, and no rules on record keeping, infection control or aftercare.

Thus the answer is these safeguards. Making it illegal is more likely to drive it into peoples front rooms with the kitchen scissors. Which should absolutely also be prosecuted imo!

it’s Pentecostal or evangelical Christian’s mostly. It’s not going to be CofE.

Licensed? What sort of license? Because Dr can be registered with GMC but other people also carry out circumcision and there is no law saying they need any training or qualification

Circumcision takes two minutes with no significant after care - it seems unlikely to be such a massive money spinner that leading representative of paediatricians in the US are going around colluding to trick a bunch of naive parents into doing it and put their babies at risk. I personally believe that the evidence on both sides is not particularly overwhelming which is why it is left as parental choice and the rates of circumcision tend to come down to cultural (not religious) practices with very low levels in the UK and very high levels in the US.

You of course are completely free to consider your ability to review the medical evidence as vastly superior to those of the qualified paediatricians at the AAP. Parental choice.

My late husband was circumcised, I can truthfully say that it did not seem to be detrimental to his enjoyment of sex. I'll say no more on that.

As I said, I have experience of various sects, which include evangelical (UK - might be different in the US). I've never heard this discussed. According to Google it seems that Christians are only circumcised in order to fit in with the (non-Christian) society in which they live. So I find it very hard to understand the thinking of a Christian nurse in the UK who was trying to encourage this from a Christian pov.

The main “benefits” of circumcision only kick in once the person becomes sexually active- so are not an argument for infant circumcision. Also, apart from a slightly reduced rate of an incredibly rare cancer, are all easily reproducible by good hygiene and the use of condoms.

Bit of a crass 'observation' on a thread about a baby dying?

Circumcision is male genital mutilation. I don't care what people say about their religious beliefs - religion is a choice. A little boy has no idea what religion he wants to follow so his physical being should not be altered in accordance with what his parents/guardians have chosen to believe.

It is a barbaric practice that should globally be banned, unless exclusively for medical reasons.