Call for circumcision safeguards after baby death

[SerendipityJane]

No excuse in the UK. Ever.

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

It was in answer to a previous poster.

More a legal question, really. But what would be the situation were a man circumcised as a child wish to pursue some form of compensation from his parents ? The starting point being that as the victim of a unnecessary procedure they will have suffered loss ?

There would be separate civil and criminal dimensions to the question I imagine.

The starting point (I would imagine) is that unlike neglect or inaction which can be hard to judge as a contributory factor, circumcision is a deliberate and planned action.

I’m surprised to find I think you’re right - the one time I saw it the doctor doing it was a qualified senior doctor who also worked for the NHS and did it in a clinic, and the only other providers I’ve heard of have all been at the minimum licensed doctors even if practice is in a home environment.

I guess it’s a bit like tongue tie - in theory you can have a non medically licensed specialist do it (the very well recommended feeding specialist who confirmed it for me with my oldest was able to do it at my home) but I personally couldn’t stomach that and chose both times to wait longer even though my baby wasn’t feeding well / I was in agony and have a trained medical professional do it in a hospital / medical clinic.

What loss will have been suffered?
Unless it's an illegal procedure what grounds would be given?
If circumcision was for medical reasons, and was considered best practice at the time, then how can it be proved that not circumcising was a better option. When I was a child, tonsils and adenoids were whipped out with alarming regularity. This has now fallen out of fashion. It's not the first option. It was done for the best of intentions.

There are over 3.5 million babies born in the US each year. Takes 2 minutes? Around $500? So that’s $1.75 billion dollars for unnecessary treatments

Let's remove medically necessary interventions from the though experiment. Because we can.

Let's imagine an adult male who was forcibly circumcised without consent. What would the starting point be for civil damages ?

Again, surely some loss would have to have occurred for damages to be awarded?

"No significant after care" - assuming all goes well, as we can see it does not in all cases - but what about the after effects?

A STUDY of 5,552 people found that circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men. A growing movement of 'Intactivists' (in America) run survivors groups and seek therapy for problems associated with having been circumcised. There are men seeking ways to restore a version of a foreskin because of chafing etc.

Absolutely agree. Even done by a doctor in a hospital it can go wrong. No excuse ever.

If people continue to do it illegally, everyone involved should be prosecuted. In the same way we would prosecute any other criminal. I don't think it's right to say that there's not point making laws as people will just break them anyway! I do understand that is the argument for things like drug taking, but for things that permanently harm others I can't see that we can just shrug our shoulders and let them get on with it.

Sometimes laws are shit and inhumane. America's abortion laws are shit and inhumane. But just because another country is passing shit and inhumane laws, it doesn't mean that we should just let people continue mutilating their children. Quite the opposite; we should work harder to make sure our laws are better. If the whole of the west gives up and just lets people do whatever the fuck they want as it's easier than trying to stop them, I can't see it ending well. I personally don't feel that a country that allows people to butcher their children because they don't feel capable of stopping them, is on the right path.

I ask again... if you thought your son had problems with his spleen and all the doctors - NHS and private - said he didn't, would have it ripped out regardless at some back alley clinic? That's what you are claiming would happen if elective circumcision was banned, and you are arguing that because there are parents who would behave like this, we should just let them get on with it. With maybe a bit of extra regulation about cleaning the scalpel.

It’s not about “who decides if it’s a medical reason” - it’s fairly obvious that circumcising a newborn who has not had any time at all to develop any potential issues jus for religious reasons is not even pretending to be a “medical reason”. It would be like taking out every baby’s appendix because for some it will cause problems later on.

The whole point of this coroners report is to point out that there are no requirements at all for a licence, qualifications, any form of regulation, etc. That's literally the main point of the linked article.

The Guardian links to the actual CORONER'S REPORT which says:

"During the inquest, the evidence revealed matters giving rise to concern. In my opinion there is a risk that future deaths could occur unless action is taken. In the circumstances it is my statutory duty to report to you.
The MATTERS OF CONCERN are as follows. –
Any individual may conduct a Non-Therapeutic Male Circumcision (NTMC) without any prior training or any Continuing Professional Development (CDP),
There is no system of external accreditation and/or registration for individuals who
conduct a Non-Therapeutic Male Circumcisions (NTMC).
There is no requirement for any record keeping for individuals who undergo a Non-Therapeutic Male Circumcisions (NTMC).
There is no system for consent to be taken prior to a Non-Therapeutic Male Circumcisions (NTMC).
There is no requirement for any infection control measures for a Non-Therapeutic Male Circumcisions (NTMC).
There are no requirements for any aftercare for a Non-Therapeutic Male Circumcisions (NTMC), including but not limited to dressing the wound, analgesia and/or worsening care advice."

@OverlyFragrant oh goodness that's utterly awful !
The pressure of tradition /religion and doing what we are told and think is correct runs deep

Little boy nextdoor had it done when he was three due to issues. White British Christian child. One of my sons nearly had it done for similar reasons, I delayed the procedure as the date we were given was the due date for my second baby. By the time we got a second date he'd grown out of the problem. I feel bad that we thought of doing it.

Well my daughter has Grade IV VUR so we can use a real example here if it helps. We recently had our consultant meeting where it was agreed we wouldn’t do surgery because it has now been found to not actually be beneficial in long term outcomes. The only reason apparently it is worth having is it reduces breakthrough infections if someone is having infections despite being on the prophalytatic antibiotics.

That I am fine with. It seems a sensible weighing of options. However if the consultant had said surgery does resolve issues and improve outcomes. However the nhs will not do it until x damage is done. Then yes of course I would go private. Even to another country if required.

I always assumed it was because the main religions came out of hot, arid places. If you are living somewhere where debris trapped under the foreskin can cause nasty infections and limited water for sanitation it may very well make sense to lop it off. Public health measures dressed up as religious doctrine to ensure compliance.

Weirdoero - you are de-railing.

I am sorry you are having to deal with a current issue with your little boy. But whether you choose private or NHS care the decision will be made on medical merit.

Go to a private Dr with a child with significant foreskin issues - a medical decision will be taken as to whether or not circumcision is of overall benefit.

Go to a private Dr and ask them to cut off your child's earlobes due to your religious beliefs and they will refuse.

Your daughter? So that’s nothing to do with the circumcising of this male child. Stop derailing
and to add my child had surgery at 9 months old, it was the worst time of our lives as dh was at home 50 miles away with our older child. To think people who put themselves through this by choice is fucking incredulous.

Well a sample of one proves....nothing. How old was he when he was circumcised? Was he sexually active before the circumcision because if not he will never know if not being circumcised would have been more satisfying, you certainly don't.

Of course if he had died from complications you might not have known him depending on when it was done.

Public health measures dressed up as religious doctrine to ensure compliance.

The pandemic showed us how dim we are as a society. If some people need to be told a sky fairy says to do something, that's your reason right there.

Personally I'd rather people followed the idea of being nice to each other and not killing one another well before they start obsessing over babies genitals.

He wasn't a sample of one, I've somehow managed to have sex with several men who have been circumcised. Some for religious reasons, some for medical. And I'm sure that we all know if our partner is enjoying sex.

My son nearly had it done at three but due to due date of new baby it was delayed. Six months later he didn't need it done. With a bit of luck your little one might be the same. It is tough and such a relief when he grew out of it.

But if you had listened to your consultant tell you that surgery wouldn't be necessary, and then decided that you knew better and taken your daughter to some illegal clinic to have it done against medical advice, that would be closer to what we're talking about. In your example, you sought a doctor's opinion, and were happy to do whatever they advised. Before, you were arguing that you should be entitled to act against medical recommendation. So if you take your son to the doctor and they say they don't believe he medically requires circumcision, you would just go and do it anyway. Which I would say is not right.

I do of course understand that the NHS is shit, and that if your NHS doctor doesn't take it seriously you may well want to go private. But if your private doctor also agreed it wasn't necessary, would you then remove it anyway? Even if it meant going to an illegal clinic, or abroad?

Nobody is arguing against medically approved circumcision, just elective. Nobody is arguing that your son shouldn't be circumcised if doctors deem it necessary, just like nobody's going to argue that your daughter shouldn't have any surgery a consultant might recommend. But in these examples I am arguing you should not be allowed to just take it upon yourself to operate on your children for no medical reason, whether that's because you think they really do need it, or because your god told you to.

You quoted a sample of one. With all due respect I suspect all your circumcised sexual partners would still be statistically insignificant.

Were they circumcised as babies? If so they can't compare the circumcised/non circumcised experience.

Even if you can prove circumcision isn't detrimental to sexual enjoyment does that justify cutting off part of a childs body? I suspect trimming your earlobes wouldn't affect your enjoyment of sex, shall we do it and see?

I thought the same. Also the restrictions on eating pork, bit risky in a hot country with no refrigeration.