Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Circumcision: A Social Status in the UK ?

999 replies

Amazonia · 25/04/2014 09:06

Curiously in the UK, circumcision is now a matter of social class. While the "ordinary" folks rarely circumcise, circumcision is prevalent in the upper class as well as in the Royal family.

OP posts:
mathanxiety · 29/04/2014 17:06

Ear piercing or cutting notches is not a matter of consent and it happens a lot, because there are very few ill effects directly related to the procedure itself, even when cartilage is involved, and no loss of hearing or effect on the primary function of the organ.

Your belief that circumcision has no medical benefits doesn't hold water.

Martorana · 29/04/2014 17:10

"Ear piercing or cutting notches is not a matter of consent and it happens a lot"

I don't understand. Yes, it does happen a lot. So does circumcision. They are both wrong, and are very much matters of consent.

baggins101 · 29/04/2014 17:11

PigletJohn said: "I see you are both going for the "small things don't count" option.

So, for example, you would say that cutting off a toe was not mutilation, is that right?

Or cutting notches into the ears?"

No. More like removing teeth from a child in order to fit a brace.

FanFuckingTastic · 29/04/2014 17:16

Okay, so is circumcision okay for medical matters, or should I consider my son mutilated? He was three, there were medical reasons, obviously I had to consent for him, and it was a difficult decision to make, but as his father had been circumcised for the same problem and knowing the difficulties he had, I felt I saved him a lot of pain with the procedure.

Reading this is a bit of an eye opener.

Martorana · 29/04/2014 17:19

As everyone has said, there are occasions when circumcision is medically necessary. That is not what this thread is about.

Original poster
Amazonia · 29/04/2014 17:25

Sorry but there is a bunch of stupid remarks in here !!!!

You are saying that circumcision is a mutilation if it is the parents that decide for it

And it is NOT a mutilation if it is a doctor that decides for it.

So when someone gets his arm chopped of at the hospital, I believe you would not call that mutilation since it was done at the hospital by a doctor????

See how ridiculous the whole thing is????

OP posts:
Martorana · 29/04/2014 17:28

You may have noticed that I for one don't use the word "mutilation" about circumcision.

But yes, actually- if somebody's arm was hacked off by an attacker that would be mutilation- a medically necessary amputation wouldn't be.

However, I return, as ever, to the matter of consent. Babies can't consent.

baggins101 · 29/04/2014 17:36

Martorana said: "No, they don't. Because they are necessary medical procedures. Not surgical procedures that have no benefit to the baby at all."

Can you please clarify for this thread; would you be shouting about "consent" if a parent posted that their 12 year old child had two teeth removed and a brace fitted to straighten them up?

Martorana · 29/04/2014 17:44

Baggins, I believe, unlike you, that a 12 year old is capable of consenting to medical/dental procedures.

PigletJohn · 29/04/2014 17:44

Baggins says that cutting off a toe, or notching ears, is not mutilation.

I disagree.

Martorana · 29/04/2014 17:44

And I am not "shouting" about consent- I am talking quietly and calmly about it.

FanFuckingTastic · 29/04/2014 17:51

So it's only mutilation if you do it for cosmetic reasons? I guess I can see that. I do get worried that my son will resent me for making the decision for him when he was so young, but having been with his father and seeing the difficulties he had, and the difficulties my son was having, I just felt it was the correct choice. Same as his tonsils and adenoids.

baggins101 · 29/04/2014 17:59

PigletJohn said: "why do you object to the use of the word "mutilation" to describe cutting off a non-faulty part of the human body?"

Primarily because circumcision isn't mutilation. Also because it is inflammatory and designed to shock in a way that is completely inappropriate for a procedure which even the NHS acknowledges has some benefits.

If you wish to justify your use of such a ridiculous adjective for circumcision then it is for you to prove that circumcision necessarily causes significant harm, as a genuine "mutilation" would.

If you can't do that (and you can't) then it must be assumed you use the word to deliberately provoke others. Which is called "trolling".

mathanxiety · 29/04/2014 18:03

Ear piercing or cutting notches can be done to babies and children under the age where they can consent, and it does happen a lot. Maybe notching ears isn't something you see much of, but it certainly isn't mutilation. The ear remains perfectly fine for hearing with in either case.

How is it 'wrong' to have a baby's ears pierced? I am not talking about matters of personal taste or your personal beliefs here.

baggins101 · 29/04/2014 18:03

PigletJohn said: "Baggins says that cutting off a toe, or notching ears, is not mutilation.

I disagree."

While I am quite happy to trade insults with you, I am not willing to accept you making claims I have said things I haven't.

Withdraw this comment please.

Martorana · 29/04/2014 18:14

"How is it 'wrong' to have a baby's ears pierced? I am not talking about matters of personal taste or your personal beliefs here."

Because the baby is unable to consent. It is a permanent change to a person for no medical reason that they are unable to consent to. So it is wrong.

baggins101 · 29/04/2014 18:18

Mortarana said: "Baggins, I believe, unlike you, that a 12 year old is capable of consenting to medical/dental procedures."

Convenient. What about an 8 year old with a birth mark on his face? If he capable of consenting to cosmetic surgery?

Or a 6 year old with a birth mark on his face?

Or an 8 year old girl having her ears pierced at her mother's suggestion?

Of course you realise I have already argued that any parent with a half dcent relationship with their child can convince them to have a brace fitted (and the necessary teeth removed), which I would argue is stretching the consent of "consent" to the limit.

What about 8 year old Muslim boys being circumcised? Have they consented?

It does seem to me that you reserve your issue of consent exclusively for things you don't approve of!

Martorana · 29/04/2014 18:27

"It does seem to me that you reserve your issue of consent exclusively for things you don't approve of!"

No I don't. I reserve it, for non medically necessary surgical procedures, for people old enough to consent.

baggins101 · 29/04/2014 18:27

Martorana

I would like to ask you about my son. He was five when he was circumcised. He wanted to be circumcised. Of course he had never even thought of it before I told him about it but it wasn't difficult to persuade him.

Am I OK since he wanted to have it done?

You seem to think if he was 12 when I persuaded him that would be fine. (Not that it is much more difficult to persuade a 12 year old) but what if he was 8 when I persuaded him? Or 9?

I am struggling to understand your concept of consent.

Martorana · 29/04/2014 18:31

No, I don't think your 5 year old could consent, and you were wrong to persuade him. The removal of a birth mark could be considered medically necessary if it is causing the child distress, but not otherwise.

I reckon 12 is the earliest a child could give informed consent to a non medically necessary procedure. I don't know why you seem to find this such a difficult concept to understand.

PigletJohn · 29/04/2014 18:35

PJ said: So, for example, you would say that cutting off a toe was not mutilation, is that right?
Or cutting notches into the ears?"

Baq said: No. More like removing teeth from a child in order to fit a brace.

I can see the word "no." Did you mean, no, it is not mutilation? Or do you mean that cutting off or disfiguring a small part of a body is mutilation?

baggins101 · 29/04/2014 18:43

Mortarana said: "The removal of a birth mark could be considered medically necessary if it is causing the child distress, but not otherwise."

I see. Forward planning doesn't enter it, eh. If he is not distressed NOW you will not get the birth mark removed. Live for the moment!

Fair enough. I subscribe more to the view that as a parent it is my job to act in the best long term interests of my child. Which is why I get them to do homework.

Martorana · 29/04/2014 18:56

If the birthmark is not causing distress, if possible removal should be left until the child can consent. Particularly if it will involve skin grafts, which can leave scarring. However, the cases are not compatible. A birthmark is not a normal, healthy part of the human body. Unlike the foreskin. Which is.

baggins101 · 29/04/2014 19:04

PigletJohn said:

I see you are both going for the "small things don't count" option.

So, for example, you would say that cutting off a toe was not mutilation, is that right?

Or cutting notches into the ears?

To which I replied, "No."

Which leads you to feel justified posting:

"Baggins says that cutting off a toe, or notching ears, is not mutilation.

I disagree."

Was this meant to be a joke?

mathanxiety · 29/04/2014 19:53

Permanent hole in an earlobe that does no harm and can be used any time in life to put an earring through, if put there at 11 years, 11 months and 30 days at the behest of a parent is not ok but once a child turns 12 then it is fine, not wrong, not mutilation?

If something is wrong because it is going to have a permanent effect and is not medically necessary and is done without proper consent, then it is surely always wrong? What about inoculations against diseases that most children recover from and gain immunity against by dint of having the disease? There are parents who do not believe shots are necessary, and some who believe they will actually do harm to their children because of the aluminium adjuvants that are administered along with the part of the jab that will confer immunity.