To think infant circumcision is wrong but also that a total ban on it will not work and is not the most effective way to tackle it?

[Carla786]

On the recent threads after the tragic death of the baby boy who died from circumcision performed by a non medical professional, there have been a lot of calls for a total ban on here.
Now, I think infant circumcision is very wrong. But in practice I do not think a ban will work.
Most cultural circumcisions are performed by medically trained people. Backstreet ones need to be cracked down on with the full force of the law, but they are not typical.
Second, circumcision is key in Islam. However, while most agree it’s either compulsory or strongly recommended, age requirements are not as stringent in mandating someone has to be a minor. I think there is some hope sensitive campaigning within the community could maybe make more families consider leaving it until their son is at least maybe an older adolescent with more ability to choose.
Judaism – circumcision is central to Orthodox, Ultra Orthodox Haredi ofc, and more liberal Masorti and Reform. It is extremely unlikely that any law or external pressure would stop these practices, because brit milah is a covenantal obligation tied to Jewish identity. Attempting a blanket ban would likely trigger defensiveness, fear, maybe underground circumcisions and probably emigration of at least some to Israel or elsewhere, rather than protect children.
Focusing on sterile procedures, trained practitioners, and medical supervision would be more likely to significantly reduce risk. Jews have experienced persecution for circumcision in the past (e.g., Hellenistic bans and European restrictions), so any attempt to criminalise it today can feel existential. This is only heightened by the terrible upsurge in anti Semitism recently.

I agree with sentiments behind calling for a ban - I just thing measures short of a ban are more likely to work.

You keep repeating the same lines without addressing the fact that you keep comparing parental decisions and weighing up risks and benefits to procedures or treatments that have an actual medical need or benefit. We don't need to say mutilating babies is less risky than an adult choosing to get themselves circumcised because actually neither are medically necessary at all. You haven't given a single thought to what people are saying is that it should be in line with any other cosmetic or non therapeutic surgery in that it should require the person to choose it for themselves because they want it and feel it's in their beat interests. There's not a single factual reason that cutting off a part of a child's body is in their best interests at all and we accept this with everything else which is why I asked to comment on the example of cultural facial tattoos
That could be massively important in some cultures but you will not be allowed to tattoo the face of a young baby just because you're their parent so why on earth should you be able to cause them pain by cutting their genitals? The only "reason" is a complete lack of respect for your own child and their agency wrapped up as cultural tradition.

You can be a doctor and not registered with the GMC, you just dont have a licence to practice medicine in the UK.

Which means it's actually illegal to even present yourself as a "doctor" because you don't have a license to practice medicine. Anyone can do whatever backstreet unregulated procedures they want, doesn't make them a "doctor who carries out circumcisions" it makes them a a doctor either without a license or who has lost their license performing unregulated medical procedures while breaking the law by representing themselves as a medical doctor.

I'm all for seeing parents as irresponsible for not vaccinating their children but you seem to not be grasping someone no vaccinating their kid isn't actually doing anything. Yes they're not giving their child a valuable vaccine that would also help the community at large but they're physically not doing anything to their child. It's not comparable to a parent assuming it's their right to cut off a part of their child's body, which in all other circumstances is illegal.

They are just exposing their children to deadly preventable diseases....
A crime of omission.is actually no different to a crime of commission.

I thought this was all about protecting babies from death and harm?

Yes that's right. They cant pretend to be licenced, that's illegal but also there are no requirements for any qualifications to do a circumcision in the UK

If we allow people not to vaccinate their kids then it's illogical to tell them they cant chose circumcision

Babies die of and are damaged by measles, whooping cough and other preventable diseases each year and yet parents are allowed to not vaccinate.
If really is all about saving babies from harm....

So why even reference using a non GMC registered doctors? Any random off the street is also a non GMC registered doctor i.e not a doctor. And anyone willing to let someone who ain't a doctor perform a procedure on their baby in a non medical environment (let alone it not even being therapeutic) doesn't have their child's "best interests" on mind in any way.

Yes but in order to mandate vaccinating their kids we are mandating performing a procedure, that's what you're missing. It's not comparable. Why do you keep ignoring any similar comparison? Why can't someone tattoo their child's face for cultural reasons by that logic?

I'm all for mandating vaccines but I'm also all for banning circumcision. You don't actually care about vaccines you're using them as an excuse for parents to mutilate their kids bodies. Will you support banning circumcision and mandating vaccines?.

Indeed. Its all about the child's safety, right?
Why on earth do parents have the right to leave their kids exposed to preventable diseases which can and do kill and damage them?

What if a parent decided to not feed their baby? That would be ok because you cant force tbem to do anything?

You're thinking up ridiculous hypotheticals with tattoos that dont exist whereas an esteemed group of paediatric experts found a net benefit to circumcision.

Well you're the one arguing for a parent to do whatever they want to their kid right regardless of it causes pain of a suffering.

And no they didn't you just keep repeating misinformation. There is no net benefit to circumcision and you're misinterpreting them recommending it being done to a new born Vs an adult.

Actually I care deeply about vaccines hence the example that comes to mind for me, its a field i have a background in and have seen mother in low income counties desperate to have their kids vaccinated against those diseases misinformed parents in rich counties so casually disregard

With that, I think both circumcision and vaccination are within the realm of parental authority, even i think all children should be fully vaccinated. However, if you think not vaccinating should be illegal as well as circumcision, i would disagree with you on the limits of parental authority but recognise that you have a coherent and non hypocritical viewpoint

American academy of pediatrics found differently

@Soupsavior
In case youre having trouble finding it, I had to look at it again with all the gaslighting that I didn't understand what was written in front of my eyes
publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/130/3/585/30235/Circumcision-Policy-Statement

Thank you but I've read it, and I've read many journals that actually present the health "benefits" in data where it's impossible to argue that circumcising large swathes of the population (without their consent) is actually worthwhile for these "health benefits" which you'll find in many of the UK medical journals. Again, I really don't take the opinion of for profit doctors who routinely circumcise healthy babies for no medical or even religious reasons seriously at all.

Okay so you don't support mandatory vaccines, even though you know the benefits (actual benefits) of those outweigh the risks. I presume by your last sentence this means you do know you hold a hypocritical view when it comes to circumcision so really there's no point debating it with you, you support with without logical reason so nothing logical is going to change your mind.

Re this point: I had no idea about what happened in the channel islands...terrible.

I hope that wouldn't have happened in mainland Britain. But I don't know...

I think there are some notable differences between the Channel Islands & Mainland Britain
The islands were tiny, isolated, and had no real military resistance option as Britain deliberately demilitarised them).
Mainland Britain had a much larger, more integrated Jewish community, stronger institutions, a history of parliamentary resistance to antisemitism, and Churchill's government was notably philo-Semitic in rhetoric.

In February 1943, as part of a larger deportation wave (ordered by Hitler in retaliation for a British commando raid on Sark), several British Jews (or those with British nationality, often through marriage or birth) from Guernsey and Jersey were deported. These were sent to civilian internment camps (Ilags) in Germany, such as Biberach an der Riss, Laufen, and in some cases Wurzach — the same camps where thousands of other non-Jewish Channel Islanders (mostly English-born residents) were held. Conditions were harsh (overcrowding, poor food, uncertainty), but these were not extermination or hard-labour concentration camps like Auschwitz. As a result, all of the British Jews deported in this wave survived the war and were liberated with the other internees in 1945.

This doesn't improve the disturbing cowardice of the cooperation at all. But it does show Guernsey isn't a very exact parallel with Britain.

For anyone who doubts the absolute naivety of Haredi newly-weds please watch this. Some have very little idea of human anatomy. So many of the boys don’t speak or write English and so many of the Yeshivas are not entirely on the radar of Ofsted that this is unlikely to change. The girls are more practical, and more likely to interact with the local community outside of their own. There is not really “one big” Haredi community either, it is fragmented by different congregations who follow slightly different paths, mainly for historical geographic reasons. There is very little doubt that while working towards a complete ban on circumcision, the best way forward for now is to make sure that the procedures that occur are done with best practice with the best possible outcome for the babies of any community.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m002dfcy/storyville-wedding-night

Ignoring the rudeness (maybe you're sore about being shown to be wrong about private hospitals and what the aap is saying), I have said that while I'm passionate about vaccinating all children and have worked in global public health and epidemiolog, i also believe it to be the decision to vaccinate is one parents need to make and it is incumbent on public health professioanls to make the case to them. Thus male circumcision, given the experts stating that it even has a small net benefit, is well within that remit
Perfectly logical imo and other than insults and foot stamping, you haven't demonstrated any logical flaws.

No. But then the Netherlands was less anti semitic than the uk at that time with a successful and integrated Jeiwsh community and look what happened there...
Only Denmark and Bulgaria actually made determined efforts to save their jewish populations.
Ironically circumcision was dangerous then since it was used to identify jewish boys and men. I had a half jewish French boyfriend once who wasn't circumcised because his father had said he never wanted him to be identified as Jewish after the terror of him hiding as a child during ww2. And then people wonder why circumcision is so important to the jeiwsh community! The irony is painful.

Thank you, this looks like a very interesting program.

Is extreme sexual ignorance really standard? I thought there was some degree of instruction re anatomy etc. I have heard some disturbing stuff in articles & it's clear there are definitely at least sometimes issues with sexual education.

I think there are moves to greater oversight of faith schools? I agree it is terrible for boys growing up here to not be able to speak English fluently. I assume most adult Haredi men would be able to at least fairly fluently but the situation is still not acceptable.

Good point re Haredi fragmentation. There is a big spectrum with Satmar one of the strictest and ones like Chabad which are Hasidic but much more open to contact with non-Haredi world.

As you say, there is massive variety within the haredi communities. I know a haredi man who is a doctor so clearly he has a lot of anatomical knowledge 😀I know another haredi woman who is a midwife and obviously same applies to her.
Their children go to (different) Jewish haredi schools but ones which are also academically rigorous for secular subjects.

However, there are more extreme streams in the Haredi community who see secular studies as wasting time from religious studies, mainly for boys for whom this is seen as one of the most important commandments. I agree that not ensuring a minimum standard of secular subjects is failing those boys and taking away any life choices that they might have in the future as, in some cases, they might not even speak English properly despite living in the UK . It's nost just a UK thing, it's even worse in Israel and the US where there is even less oversight of the schools.

However, this is nothing to do with circumcision which is something EVERY Haredi community agrees on as well as orthodox and masorti communities. It's only really questioned and acceptable not to do in liberal Jewish circles.

That's terrible about your friend's father. Yes, the historical resonance of a ban and the effect this would have seem invisible to many people.

On the Netherlands : Roughly 25,000–30,000 Jews went into hiding, and about two-thirds survived because non-Jewish Dutch families hid them.The Netherlands has one of the highest numbers of “Righteous Among the Nations” per capita.
Historians do point to structural and situational factors : The Netherlands had meticulous population registers which made roundups far easier, flat, densely populated country with few forests & mountains(much harder to hide or escape compared to France or Belgium), and direct Nazi control. Denmark and Bulgaria had more autonomy, esp Bulgaria as that was a Nazi ally.
But yes, the tolerant image the Dutch had of themselves is severely shaken by those who did collaborate

You mean two thirds of those hidden survived. Just to be clear.
More than 75% of Dutch Jews were murdered. There were about 140,00 at the beginnign of the war and about 35000 at the end.
Like I said, the Dutch were among the least anti semitic in Europe and look what happened. I have no doubt that the UK would have been similar although withouth the lethal effect of Dutch efficiency.
But, again, it shows just how important circumcison is to Jewish people.