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.

Where was I rude? And neither was I won't abor private hospitals or the AAP - You just refuse to actually respond or engage in any critique of them as well as ignoring the relevance of doctors falsely representing themselves while actually unlicensed to practise OR call themselves a doctor, performing circumcisions just as you ignore the cognitive dissonance of claiming to have a child's best interests at heart while allowing an unlicensed doctor to perform a medical procedure or a licensed doctor breaking his license to perform it, while also causing your child and immense amount of pain for no medical benefit. I'm sure you'll repeat your American statement despite the British national health are system no longer performing them because of the lack of therapeutic benefit and the large amount of complications and litigations following them.

Its like a broken record.

Nhs doesn't do it for the same reason they dont do many elective procedures. I dont why you say 'no longer' when I dont believe the NHS has ever routinely performed them and theres nothing reason to think why this would attract litigation or complications. If you have any evidence or links showing the reason why a specific nhs trust stopped performing non therapeutic circumcision, i would be interested to see that.

And licenced doctors can and do perform non therapeutic circumcision in the UK in private hospitals. As i showed you already.

And I think there should be regulation and that its nuts that it's unregulated and that anyone can do it anywhere.

And yes aap recommendations are very important even if you dotn agree with their assessment of the evidence so I will indeed refer to them as they are consequential and show that there is no medical consensus that this causes a child any net harm and many who say a net benefit.

It is very simple .... either lopping bits off babies with no medical need for it is OK or it isn't.
As far as I am concerned it is not and the excuse of religion/ culture is irrelevant.
Our law needs to protect babies. End of.

So first let's make not vaccinating babies against deadly preventable diseases illegal. If our law needs to protect babies. End of.

I do not think the two things equate in any way.

Well, one is infestimably more dangerous and harmful, has no benefit and is not recommended by any medical body of experts in the world based on the evidence.

The other is very safe (when done safely) and one of the world's most esteemed bodies of pediatrician found it had a net benefit (albeit very limited).

So if you think the law should save babies then first make not vaccinating a baby for the deadly preventable diseases a criminal act.

Either you want to protect babies or you dont

Stopped reason after this : Nhs doesn't do it for the same reason they dont do many elective procedures. I dont why you say 'no longer' when I dont believe the NHS has ever routinely performed them and theres nothing reason to think why this would attract litigation or complications

Because you clearly haven't bothered to read the British medical journals and statements about urologists or the data that NHS trusts who did routinely offer it for non therapeutic reasons stopped because of the excessive litigation following complications. And these were circumcisions performed within a hospital trust.

If you refuse to actually look at any of the relevant data for the UK and you aren't going to change your mind anyway, stop arguing.

They really don't. PP keeps trying to say other parents can harm their baby is X way so why can't others harm theirs with circumcision without realising most reasonable people are saying no one should be able to harm their baby in anyway 🙄

The difference is between taking an active step to harm a baby with no good reason and taking a decision NOT to do do something that is likely to help a child.
They are worlds apart.

Absolutely not if you are actually interested in protecting babies.
We require parents to feed their babies adequately.
And, yes, not vaccinating HARMS babies, although I like the word twisting to 'help'. Vaccinating protects a baby's life, not vaccinating leads to a high risk of deaht and damage.

Circumcising has a net benefit according to a review conducted by an esteemed body of experts so therefore your contention of harm is not universally supported either. There is no such equivocation by any professional body on vaccination. Not vaccinatig against measles is harmful and dangerous, for the unvaccinated child and other children too. End of. .

Except an esteemed body of experts has found that circumcision doesn't harm babies.
And a crime of omission is the same as a crime of comission - if protecting babies is the main issue at hand.
I am entirely reasonable, highly educated, have a background in public health and epideiology, and enitrely able to critically evaluate evidence but - guess what - have a different perspective and conclusion to you.

@sabababa whos the esteemed panel? How did the ask the babies?

I have looked. I found only discussions around costs.
Please do link to these papers and i will read them with interest.

If you are't going to change your mind, you stop arguing.

American Academy of Paediatrics
You can read their position paper here: https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/130/3/585/30235/Circumcision-Policy-Statement?autologincheck=redirected

Also Centers for Disease Control (athough less relevant in scope)
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5478224/#B1

You may disagree with their assessment but it is clear that they are experts in this area and their assessment is important and consequential and demosntrates that there is not medical consensus that this is actually harmful.

The facaetious "did they ask the babies" makes me think you're not really interested in the evdience since obviosuly parents make the decisions about what they say in the best interest of their babies all the time without asking them.

@sabababa you are missing the point. The AMERICAN academy of pediatrics seems to think it's, at best, neutral.

We are not in America, and you are unlikely to convince most people here, other than some who follow certain branches of certain religions, that performing an unnecessary, painful and potentially lethal procedure on babies is anything other than morally abhorrent.

We stand by our point though regarding religion not being a good reason. The religious communities who practice this will naturally be in opposition. It does not mean they are correct. 'oh but it's super important to our religion', honestly, tough shit. Religion does not trump the right to bodily integrity.

Are you going to honestly say you don't think it causes babies pain? And that there's nothing inherently harmful about performing a procedure on a non sterile environment that exposed the baby to potential infections?

All the recorded complications that urologists are concerned about in the UK all just made up I suppose. Just a coincidence that we don't have a for profit healthcare system and so surprisingly pediatricians don't circumcise almost half their infant patients.

You also keep refusing to engage in a tattoo analogy. A tattoo won't do any "harm" according to your standards. Why can't someone give their baby a culturally significant tattoo? You said these don't exist but they absolutely do

I don't have to be even willing to change my mind and agree that babies should have their genitals cut in order to want to post about protecting children and their rights. You're allowed to be unwilling to change your mind that you're okay with babies being cut, you do you. I'm not going to bother linking you evidence you won't engage with given you refuse to even acknowledge the notion that parents who are happy for someone to break their licence to perform an unsterile procedure or allow someone unlicensed to perform the procedure cannot have their babies beat interests at heart, whatever they claim.

Perhaps if Sabababa won't engage in the tattoo analogy how about scarification?

Done often in infancy in quite a number of tribes, just as culturally significant, if not more so, to those tribes who practice it. But of the people I have met who had it done as babies, they wish it hadn't been, and they were given a choice. The women I have known have tried to to cover with makeup with varying degrees of success. So was it OK for their parents to take a scalpel to their babies, because it was their cultural mandate as parents, causing a small scar but no loss of function and basically zero risk of death unnecessarily? If not, why is ok for others to, in an even more aggressive way?

I think people well know how important this barbaric practice is to certain religious groups. We absolutely challenge the notion that it being important means it's justified to do. It doesn't matter how important child abuse and mutilation is to a group of people or culture or religion, it's wrong and needs to be outlawed. With serious fines and custodial sentences if flouted. Just like you'd see if a group decided that chopping off a newborn's little finger is required, or their toe, or their labia.

The fact that FGM is illegal while MGM isn't is a conversation as a society it appears we're still not ready to have.

Should be undertaken by only medically qualified staff in a medical environment (clinic or hospital). Any other way of doing this needs to be unlawful.

Well tough shit to you since its legal. And in fact attitudes such as this are why there is such opposition to a ban and there never will be one.

Americans are also capable of assessing evidence. And they said net benefit actually. You dont have to agree but poo pooing because its american is puerile. If they'd found the opposite, you can better your bottom dollar it wouldn't bother you thst it was american.

Any health benefit shown by any medical body? Even american ones?
Lower complications if done as a baby?
Widespread support among the adults to whom this was done?

I never said they don't exist. Of course they do - where did i say it didn't exist? I've worked in Ethiopia and seen tattoed children with my own eyes. However, there is no medical benefit at all to tattooing children unlike circumcision and it is not an easier procedure to do when they are babies. But even tattoing children isn't illegal in many countries so we can see that parents are given a lot of leeway to decide what is their child's best interest even if you mgiht disagree with that decision.

And i have repeatedly stated that I think that circumcision should be regulated to be safe. Absolutely. Unsafe circumcision is dagerous and unnecessary. Despite your assertions to the contrary, GMC licenced doctors and private hospitals do indeed perform non therapeutic circumcisn.

Oh, I do acknowledge that circumcision should be performed in sterile circumstances, ideally by doctors or at least with some recognized qualifiction. I've stated that repeatedly. I think parents are often misinformed, such as those who don't vaccinate, but the vast majority do have their children's best interst at heart evenif they are unaware of the dangers (a key advocacy role for health professionals).

And I absolutely will engage with the evidence that you link to.I have thought deeply and long about this issue and reached my viewpoint based on the evidence I have seen. No one here has presented to me evidence that I wasn't awre of before. I didn't know that NHS trusts stopped doing non therapeutic circumcision because of litigation and complications but I'm also not willing to accept "trust me bro" as the source since I couldn't find anything on that when I looked. If it's in the BMJ, then maybe an abstract as I dont have a subscription. I am more that willing to change my viewpoint if the evidence changes.

And if not for me, remember that others may be reading this too and they may wish to see the evidence for the points that you are claiming.

Less complications when done as a baby doesn't make it OK to do to babies though, so that point is moot.