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.

It is a conversation that must be had now.

The "neutral" conclusion of some outcome studies does not take into account the alteration in sexual functioning, which the victim cannot quantify as they have never had a normal penis nor normal sexual experience.

Not does it cover the principle of not doing unnecessary non-clinically indicated surgery.

Nor does it cover the principle of not mutilating babies for no good reason.

There are important principles at stake here that override cultural sensitivities.

I once saw a TV prog. about a U.K. Jewish community, where the rabbi performed the circumcision. TBH I was amazed that this was allowed - presumably it still is - this wasn’t all that long ago.

I saw a film about welcoming baby rituals in different cultures. I was well into watching the singing and dancing and feasting of one culture before I realized the baby was being taken out of the room to have his foreskin chopped off - I felt sick. How dare they .......

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

Moot for you perhaps for whom circumcision is not important.

But not if you are an adult male in a community for whom circumcision is hugely important and you would have far preferred that your parents had had it done when easier as a baby.

And if you are said parents, and let's assume loving and caring parents as most are, you might be thinking, will my son thank me for not having been circumcised as an infant? I know it might be hard to comprehend if you don't come from a community where this is important but the vast majority of Jewish men at least are pleased that their parents had made this choice (can't speak for what's happening in the Muslim community). This is also important and can't be dismissed with 'oh, they just don't know they were mutilated'.

But how often do men in any community see each other's genitals?

I agree completely. But it's sad, as soon as anyone mentions that boys have a right to not be genitally mutilated just as girls have this right, they're shot down by people who believe that the two procedures being of different levels of pain/damage means that we shouldn't treat MGM as seriously as FGM.

Anyone that defends slicing off part of a newborn as justifiable/acceptable needs their hard drive looking at tbh.

Exactly - the quantity of skin/flesh being sliced off is not the consideration. The principle that babies should not be mutilated is what this is about.

Thank you exactly! There's lots of culturally significant practices that absolutely would not (and should not) be allowed that are comparable to circumcision.

@Soupsavior
I know its nicer posting with people who agree with you rather than those who challenge you but where are these links to support the claims you made about nhs trusts stopping neonatal circumcision due to litigation and complications?
Not sure why its so difficult....
As I said, I searched and found nothing.

I already responded to you as said as you've refused to actually interrogate your opinion on any points raised to you and you just completely blank comparable examples I'm not going to bother doing your googling for you. I've told you quite clearly that there are articles and statements by British Urologists and you could easily Google NHS trusts litigation for non therapeutic circumcision, I'm.not going to do it for you when you're essentially arguing for the sake of it by bringing up opinions about vaccines for example that you don't even hold and then when someone asks you to apply the logic you're arguing for to circumcision well I don't believe in that about vaccines anyway. It's tiresome. You can believe me or not but you can easily confirm that NHS trusts stopped performing them due to litigation costs after complications if you could bother to do more than a cursory Google search.

Unfortunately I think specifically in Jewish communities, especially the strictest like Haredi, discussions of sexual pleasure impact might be seen as echoing historical anti Semitism.
In one of Primo Levi's books he notes that Italian Catholic boys would taunt Jewish boys by saying circumcision was like castration, and I've read of examples of this kind used as a slur against Jews in other cultures at times of persecution. This would fit with the traditional implication by dominant groups that men of persecuted groups were unmasculine.

Obviously discussing impact circumcision has on sexual pleasure is not anti Semitic, and it should be done. However, there must be awareness that it could be seen as resurging anti Semitism, especially by the Haredi who have an especially deeply-rooted history of persecution.

I literally said I'd be more than happy to change my opinion if I saw different evidence.

Ive done the goggling. Its not there. I found discussion of finances being the factor

My only conclusion: you're making it up.

Is it the case that all Jewish groups or sects practise circumcision? Even culturally/ethically Jewish people who don’t practise?

Circumcision is explicitly instructed in the key scripture, the Torah, so yes, most religious Jews practise it.

A lot of secular Jews do too, though probably less. I will check stats.

All ultra orthodox, orthodox and masorti, yes. It's a non negotiable.
Reform and liberal- mostly yes but more accepting if there is an objection as they don't strictly go by halacha.
Non religious Jews - I'm not sure. Id think yes if they are active in the community, less so if not and if married to non Jew. I personally dont know anyone jewish, married to another Jewish person, from whatever stream, and in different counties who hasn't circumcised their sons.

This is from Grok just as a quick look, I'll verify properly tomorrow.
The percentage of non-religious (secular) Jews who practice circumcision (brit milah) for their sons is very high, though it varies by location and has seen a small but growing trend of exceptions in recent years.
In Israel, where the majority of the world's Jews live, circumcision is near-universal across all levels of religiosity — including among hiloni (secular) Jews. Multiple sources, including reports from Reuters (from 2012 onward), Reddit discussions from Israeli users, and medical studies, describe it as a widespread cultural norm rather than strictly religious. Even secular parents typically circumcise their sons, often viewing it as a matter of tradition, identity, or social conformity (e.g., "it's what Jews do," or to ensure the child "fits in"). Estimates suggest over 95-99% of Jewish boys in Israel are circumcised, with virtually no significant difference by religiosity level — "nearly all" or "the vast majority" applies to both ultra-Orthodox and totally secular families. A small but increasing minority of secular parents are choosing not to (sometimes opting for alternative naming ceremonies), but this remains rare and often socially taboo.
In the Jewish diaspora (especially the United States, where most non-Israeli Jews live), rates are also extremely high among non-religious Jews — often described as "common even among secular Jews," driven by cultural identity, family tradition, or the general U.S. norm of newborn circumcision (though overall U.S. rates have declined). Sources like articles from The Guardian, My Jewish Learning, and others note that while a small and growing number of liberal/secular Jews question or opt out (sometimes choosing hospital procedures without ritual or alternatives like brit shalom), the great majority still proceed. There's no exact percentage from large surveys like Pew (which don't break down circumcision by religiosity), but anecdotal and expert accounts suggest it's well over 90% even for non-observant families.

Thank you, I agree strongly re schools.

It definitely seems implausible that Haredi newlyweds are usually ignorant of anatomy etc. I think pp was referring more to young newlyweds rather than older adults, but this still seems unlikely. I have read stories though of problems due to lack of knowledge, I'm just questioning how common extreme ones like the BBC program are.

Re it being worse in Israel & US- is that definitely worse than the UK situation?

One article I read recently said that there is more pressure on Israeli Haredi men to integrate a bit more due to the military draft exemption becoming increasingly untenable. I also read that some rabbis there were quietly putting less pressure on women to have huge numbers of kids as there is quiet, but increasing, discussion of women burning out.

There's also the fact that in Israel the main language is of course Hebrew. I know the Haredi speak Yiddish generally among themselves but I assume even if isolated they'd have more chance of picking up Modern Hebrew than they would English if living in a closed community in Stamford Hill etc

I also read that US Haredi communities tend to be a bit more likely to work (the men) and be fluent in English than the UK, and that our inspection system here had been quite lax. I'm not sure of the accuracy of all that though.

The majority Jewish community in Israel, and larger in the US than here, might also make Haredi a bit more comfortable about mixing beyond their community as there'd be more options for non Haredi but still Jewish friends.

Depends which stream, as you mention. Some are more inclusive than others. There are some whcih are very extreme like Neturei Karta.

Gosh you're very rude aren't you? No I'm not going to go linking you every study and journal, again even a tiny cursory Google of the NHS guidelines will give you documents that link the the relevant journals :

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34997197/
www.baus.org.uk/_userfiles/pages/files/News/Male%20Circumcision-%20risk%20versus%20benefit.pdf
www.derbyshiremedicinesmanagement.nhs.uk/assets/Clinical-Policies/Clinical_Policies/PLCV/urology/Circumcision_in_Children.pdf
https://www.cirp.org/library/statements/bma2003/#n5

So not i'm not "making up" that NTMC isn't medically advised in the UK as the health benefits are dubious compared to the associated risks and that's why we don't offer it and pediatricians don't go around mutilating half their infant patients.

You said NHS trusts have stopped doing non therapeutic circumcision due to litigation and complications

Not one of those links supports that statement.

Nothing rude about calling you out on misinformation.

You clearly didn't read very accurately. In sorry that it's wordier than one line but one of those links very clearly explains to you that when NTMC was routinely performed by NHS trusts it was performed in operating theatres by qualified surgeons and yet still with diligent standard complications ensued which led to litigations it goes on to say the NHS trusts withdrew funding for this procedure. It's almost like you have to read a whole piece in context rather than trying to sum everything up in one sentence so you can just refuse to engage with the rest of the evidence. So now you've called me liar anything to say about the NHS experience of complications and litigations following diligent practices or any of the links that explain why the NHS and British medical standards see the health benefits as dubious?

Yeah, I read the article and it doesn't say nhs trusts stopped funding ntmc due to litigation. There is a discussion of issues involving litigation (and certainly not saying that circumcision is more likely to lead to litigation). In the next paragraph, they talk about nhs trusts withdrawing funding. At no point does it say that funding was withdrawn due to litigation. Not explicitly or implied.

Indeed, the withdrawing of funding fits how the nhs has reprioritized many procedures seen as elective

I don't think the article was wordy at all to be honest (although admittedly i can see it was probably just a nasty snide comment implying that i dont know how to read properly). It was quite short since it was an opinion piece rather than primary research, quite clearly written too and an interesting discussion showing the lack of consensus on ntmc in the medical community.

.

Actually the one you're talking about is an article form the British medical journal and has references to the data and studies which clearly you haven't bothered to read...

If you're going to keep engaging in bad faith and ignoring the relevant British medical advice about benefits and risks and comparable procedures whatsoever exactly your motivation to keep waffling on here? You're not willing to engage in good faith or with any evidence that refutes the misinformation you keep spreading which is that it's a net neutral or a health benefits based on the one American "statement" you have despite the British data and journals refuting the claim.

Yes, I’ve read the BMJ article. Yes, I’ve read the data it cites. And yes, that includes the AAP review — which you continue to dismiss because it doesn’t align with your prior position, not because it lacks methodological rigour.

The BMJ piece you’re relying on is indeed an opinion article, not primary research and not a systematic review. That doesn’t make it worthless — it’s a well-written and thoughtful argument ”. The article itself explicitly reflects the lack of consensus within the British medical community on NTMC - an interesting discussion in and of itself.

However, and this where you should pay attention, the article does not say that NHS trusts stopped providing ritual or non-therapeutic circumcision because of litigation. It mentions litigation in a general medico-legal context (and circumcision is no different in that sense to any other procedure), and then separately, in the next paragraph. states that provision declined following withdrawal of funding by Primary Care Trusts from 2006 onwards. Those are adjacent points, not a causal claim.

I understand you may not have intended to misinform, but your interpretation is simply not supported by the text (however many snarky comments you make about my ability to read, facts are facts). That also explains why my repeated searches don’t surface the claim you attributed to the article — because it isn’t actually there.

Reading the article it's clear now that you also appear to have extended that same misreading to claims about private hospitals and GMC-licensed doctors no longer performing NTMC, again based on a misunderstanding of what the article says.

As for the “American statement” you refer to dismissively: it is, in fact, a systematic review of the evidence conducted by experts in the field, not a single opinion or policy whim. You’re free to disagree with its conclusions, please do - that's how science advances - but dismissing it outright while elevating a non-systematic opinion piece (which itself refers to the AAP review) shows classic confirmation bias.

Finally, and most importantly, I’ve yet to see compelling evidence that NTMC — when performed competently and safely — clearly falls outside the scope of parental decision-making given the huge cultural and religious importance of circumcision . Reasonable clinicians and ethicists disagree on this, (and most manage to do taht without resorting to personal attacks or petulantly accusing others they don't agree with of acting in bad faith btw) which is precisely the point: the evidence base does not support the level of certainty you’re asserting.

Disagreement isn’t bad faith. And neither is correcting you on what a paper actually claims (although pretty sure you won't accept it, personal attack incoming!!! )