Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

Martyh is simply countering the argument (which has been pre-empted a million times in this thread) that if you object to the foreskin being removed without someone's consent, then you should also object to an appendix being removed, which is bolleaux, as there are compelling medical reasons for removing an appendix, and not for removing a foreskin.

I suppose you could then argue that religious reasons can be just as compelling, and ultimately the parents have the right to decide what happens to their children. At that point I would point out that it gets a bit hairy when parents deny their children medical intervention, or when people's religion decides what medical intervention can be legally carried out to save the life of a woman who's about to die in child-birth.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

we are talking about mutilating an innocent baby -not yanking the tooth of a wizened old git like me ,and once a person is old enough to make their own decisions they can cut off what they want .

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

willy nilly.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

I couldn't care less if people get circumcised if that's how they express their religious beliefs so be it ,i just feel that infant circumcision should be more tightly regulated ,not for any reason other than we can do it safer and better .We aren't living in the desert anymore we have knowledge and skills that are in themselves god like compared to 3000 yrs ago and i choose to believe that was Gods intention,to give us the ability to develop and progress beyond a primitive society , so lets use this knowledge to the best of our ability and if that means dragging some religious traditions kicking and screaming into the 21st century so be it

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

I am arguing that to a religious person, religious reasons *are* just as compelling and parents *do* have the right to decide what happens to their children. And in so doing, I am also pointing out that that, pretty much, is what amounts to the status quo in this country, because it has been found over many generations to work pretty well.

Regarding the hairiness of medical intervention issues, there is a useful study here:

http://adc.bmj.com/content/90/7/715.full

It focuses on JWs and whether they have the right to deny a blood transfusion on behalf of their children. (They don't). Where a person with religious conviction finds that the law of the land does not support that conviction, then as a I said earlier, they either reinterpret their convictions, take them underground, or emigrate. All of these have occurred at one time or another in history. In the case of Christianity, persecution is what helped to drive its spread out of Roman Palestine in the first place.

---------- Post added at 19:34 ---------- Previous post was at 19:31 ----------

Perhaps we could get Parliament to create a regulator. They could call it Ofsnip. ;)

I must admit, I'm surprised at how little there is in the way of accreditation required in order to be able to carry out a circumcision.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

Just to make my position clear ,i agree with this .Children have the right to go against their parents when they reach adulthood

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

why do you insist on using the word mutilating its very harsh and doesn't reflect reality, i doubt millions of parents around the world are mutilating their children.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

mu·ti·late
tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates
1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably:
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

Which you then follow up by a study which shows that there are limits to what parents can decide happens to their children. Parents do *not* have the right to withhold essential medical treatment from their children. I'm arguing that there is a case to be made for that reasoning to be extended to irreversible, outwardly visible extensions that serve no medical purpose.

And I'm arguing that the status quo is not immutable, and the simple fact that it is the status quo is not (or may not) be sufficient for it to be acceptable. Abortion was illegal in the UK until 40 years ago. It still is in Ireland. The fact that a woman can die in child-birth in Ireland because religious beliefs dictate that a foetus that has little to no chance of survival cannot be aborted is the status quo in Ireland. It's also a travesty that the health of the mother is of no apparent concern.

The wider issue here is the tradeoff between freedom of religious expression, the health of individuals, and the right to bodily integrity. And when you (or I anyway) think about it, it really makes very little sense for parents to decide their children will have irreversible medical interventions that does not serve to improve the health of a person that cannot consent to said intervention.

It really comes down to the analogy I posted earlier. Do you give you child a Star of David on a chain, or do you tattoo it somewhere on their body. I'm saying the latter isn't on, no matter how compelling the religious reason.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

Believe it or not, I was aware of the contents of the BMJ report when I posted the link. ;)

Clearly there are caveats - however in the context of a discussion of the minor excision of a piece of skin that has been carried out safely and cleanly for millennia, arguing over exactly where the line is between 'acceptable' and 'not acceptable' is a bit pointless. Being unable or unwilling to define that line makes no difference whatsoever to the issue at hand, namely circumcision. Hence my polite refusal to start debating the merits of allowing people to join death cults.

It's interesting that you say there is a case to be made for "extending that reasoning" to all practices that are not medically essential. I can see why you would want to frame your case so that only the factors you consider relevant should be considered (I.e. medical ones). However, given that the world is an overwhelmingly religious place and even the UK is hardly a hotbed of humanism, I think you need to work a bit harder. Your argument really needs to offer some convincing reason why religious considerations, and the rights of parents, should be set aside.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

DAMN!!! :)

Actually, I'm not saying there is a case to be made for "extending that reasoning" to all practices that are not medically essential. I'm specifically limiting it to irreversible, outwardly visible interventions that serve no medical purpose. There's a difference between having your ears pierced, and lopping a bit of your willy off. At the end of the day, it's my dick and I'm kind of attached to it. I'm glad my parents have left the decision as to whether or not it should be structurally altered up to the only person qualified to take that decision. Me :D

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

Just to play devils advocate ,as far as Judaism/Christianity goes it is definitely the parents decision as decreed by God ,and since God is real for Jews/Christians and holds the highest authority what he says goes and changing that 'order' from God is going directly against his will.As far as Jews are concerned they couldn't stop doing it even if they wanted to

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

Oh, I know the reasoning, I just don't agree with it. I also don't expect (or want) anything to change anytime soon. But I do think it's an anachronism, and expect it to die out eventually :)

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

Not for Jews it won't ,they wouldn't be Jews otherwise .The non existence of God would have to be proven first

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

Just to throw something else into the mix, I don't know if it has been mentioned already.

Whilst I accept that male circumcision is relatively harmless, I don't advocate it.

The only arguments I can see defending it is that it's

1) Tradition
2) Religious reasons
3) Been done for millenia
4) parents right to choose

etc,

What do the same people that defend male circumcision think about female circumcision?

An horrific practice where that same arguments as above could be made but never defended?

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

Fond of canned worms are you?

:)

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...ester-20733674

Let's hope the sentence focuses a few minds.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

was the nurse approved to do such ops?

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

Did the parents ask?

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

Did the parents care?