Baby dies after home circumcision

Originally Posted by Chris

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.
.

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

[Zee]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

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 .

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.

[papa smurf]

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.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

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 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.

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.

Originally Posted by danielf

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.

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.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris

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

DAMN!!!

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.

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

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

[danielf]

Originally Posted by martyh

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

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

Originally Posted by danielf

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

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

[Pierre]

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?

[Osem]

Fond of canned worms are you?

[Osem]

A nurse has been found guilty of manslaughter after causing a baby's death by botching his circumcision.

A nurse has been found guilty of manslaughter after causing a baby's death by botching his circumcision.

Grace Adeleye, 67, carried out the procedure on four-week-old Goodluck Caubergs at an address in Chadderton, Oldham, in April 2010.

The boy bled to death before he could reach hospital the following day.

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

Let's hope the sentence focuses a few minds.

[thenry]

was the nurse approved to do such ops?

[Osem]

Did the parents ask?

[Gary L]

Did the parents care?