Baby dies after home circumcision

[danielf]

Originally Posted by martyh

OH i agree ,just saying that if it must be allowed for religious reasons then it should be done by a trained professional not some knacker with a pair of scissors.

---------- Post added at 14:59 ---------- Previous post was at 14:58 ----------

Originally Posted by thenry

I just thought I'd throw that out there.

Good thing I ducked

[thenry]

good job i deleted the post

[nomadking]

She was a sort of "trained professional", which makes even more scary for medical standards nowadays.

It is alleged the defendant, who is also a midwife, left a "ragged" wound that bled and her post-operative care was inadequate.

[Zee]

Originally Posted by martyh

OH i agree ,just saying that if it must be allowed for religious reasons then it should be done by a trained professional not some knacker with a pair of scissors.

I want to know what the religious reasons are anyway

The main reason given is cleanliness. It is essential that every Muslim washes before praying.

It is important that no urine is left on the body.

Muslims believe the removal of the foreksin makes it easier to keep the penis clean because urine can't get trapped there.
Supporters of circumcision also argue that excrements may collect under the foreskin which may lead to fatal diseases such as cancer.

Some Muslims see circumcision as a preventive measure against infection and diseases.

Another thing I wish to make clear is:

Circumcision is not compulsory in Islam but it is an important ritual aimed at improving cleanliness. It is strongly encouraged but not enforced.

Im not sure about the Jewish faith

Originally Posted by Zee

The main reason given is cleanliness. It is essential that every Muslim washes before praying.

It is important that no urine is left on the body.

Muslims believe the removal of the foreksin makes it easier to keep the penis clean because urine can't get trapped there.
Supporters of circumcision also argue that excrements may collect under the foreskin which may lead to fatal diseases such as cancer.

Some Muslims see circumcision as a preventive measure against infection and diseases.

Another thing I wish to make clear is:

Circumcision is not compulsory in Islam but it is an important ritual aimed at improving cleanliness. It is strongly encouraged but not enforced.

so basically a load of hogswash

[Taf]

Originally Posted by Jimmy-J

Unnecessary circumcision performed on an infant for no reason other than a belief in a religion, is child abuse and genital mutilation.

This is one of the wickedest things that otherwise good people do in the name of religion. The parents and the people that allow this abuse to happen should be utterly ashamed of what they are partaking in, but no, according to their "good" book, it's a perfectly legitimate thing to do.

If only they could wait until their babies were old enough to make their own decisions concerning what religion, if any, they want to believe in.

Totally agree.

[nomadking]

IIRC Unless there is a specific urinary infection, urine is sterile. Urine in that sense is probably 'cleaner' that the water used for washing. If fact, there was a time when after being left for about 3 weeks, stale urine was used to clean clothes etc.

Circumcision pre-dates the ideas of infection and disease by centuries.

Islam isn't relevant in this case.

The court heard the medic and Goodluck's parents are originally from Nigeria, where the circumcision of newborns is the tradition for Christian families

Originally Posted by Jimmy-J

Unnecessary circumcision performed on an infant for no reason other than a belief in a religion, is child abuse and genital mutilation.

Describing any act as child abuse purely because it's a religious practice (religious practice, I note, you equate with 'no reason') is the kind of thought process that leads to genocide. Six million Jews were slaughtered on that sort of pretext.

I think you need to calm down and get off your self-righteous high horse.

[nomadking]

There is a difference between being against something where it is only performed because of religious practice, and being against it because it is a religious practice.

Originally Posted by nomadking

There is a difference between being against something where it is only performed because of religious practice, and being against it because it is a religious practice.

I think you're splitting hairs. The meaning in the post I quoted was quite clear. A simple operation that is performed quickly and safely under local anasthaesia countless times every day all over the world, if performed as a religious observance rather than as a medical treatment, is in his view "child abuse".

I am thankful that this view is shared only by a small-minded minority, because in times and places where large numbers of people have been persuaded that certain relgious beliefs and practices should be regarded as abusive, primitive, sub-human, etc etc etc, rather a lot of people have ended up being murdered.

There is clearly an issue with the way the circumcision was conducted in this specific case, and this case should be seen in that light and dealt with accordingly. But to use it as a pretext to condemn religious circumcision per se is just bone-headed.

[danielf]

Presumably then, you don't subscribe to the right to bodily integrity where there are no compelling medical reasons to the contrary?

Let's not generalise the particular, shall we?

Circumcision is a safe, widely practised religious ritual. There is no compelling reason to prevent it.

[nomadking]

Circumcision pre-dates local anaesthesia by centuries, if not millennia. What proportion are performed under that level of medical supervision even nowadays. In this case, had local anaesthesia been used, it wouldn't have made any difference. as the death was caused by loss of blood.

Originally Posted by nomadking

Circumcision pre-dates local anaesthesia by centuries, if not millennia. What proportion are performed under that level of medical supervision even nowadays. In this case, had local anaesthesia been used, it wouldn't have made any difference. as the death was caused by loss of blood.

I'm not sure what your point about anaesthesia is? The baby died because both the procedure and the after-care were done appallingly badly. That much is established fact. But proving that negligence reached the point of unlawful killing is an awfully high legal bar to attain and is what the current court case is about.

[nomadking]

The point of trying to excuse something on certain grounds(ie infection, disease, local anaesthetic) that didn't occur until centuries AFTER the practice started, doesn't really work as an argument as to why the practice began and is justified.