Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Should non-medical circumcision of under-18s be banned? Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think I have ever heard someone who was circumsized as a baby (myself included) complain about it. It really is a non issue. There are more important causes in the world:rolleyes:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bunty64)
    No it doesn't..... both function the same in the during micturition/copulation.....
    The foreskin has no function in either.

    A parent / guardian has full rights in deciding whether or not their child with undergo a medical procedure (only unless they are actnig against the best interests of the child; health/life in danger)....

    There is no evidence to suggest that circumcision has any negative effect on the male...... any such so called evidence out there I would believe to be anecdotal and biased.
    Your claims about the foreskin are totally unsubstantiated. There are many ideas about it's function, and more importantly many people in possession of foreskins think they are functional! It doesn't matter that it's anecdotal, it's a matter of body integrity. If a person says that they value a part of their body, then it is valuable.

    No, if someone doesn't consent, you have to provide a reason to override their consent. The absence of a compelling reason not to override consent is not justification, because lack of consent is a compelling reason not to do something in an of itself*.

    Again, it's a staple of medical ethics. I have studied them.

    * Would you consider it right for a parent to force their child to get a tattoo? Yes, it may not have medical consequences (besides the actual risk of the procedure) but it is wrong to do such a thing, to override that child's autonomy, unless you have a compelling reason to do so which is in their best interest.

    Besides which, circumcision does involve "danger to health" as does any medical procedure.

    It doesn't matter whether circumcision affects the penis negatively or not. It's a matter of individual choice. Ie: the individual gets to decide what to do with their penis, not their mum and dad.


    EDIT: I've already put far too much effort into this. You cannot believe an individual's autonomy is that important if you are willing to make an exception for infant circumcision. I think that's wrong, you think there's some kind of justification, perhaps that removing the foreskin is some kind of medical necessity. I think it's obviously not, because human beings have foreskins, certainly it isn't in infancy.. and on an on and on never ending. NO MORE! I'm going to bed.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeanofJelly)
    Doctors can be very wrong. They may easily have their own biased interests. Somebody who conducts infant circumcisions in the first place is more likely to be in favour of circumcision, quite obviously.

    Besides, you wouldn't circumcise someone who's in a coma because "it won't hurt them so much and they're not having sex so let's make the most of this opportunity!". You'd clearly (or at least I hope) see it as a violation of their rights and their body.

    Why then use those justifications to impose circumcision on a baby? I don't believe you or your "consultant" about the benefits of infant over adult circumcision, but even if they were true - they couldn't be so vast as to justify that violation of choice.
    Adults have perfectly successful elective circumcisions, you gave us the link to prove it yourself.
    Nowhere does it claim adult circumcision is just as successful as infant. It's just that dying from HIV is what the prisoners feel makes it worth the 'less successfullness'. If they'd been circumcised as a child, it would've been better, but they didn't so want to do it now.

    And as I said previously, using my common sense, I'll have to trust them over random people and sites on the internet. And again, no offence to you personally.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeanofJelly)
    Society does have rights to impose upon parents what the best interests of their child are. Clearly, as in the toe example.
    Well then if you adopt that approach, that too defeats your personal freedom rubbish and unfortunately for you, society is in my favour.

    And, medically speaking, if parents are not seen to be acting in the interests of their child, a representative for that child will be provided who may overule parental decisions.
    Yes, that's when child abuse happens, circumcision doesn't fall into that category no matter how overboard you try to go.

    If you find that wrong, you're the one whose out of sync with current mindsets on these kind of ethics, not me.
    Circumcision is legal, your whining and moaning is the thing that's out of sync.

    I suspect circumcision is only exempted from the same rules for fear of stirring up religious groups.
    Well let us be grateful your suspicions have no basis in reality.

    It isn't laughable. A small but significant number of circumcisions result in complications, including septicaemia, just like with any surgical procedure.
    Circumcision is painful (I'm not talking during, but afterward in recovery). You can't remove a piece of skin without it hurting.
    Yes it is laughable. And "small/significant", seems a bit of on oxymoron to me. Besides, almost every single medical procedure incurs risk and pain, and, the risk and pain entailed with circumcision is negligible.

    Those things aren't great enough that if an adult (or even a gillick-competent child) chooses to take them on that they aren't acceptable. But an infant does not choose to take them on.
    We've already come to terms that parents have the legal authority to decide what procedures they wish their children to undergo so long as they're not unnecessary and poses no risk to their well being

    Circumcision is an unneccessary injury,
    False on both accounts. It's neither unnecessary nor an injury, and the fact that it's has been recommended by every major health organization, well that perfectly demolished your argument I would say.

    which very arguably affects functioning. Do circumcised penises function differently to those which are not? Almost irrefutably yes
    No they do not, if they did they would've been more resilient to HIV......

    If the person affected considers that change to be positive, great.
    But if the person affected considers that change to be negative, there you have it: you have hampered their use of the "given organ".
    Well most do so intending for the change to be positive. And the results confirm so.

    Beside it is wrong to make permanent decisions for someone else when they could just as easily wait.
    No it isn't "wrong" permanent decisions are made on our behalf on a daily basis and we have little to no say about it. Some are good some are bad, circumcision is the prior in my opinion and the opinion of many medical experts.

    A surgeon will not remove someone's diseased testicle when they are on the operating table, unless they deem the risk of a further anaesthetic to be great enough that it is very much in that person's best interests.
    They will wait until that person is awake and ask them, even at a much greater inconvenience to that person - because it is not right to not give them the opportunity to refuse. It is a staple of medical ethics.
    Strawman...... not worth a reply

    ]It's like.. someone finding something in your room and throwing it away without asking you. Whether it is a useless piece of junk or not, it's much better to wait until you see that person and ask them, because frankly - it isn't your junk to mess around with, and there is no harm in patience.
    Couldn't be bothered reading that last part, not relevant really.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeanofJelly)
    Your claims about the foreskin are totally unsubstantiated. There are many ideas about it's function, and more importantly many people in possession of foreskins think they are functional! It doesn't matter that it's anecdotal, it's a matter of body integrity. If a person says that they value a part of their body, then it is valuable.

    No, if someone doesn't consent, you have to provide a reason to override their consent. The absence of a compelling reason not to override consent is not justification, because lack of consent is a compelling reason not to do something in an of itself*.

    Again, it's a staple of medical ethics. I have studied them.

    * Would you consider it right for a parent to force their child to get a tattoo? Yes, it may not have medical consequences (besides the actual risk of the procedure) but it is wrong to do such a thing, to override that child's autonomy, unless you have a compelling reason to do so which is in their best interest.

    Besides which, circumcision does involve "danger to health" as does any medical procedure.

    It doesn't matter whether circumcision affects the penis negatively or not. It's a matter of individual choice. Ie: the individual gets to decide what to do with their penis, not their mum and dad.


    EDIT: I've already put far too much effort into this. You cannot believe an individual's autonomy is that important if you are willing to make an exception for infant circumcision. I think that's wrong, you think there's some kind of justification, perhaps that removing the foreskin is some kind of medical necessity. I think it's obviously not, because human beings have foreskins, certainly it isn't in infancy.. and on an on and on never ending. NO MORE! I'm going to bed.
    My post was not about an individuals relationship with their foreskin and their feeling towards it. My claim was in response to your statement that a circumcised penis functions differently to a non-circumised one. They do not. Both function the same in micturition and copulation. The foreskin has no function in these acts.
    If you would care to present a few of the 'many ideas about it's function', I'd be interested to know.... you lost the point here! You may ahve studied medical ethics but not medical anatomy/physiology (or perhaps you have!)

    sure go to bed, the fact is that parents/guardians are wholy responsible for the consent of medical procedures on their child (with acceptance from the medical professional)... It is entirely up to them (the end decision).... That is how medicine works in britain....
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diaz89)
    Yes it is laughable. And "small/significant", seems a bit of on oxymoron to me. Besides, almost every single medical procedure incurs risk and pain, and, the risk and pain entailed with circumcision is negligible.
    It might seem an oxymoron to you, but it isn't.

    (Original post by Diaz89)
    We've already come to terms that parents have the legal authority to decide what procedures they wish their children to undergo so long as they're not unnecessary and poses no risk to their well being
    Ahem.

    (Original post by Diaz89)
    No it isn't "wrong" permanent decisions are made on our behalf on a daily basis and we have little to no say about it. Some are good some are bad, circumcision is the prior in my opinion and the opinion of many medical experts.
    No they aren't. Permanent medical decisions are not made for us, unless we are incompetent and our interests are at stake.

    All I can say is this: would you circumcise an adult without their consent?

    If the answer to that question is yes, than what else can I say. You clearly have no respect for autonomy, you clearly don't believe in an individual's right to bodily integrity, and it is no wonder you support infant circumcision.

    If the answer is no, then how can you justify infant circumcision without consent, when it could wait until that person can make the choice for themselves?


    (Original post by Diaz89)
    Couldn't be bothered reading that last part, not relevant really.
    It was a perfectly relevant analogy, and it isn't my fault if you don't understand it or choose to avoid it. Only reflects on the validity of your opinions.

    I'm going to bed now. I presume you still don't agree with me, let's leave it at that, we can't all agree all the time eh?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeanofJelly)
    It might seem an oxymoron to you, but it isn't.
    Right :rolleyes:

    Ahem.
    WHO and the BMJ agree.

    No they aren't. Permanent medical decisions are not made for us, unless we are incompetent and our interests are at stake.
    That's not what I meant, no where in my response did I add the word medical.

    All I can say is this: would you circumcise an adult without their consent?
    I have no parental authority over an adult, and when an person becomes an adult they are free to make whatever decision they please.

    If the answer is no, then how can you justify infant circumcision without consent, when it could wait until that person can make the choice for themselves?
    Because I know what's best for my child, and from the respondents on this thread whom actually have been circumcised they seem to agree.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ShnnyShiz)
    Not all. There are actually some medical conditions that necessitate circumcision, like too much foreskin. In these circumstances, you've just got to do it.. unless you've considered that in your title post?
    But yeah, non-medical circumcision is ridiculous. Children shouldn't have to go through that just because their parents have beliefs; they might not share the same views! It's pretty much surgery without consent.
    The medical field takes into full account the religous views of the patients/families.....
    What does medical ethics say about religous factors affecting treatment?

    Consent is given by the parents so it is not 'pretty much surgery without consent'.... until the child reaches 16, they need parental consent for medical procedures (even if the child is able to fully realise all the implications..
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bunty64)
    It is entirely up to them (the end decision).... That is how medicine works in britain....
    That statement is patently false.

    A doctor or indeed a competent child may override parent's stupid medical decisions through a special court process. This happens frequently.

    Parents certainly do not have the last word if they are making poor medical decisions on behalf of their children.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bunty64)
    Consent is given by the parents so it is not 'pretty much surgery without consent'.... until the child reaches 16, they need parental consent for medical procedures (even if the child is able to fully realise all the implications..
    That is also not true. Gillick competent children can give consent even without their parents knowledge. They may also refuse consent against their parents wishes.

    consent and children
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeanofJelly)
    That statement is patently false.

    A doctor or indeed a competent child may override parent's stupid medical decisions through a special court process. This happens frequently.

    Parents certainly do not have the last word if they are making poor medical decisions on behalf of their children.
    Yes, I agree, and I clearly stated this.... it is down the the medical specialists (be it at a court hearing or in the hospital) to decide if the final parental decision is detrimental to the child ... in the case of male circumcision, it is not an issue.

    Parents are responsbile for giving consent for medical/surgical treatment for a child under 16
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeanofJelly)
    That is also not true. Gillick competent children can give consent even without their parents knowledge. They may also refuse consent against their parents wishes.

    consent and children
    didn't know this..... with regards to infants and older children who the doctor feels doesn't fully understand, the parents will decide... ethically this is correct...

    The decision to carry out circumcisions is also down to the medical profession. If they believe it is harmful to the child. they would not do it...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yes it should. Uneccesary mutilation is unecessary.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No maybe you should get ur nose out of othe peoples business?

    It's scientifically proven that circumsised penises are more hygenic and don't involve chopping off half of it as boldy as u put it you ignorant fuk
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    All these points aside, there is not a strong enough argument for the banning of male circumcision:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Excandersham)
    Yes it should. Uneccesary mutilation is unecessary.
    surely the british medical board would have banned such a procedure if they believed it was 'unecessary mutiliation'!

    don't tell me the BMA is under pressure from jewish/muslim pressure groups!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bunty64)
    surely the british medical board would have banned such a procedure if they believed it was 'unecessary mutiliation'!

    don't tell me the BMA is under pressure from jewish/muslim pressure groups!
    argument from authority.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lovely_me)
    You're an individual example out of millions.

    Are you implying we shouldn't fight for the human rights of children, even though they may not be directly related to us?
    where I'm from if your not circumcised, people around will be disgusted of you, they wont even want to be around you, it would be the equivalent of walking around with a massive **** on your face, and when it comes to girls, forget it. Fact is that "individual" represents the majority which I am part of, iff your going to get it done you much better off getting it done early than late.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bunty64)
    The medical field takes into full account the religous views of the patients/families.....
    What does medical ethics say about religous factors affecting treatment?

    Consent is given by the parents so it is not 'pretty much surgery without consent'.... until the child reaches 16, they need parental consent for medical procedures (even if the child is able to fully realise all the implications..
    No offence, but you are one dumbass. Parental consent is required for MEDICAL procedures. The motivation for the procedures in this case is benefiting the health of the child; it is deemed beneficial to the child by the healthcare professional. So yes, you're right, the child might not realise the implications and come to an informed consensus and hence the need for parental consent. NON-MEDICAL circumcision however is based on religious/whatever views the parents have. You DON'T have the doctor pushing you to do it, just the parents. There is no benefit to be had for the child, apart from satisfying whatever beliefs the said parents might have. In other words, the only motivation for the procedure in this case is BELIEF. Putting your child through circumcision, an irreversible and for some, a regretful experience, just because of some beliefs you might have, which might not even be true might I add, is wrong.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Transubstantiation)
    This is obviously an atheist plot to weaken the abrahamic faiths. as i've said before, it symbolises the convenant of God, so it should not be banned.
    So you feel that laws in Britain should be based on Abrahamic teachings despite members of Abrahamic faiths being a minority in Britain and having no scientific evidence to back up their claimed benefits?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 12, 2011
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.