United Kingdom: Difference between revisions
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) Add external link. |
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) →British Circumcision Debate - Should Human Rights Outweigh Religious Rights: Add link in SEEALSO section. |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 353: | Line 353: | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
Several papers critical of phimosis diagnosis practice in the UK were published in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Rickwood & Walker (1989) reported that in the Mersey region (northwest England) "many boys are [[circumcised]] for development non-retractability of the prepuce rather than for true [[phimosis]] and that in consequence some two-thirds of the operations are unnecessary."<ref name="rickwood1989">{{REFjournal | Several papers critical of phimosis diagnosis practice in the UK were published in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Rickwood & Walker (1989) reported that in the Mersey region (northwest England) "many boys are [[circumcised]] for [[Physiological phimosis| development non-retractability]] of the prepuce rather than for true [[pathological phimosis]] and that in consequence some two-thirds of the operations are unnecessary."<ref name="rickwood1989">{{REFjournal | ||
|last=Rickwood | |last=Rickwood | ||
|first= | |first= | ||
| Line 471: | Line 471: | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
In defence of the much criticised British GPs, it should be stated that the data they were provided by [[Douglas Gairdner]] regarding development of foreskin retractability was very inaccurate,<ref>{{REFjournal | In defence of the much criticised British GPs, it should be stated that the data they were provided by [[Douglas Gairdner]] (1949) regarding development of foreskin retractability was very inaccurate,<ref>{{REFjournal | ||
|last=Denniston | |last=Denniston | ||
|first=George C. | |first=George C. | ||
| Line 833: | Line 833: | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
The [[Crown Prosecution Service]] (2026) | The [[Crown Prosecution Service]] (2026) initially wanted to classify [[circumcision]] as "child abuse".<ref name="guardian2026">{{REFnews | ||
|title=Circumcision classed as possible child abuse in draft CPS document | |title=Circumcision classed as possible child abuse in draft CPS document | ||
|url=https://www.theguardian.com/law/crown-prosecution-service | |url=https://www.theguardian.com/law/crown-prosecution-service | ||
| Line 849: | Line 849: | ||
|format= | |format= | ||
|quote=Circumcision is to be classed as a potential form of child abuse under new guidance for prosecutors, amid concerns from judges and coroners about deaths and serious harms caused by the procedure. | |quote=Circumcision is to be classed as a potential form of child abuse under new guidance for prosecutors, amid concerns from judges and coroners about deaths and serious harms caused by the procedure. | ||
}}</ref> This was toned down to calling circumcision a "potentially harmful practice" after objections from Jewish and Muslim groups<ref>{{REFnews | |||
|title=Circumcision classed as potentially harmful practice in new CPS guidance | |||
|url=https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/mar/05/circumcision-classed-potentially-harmful-practice-new-cps-guidance | |||
|last=Weaver | |||
|first=Matthew | |||
|publisher=The Guardian | |||
|website=https://www.theguardian.com | |||
|date=2026-03-05 | |||
|accessdate=2026-05-24 | |||
|format= | |||
|quote=The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decided against including [[circumcision]] alongside dowry abuse, witchcraft and female genital mutilation in its new guidance on honour-based abuse, after objections from Jewish and Muslim groups when the plans were revealed by the Guardian. | |||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
| Line 1,208: | Line 1,219: | ||
The incidence of non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] of boys in the United Kingdom has been substantially reduced from its former peaks in the 1930s and early 1940s. Non-therapeutic circumcision of boys remains lawful provided that both parents grant consent. The practice seems to be concentrated among ethnic minorities. Ethical and [[human rights]] concerns about the surgery persist. | The incidence of non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] of boys in the United Kingdom has been substantially reduced from its former peaks in the 1930s and early 1940s. Non-therapeutic circumcision of boys remains lawful provided that both parents grant consent. The practice seems to be concentrated among ethnic minorities. Ethical and [[human rights]] concerns about the surgery persist. | ||
Non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] | Non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] is not covered by the NHS, so parents must find a private medical or non-medical operator such as a [[mohel]] to perform the [[foreskin]] [[amputation]] and must pay the fee out of pocket as [[third-party payment]] is not available. Given the recent legal cautions uttered by the BMA,<ref name="bma2019" /> it may not be easy to find a medical practitioner willing to accept the risk. | ||
The NHS announced in November 2022 that it would no longer perform the 23,000 circumcisions that it had been performing every year.<ref name="warren2022">{{REFweb | The NHS announced in November 2022 that it would no longer perform the 23,000 circumcisions that it had been performing every year.<ref name="warren2022">{{REFweb | ||
| Line 1,273: | Line 1,284: | ||
{{SEEALSO}} | {{SEEALSO}} | ||
* [[15 Square]] | * [[15 Square]] | ||
* [[Desmond Morris]] | |||
* [[Genital Autonomy]] | * [[Genital Autonomy]] | ||
* [[Initiation Society]] | * [[Initiation Society]] | ||
| Line 1,303: | Line 1,315: | ||
|accessdate=2025-05-08 | |accessdate=2025-05-08 | ||
}} | }} | ||
* {{REFweb | |||
|url=https://www.reddit.com/r/uncircumcised_talk/comments/1qxqitc/queen_victorias_grandson_started_the_fad_of/ | |||
|title=Queen Victoria’s grandson started the fad of destroying British royal foreskins. | |||
|last=Anonymous | |||
|first= | |||
|init= | |||
|author-link= | |||
|publisher=REDDIT | |||
|date=2026-02-06 | |||
|accessdate=2026-02-07 | |||
}} | |||
{{REF}} | {{REF}} | ||