Changes

Non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] of children is not only one of the most widespread surgical operations in the world, but also one of the oldest. It is probably due to this long tradition, that despite its violating the common basic rights to [[physical integrity| bodily integrity ]] and medical ethics in the western world, it is still widely tolerated there, even though there are barely any legal exemptions in place. The few regulations, which mostly emerged in the recent past, usually only deal with the basic conditions. They regulate how and under what conditions the operation should be carried out, while the general compatibility with basic [[human rights]] is rarely questioned, let alone taken into consideration.

In Austria, bodily assault is, as in Germany, punishable, without any specific regulations regarding [[circumcision]]. There is, however – — unlike in Germany - no specific basic right to an unharmed body in the constitution. It is regulated in §146a ABGB that "the application of bodily violence and the infliction of bodily or mental suffering" by the parents is unlawful. According to §90 (3) StGB it is impossible to consent to "a mutilation or other injuring of the genitals, that is able to inflict a lasting impairment of the sexual sensitivity" even for adults. On the other hand, the ''"Israelitengesetz"'' (Law for the Israelites) entitles the Jewish religious group and their members to "bring their children and juveniles, also outside of school, through all traditional rites and to educate them according to their religious commandments". <u>Circumcision of boys for religious reasons is not considered punishable by the Austrian Ministry of Justice</u>, and is justified by the [[parental rights]].

The Belgian federal government’s Committee for Bio-Ethics has ruled against the [[circumcision ]] of infant boys for reasons other than medical necessity. Its ruling states that bodily integrity is more important than religious faith.<ref>{{REFweb

The explicitly mentioned profound differences point out the difficulty of legally regulating the [[circumcision ]] of underaged boys. The legislative procedure led to a broad public debate over the legitimacy and legality of [[circumcision]] of minors in German society. Despite the fierce resistance of medical associations, jurists, constitution experts, child and [[human rights]] activists as well as 100 Members of Parliament, the following [[German Circumcision Act]] was adopted in December 2012:

Therefore, a non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] of a male child lacking competence and understanding for whatever reason is generally legal. A right of veto for the affected boys was turned down in parliament, as well as a proposed change destined to introduce an evaluation of the regulations after five years. Giving the Ministry of Heath the right to determine more specific guidance — for example regarding [[pain ]] management and the qualification and training of non-medical circumcisers — by issuing additional regulations was also rejected. A call for mandatory documentation of non-therapeutic circumcisions was ignored. Merely stating the intent to have the operation performed according to proper medical standards was considered sufficient.

At the end of 1999, the Finnish parliament issued a declaration regarding [[Brit Milah| ritual circumcision]]. Ombudsman Riita-Leena Paunio stated, that the operation could not be recommended without a [[medical indication]], and that the affected children should be consulted and give consent. She said, the Finnish parliament had to weigh the religious rights of the parents against the responsibility of the society to protect their children from ritual operations that have no immediate benefit for them. Since then, the written consent of both parents is mandatory.

In France, there is no specific regulation for [[circumcision]]. The question of parental consent is neither debated under religious aspects nor by the parenting laws. Article 16.3 of the civil code states that "the integrity of the human body may not be harmed, other then in cases of medical necessity for those affected". However, there is a "silent toleration" of the [[circumcision ]] of minors.

In Italy, there is a basic agreement between the State and the Jewish communities that was formulated in 1987 and secured in the law in 1989. It implies that the [[Brit Milah| Jewish way of circumcision ]] is in accord with the Italian system of laws. According to Article 19 of the Italian constitution, religious freedom is to be respected, as long as no acts are performed that contradict good manners.

In a ruling by the "High Court of Cassation" from Nov. 24th, 2011, a mother was found not guilty, whose son almost bled to death after being [[circumcised ]] by a medically unqualified layman.

In Sweden, non-therapeutic circumcision of boys under 18 years of age is regulated since 2001 by the ''"Lag (2001:499) om omskärelse av pojkar"'' (Law regarding [[circumcision ]] of boys). According to it, such circumcisions are a surgical procedure and have to be carried out by a qualified doctor and under anaesthesia. For boys under 2 months of age, circumcision may also be carried out by another competent person with a government license. This applies to persons that have been nominated by religious groups in which circumcision is part of the religious tradition. Persons who perform a circumcision without the necessary qualification or license face a fine or prison sentence of up to six months. The circumcision requires the consent of the legal guardians. It may not be carried out against the child's will, if he has the age and level of maturity for such a statement.

In 2007, the Oregon Supreme Court, ruled, in the case of [[Boldt v. Boldt]], that the 12-year-old boy must be consulted to determine if he wants to be [[circumcised]].

In the autumn of 2010, Californian [[intactivists ]] called for a ban of non-therapeutic infant [[circumcision ]] and thereby sparked a nation-wide discussion of the topic.

The [[USA ]] have by far the highest rate of [[circumcision ]] among the western nations. In many maternity wards non-therapeutic circumcision of newborn boys is common. Circumcision is considered a profit center for many U.S. hospitals. The US pediatric society[[medical trade association]], [[AAP]], is the only major medical society in the world still advocating the has withdrawn its advocacy of non-therapeutic circumcision of newborns and children, however it must be noted that the AAP's 2012 circumcision position statement expired in 2017 and has not been reaffirmed, so the present position of the AAP is unclear.

It is noteworthy that, despite the wide spread of non-therapeutic [[circumcision ]] of children and the fact that it contradicts many national laws, there is barely a country that has issued explicit exemptions. The principle of "silent toleration" is, regardless of a possible illegality, common practice.

Let us begin with the most obvious intrusion - the one into the bodily integrity. Under German law, children enjoy far-reaching protection, that limits the [[parental rights]] and the powers delegated to third persons overseeing the upbringing (such as kindergarten staff or teachers). Methods of upbringing that may cause physical or mental harm are prohibited. This is not only corporal punishment, which was common in families, schools and vocational training for ages, which may cause direct (and sometimes severe) bodily harm - — it also covers spanking, which is included under degrading treatment. It is assumed that not only does the immediate injury harm the child, but also the feeling of helplessness and of being at someone's mercy at the time of punishment by an authority figure. This also applies to other treatment that harms the dignity of a child - — for example being forced to publicly change clothes in front of the kindergarten group after wetting his pants.

It is not much different with the right to sexual self-determination. Here, the consequences that circumcision has and can have for the body, play a significant role. Normally, a man has free choice as to how he wants to experience his sexuality. It is solely up to him to decide in which way he wants to be stimulated, and he can - — if he so desires - — limit his sexual experience without a problem. A [[circumcised ]] man does not have these options. The full range of his sexual experience and sensation is not available to him due the to bodily modification.

An [[intact ]] [[penis]] enables many men to reach orgasm just by manipulation of the [[foreskin]]. During [[masturbation]], the man can choose whether he wants to stimulate the [[Glans penis|glans]] directly or indirectly through the movement of the [[foreskin]]. Since he has the full, naturally given potential of sensitivity at his disposal, he can use it to according to his own preferences. The [[circumcised ]]man, however, does not have that freedom of choice. He has neither the opportunity to include the [[foreskin]] into the stimulation, nor can he utilize its nerves and touch receptors. He also only has access to 15-50% of the potential sensitivity of an intact man, depending on the amount and kind of tissue that was removed, and the degree of [[keratinization ]] of the [[Glans penis|glans]]. In some cases, the limitation can be even more severe. On a heavily desensitized [[penis]], condoms can limit the sexual stimulation to the point where not enough arousal can be built up to reach an orgasm - — which means that fulfilling safer sex is not possible.

In particular, the tight styles of circumcision bear the risk, that the loss of the friction-reducing [[Gliding action| gliding effect ]] leads to unpleasant feelings or even pain for both partners during intercourse. The ability to masturbate without aid - — for example, from lubricants - — can be significantly reduced or even be lost in such a case. In a study<ref>{{KimDS PangMG 2007}}</ref>, 63% of the men interviewed reported problems with [[masturbation]] after being circumcised. If a boy or man is circumcised, without him making that decision for himself after thorough consideration and in full knowledge and understanding of all possible consequences, he is denied his constitutionally guaranteed freedom to experience his sexuality according to his own preferences. This is much like parental interference to promote a prohibition of [[masturbation]], or to inhibit a homosexual relationship - with the key difference that the parental intervention in form of a circumcision, unlike prohibitions during childhood, will have an irreversible, lifelong effect. Both do not comply with modern views of children's well-being and accepting the child as an autonomous individual, and are, therefore, not ethically justifiable.

Last not least, religious freedom is impaired. If a boy is circumcised for religious reasons as a child before he reaches the age of competence, he will carry the sign of that religion on his body for his entire life - — even if he decides to abjure that religion in the course of his life.

So why is circumcision tolerated as a means of upbringing, and even explicitly legalized? In Germany, this stems from - — although it is not stated in the law for legal reasons - — the belief that a ban would impair the religious freedom of the parents. Even though it is stated in Art.140 GG (German basic law):

Only very few will supposedly know that [[circumcision ]] has become a [[Circumcision industry| lucrative business]]. Not only the operation itself, but also the potentially needed aftercare, bring [[Financial incentive| profits]]. But while this is still obvious, there are also other trades that make money from it.

Baby [[foreskin]]s are a coveted resource. Under the name "[[Apligraf]]" an artificial [[skin]] product is marketed worldwide, which is used - among other uses - as an alternative to [[skin]] grafts using the patient’s own [[skin]]. It is grown from the [[foreskin]]s of children as young as possible. Since they are also mostly free of pathogenic organisms, they are also used as the basis for collagen, which is, among other purposes, used for anti wrinkle therapy and for lip augmentation. The manufacturer of the British product "Vavelta" advertised with the use of "freshly harvested (!) [[foreskin]]s". It is ''inter alia'' used as a replacement for animal experiments testing the compatibility of cosmetic products. In the face of the falling numbers of routine non-therapeutic infant circumcisions in the [[USA]], manufacturers have already expressed concerns that they might not "bring in enough harvest" more than 10 years ago. The parents of the [[circumcised ]] boys, however, very rarely know of the "secondary use" of their son's "donated" body parts. While preimplantation genetic diagnosis, stem cell research and genetic engineering are time and again critically questioned and discussed, the lifelong, significant modification of infant bodies for the good of the cosmetic industry is still common practice — supposedly partly because many women do not know what their augmented lips and wrinkle-free cheeks are made of baby [[foreskin]]. An ethical justification cannot be valid here.