Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Rights situation on circumcision

106 bytes added, 14:17, 27 December 2023
Wikify.
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.
== Examples of legislation in male genital mutilation ==
=== Austria ===
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]].
=== Belgium ===
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
|url=https://www.thebulletin.be/ethics-committee-rules-against-infant-circumcision
|title=Ethics committee rules against infant circumcision
* Approval of a right of veto depending on the maturity of the affected boy
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:
<blockquote>
</blockquote>
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.
In December 2012, a representative poll done by [https://www.infratest-dimap.de/en/ Infratest dimap] revealed that only 24 percent of the interviewed citizens were in favour of the law, while 70 percent explicitly disapproved of it.<ref>{{REFweb
=== Finland ===
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.
=== France ===
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.
=== Italy ===
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.
=== Sweden ===
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.
=== USA ===
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 [[medical trade association]], [[AAP]], 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.
== Examples of legislation in female genital mutilation ==
These four basic rights are relevant from the legal as well as the ethical point of view.
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.
If you take a look at the list of possible bodily and mental harms and late-effects listed in [[Circumcision#Risks_and_late_effects|"Risks and late effects"]], the imbalance becomes apparent. Spanking is already unlawful, but the irreversible [[amputation]] of an important, healthy part of the genital organ is not. The inevitable and possible consequences of this operation are ignored to a degree that is in harsh contrast to the established protection of children. Legalization, therefore, represents a considerable limitation of the male child's right to bodily integrity and protection from potentially harmful methods of upbringing.
15,277
edits

Navigation menu