 |
The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!
THE UNKINDEST CUT: Origins of Religion, Part 15
The attached article is by Prof. John Radford, Emeritus Professor of Psychology at the University of East London. It was published in Freethinker about three years ago: www.freethinker.co.uk and mentioned again on the NSS web bulletin Newsline on 9 April 2009. Both John Radford and Barry Duke (Freethinker) have given permission for the article to be used here in the hope that it will lead to more males being spared the frightening and unnecessary ordeal of circumcision.
John Radford wrote:
“Barry Duke describes, in the December 2005 Freethinker, the unpleasant practice of the Jewish mohel, who after cutting off the male infant’s foreskin, traditionally sucks the blood from the penis. A correspondence I had with the Department of Health may be of interest. I first wrote, addressed to the then Secretary of State, Dr John Reid, on 16th December 2004, as follows.
‘It is reported in East End Life, the community paper published by Tower Hamlets Council (13-19 December, 2004), that a “hospital based religious and cultural male circumcision service for people registered with a G.P. in Tower Hamlets is to be set up at Mile End Hospital”. The service is to be non-profit making but will charge a fee.
‘I read this report with near incredulity. Male circumcision, I need hardly point out, involves excising the foreskin of the penis, making a permanent alteration and normally leaving scar tissue. Mutilation of the genitals, or indeed any part of the body, cannot be considered as other than a serious assault on the person, unless there is clear medical justification. That is very rare, and is clearly not the case here. It is entirely unjustifiable when the individual is able to give fully informed and free consent. Children are not able to give such consent. Indeed they are usually not given the opportunity to do so. It is absolutely unacceptable that this practice should take place under the auspices of the National Health Service.
The Government is rightly exercised over whether, and to what extent, parents should be permitted the use of corporal punishment. There would be universal agreement, however, that if allowed it should never result in permanent physical damage. Circumcision does just that.
‘It may be said that circumcisions on religious or cultural grounds do take place, and it is better that it should be done in a hygienic environment. This argument could be used to justify any practice, and can be dismissed. Further, any surgical procedure carries some risk, and should never be undertaken unless really necessary. There is also the argument of respect for cultural and religious traditions. However, we do not allow this to override what is acceptable in our society. Fundamental to this is the rule of law, and that law must be based on such principles as respect for the person, equality before the law and protection of the weak. These principles are violated by the practice of non-medical circumcision of children.
‘I should like you to give me your assurance that your Department, and the National Health Service, do not support the practice of circumcision on non-medical grounds, and will do nothing to facilitate or condone it.’
I received no reply, and in writing on 11th February 2005 to request one, added: ‘I would add that since I wrote, legislation has come into force which, as I understand it, makes it an offence to use corporal punishment on a child in such a way as to leave a mark. Circumcision leaves a permanent mutilation. It also appears that non-medical amputation might be illegal under Human Rights Legislation. If not, however, the same would be true of cigarette smoking. This is legal, but in view of the known harm it often does, your Department does what it can to discourage it, especially among children. Circumcision is a precise and certain harm.’
This elicited the following (with apologies for delay), from a William Frost of the Customer Service Centre.
“It is generally agreed that circumcision brings no proven benefits to a person’s physical health, but at the same time, it is of deep significance for the Jewish and Islamic communities. However, this Department has no plans to issue guidance to cover ritual circumcision. We regard with respect the religious and cultural traditions that have existed for centuries and which are ultimately a matter of individual choice. Strategic Health authorities and NHS Trusts are free to choose whether to provide this surgery or not. However, their decision should be based on local circumstances and, if they do choose to provide ritual circumcision, costs should be met from funds available locally.
The legal position is unclear as it is untested. The protection of children from “traditional practices prejudicial to the health of the children” (United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child) has to be balanced against the rights of individuals to practise their religion, as enshrined in the 1998 Human Rights Act.
The most important issue is the safety of the child. Whilst no surgery is entirely without risk, an operation carried out in an appropriately equipped hospitable is preferable to one carried out by a “lay circumciser” in the community. We support the General Medical Council’s Guidance on circumcision issued in September 1997. This states that doctors who carry out this procedure must be properly skilled, must keep up to date on surgical methods, and must discuss the surgery with the parents beforehand.
I hope this information is helpful”.
Well, it is, in showing that neither reason nor ethics has much to do with it. Everything that is said applies equally to female ‘circumcision’ which is rightly illegal. As I could not see how to make any progress, I acknowledged the reply, merely commenting that it seemed odd for the Department of Health to ‘regard with respect’ the mutilation of children.
Male circumcision is only one of many traditional body markings or alterations with various functions, the most obvious perhaps being to indicate group identity or membership. The group may be a tribe or clan, etc, or one sex, or adult versus child. For Jews, this is exemplified by the myth of Abraham’s covenant with God, in Genesis 17, 10-14 (I guess, invented to account for an existing practice). For Muslims, and other groups, it is simply traditional. It is not mentioned in the Koran, and apparently is considered compulsory by only one of the six schools of Islamic law, though the others recommend it. It is common in the United States, possibly for supposed medical reasons rather than religious ones, but it seems to be declining significantly there.
Child abuse of all kinds is tragically all too common. Male circumcision is far from the worst example. But abuse it is, and I do not see that it can be justified on grounds of long tradition or religious belief. A belief, however strongly held, cannot entitle anyone to inflict harm on others. This is above all the case if the others are defenceless, as children are.
It seems to me reasonable to expect that the national Department of Health, as a minimum, should not condone or encourage it. I have not come across a psychological study of the effects on a boy (Muslims are often aged six to eleven) of his loving parents informing him that they have just arranged for a man to cut off part of his penis. A website www.NetDoctor.co.uk gives an extensive run-down of medical reasons against it, in an article written by Dr. John Dean who concludes that the best advice is “if it is not absolutely necessary, don’t do it.” This site also carries 187 questions and answers on the topic. But Dr. Dean bizarrely concludes with the assurance that the author has the greatest respect for all religions, and apologises if his words have given offence. Personally I feel no such respect, indeed this barbaric remnant of primitive behaviour would by itself destroy any vestige of it.”
John Radford wrote:
“Barry Duke describes, in the December 2005 Freethinker, the unpleasant practice of the Jewish mohel, who after cutting off the male infant’s foreskin, traditionally sucks the blood from the penis. A correspondence I had with the Department of Health may be of interest. I first wrote, addressed to the then Secretary of State, Dr John Reid, on 16th December 2004, as follows.
‘It is reported in East End Life, the community paper published by Tower Hamlets Council (13-19 December, 2004), that a “hospital based religious and cultural male circumcision service for people registered with a G.P. in Tower Hamlets is to be set up at Mile End Hospital”. The service is to be non-profit making but will charge a fee.
‘I read this report with near incredulity. Male circumcision, I need hardly point out, involves excising the foreskin of the penis, making a permanent alteration and normally leaving scar tissue. Mutilation of the genitals, or indeed any part of the body, cannot be considered as other than a serious assault on the person, unless there is clear medical justification. That is very rare, and is clearly not the case here. It is entirely unjustifiable when the individual is able to give fully informed and free consent. Children are not able to give such consent. Indeed they are usually not given the opportunity to do so. It is absolutely unacceptable that this practice should take place under the auspices of the National Health Service.
The Government is rightly exercised over whether, and to what extent, parents should be permitted the use of corporal punishment. There would be universal agreement, however, that if allowed it should never result in permanent physical damage. Circumcision does just that.
‘It may be said that circumcisions on religious or cultural grounds do take place, and it is better that it should be done in a hygienic environment. This argument could be used to justify any practice, and can be dismissed. Further, any surgical procedure carries some risk, and should never be undertaken unless really necessary. There is also the argument of respect for cultural and religious traditions. However, we do not allow this to override what is acceptable in our society. Fundamental to this is the rule of law, and that law must be based on such principles as respect for the person, equality before the law and protection of the weak. These principles are violated by the practice of non-medical circumcision of children.
‘I should like you to give me your assurance that your Department, and the National Health Service, do not support the practice of circumcision on non-medical grounds, and will do nothing to facilitate or condone it.’
I received no reply, and in writing on 11th February 2005 to request one, added: ‘I would add that since I wrote, legislation has come into force which, as I understand it, makes it an offence to use corporal punishment on a child in such a way as to leave a mark. Circumcision leaves a permanent mutilation. It also appears that non-medical amputation might be illegal under Human Rights Legislation. If not, however, the same would be true of cigarette smoking. This is legal, but in view of the known harm it often does, your Department does what it can to discourage it, especially among children. Circumcision is a precise and certain harm.’
This elicited the following (with apologies for delay), from a William Frost of the Customer Service Centre.
“It is generally agreed that circumcision brings no proven benefits to a person’s physical health, but at the same time, it is of deep significance for the Jewish and Islamic communities. However, this Department has no plans to issue guidance to cover ritual circumcision. We regard with respect the religious and cultural traditions that have existed for centuries and which are ultimately a matter of individual choice. Strategic Health authorities and NHS Trusts are free to choose whether to provide this surgery or not. However, their decision should be based on local circumstances and, if they do choose to provide ritual circumcision, costs should be met from funds available locally.
The legal position is unclear as it is untested. The protection of children from “traditional practices prejudicial to the health of the children” (United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child) has to be balanced against the rights of individuals to practise their religion, as enshrined in the 1998 Human Rights Act.
The most important issue is the safety of the child. Whilst no surgery is entirely without risk, an operation carried out in an appropriately equipped hospitable is preferable to one carried out by a “lay circumciser” in the community. We support the General Medical Council’s Guidance on circumcision issued in September 1997. This states that doctors who carry out this procedure must be properly skilled, must keep up to date on surgical methods, and must discuss the surgery with the parents beforehand.
I hope this information is helpful”.
Well, it is, in showing that neither reason nor ethics has much to do with it. Everything that is said applies equally to female ‘circumcision’ which is rightly illegal. As I could not see how to make any progress, I acknowledged the reply, merely commenting that it seemed odd for the Department of Health to ‘regard with respect’ the mutilation of children.
Male circumcision is only one of many traditional body markings or alterations with various functions, the most obvious perhaps being to indicate group identity or membership. The group may be a tribe or clan, etc, or one sex, or adult versus child. For Jews, this is exemplified by the myth of Abraham’s covenant with God, in Genesis 17, 10-14 (I guess, invented to account for an existing practice). For Muslims, and other groups, it is simply traditional. It is not mentioned in the Koran, and apparently is considered compulsory by only one of the six schools of Islamic law, though the others recommend it. It is common in the United States, possibly for supposed medical reasons rather than religious ones, but it seems to be declining significantly there.
Child abuse of all kinds is tragically all too common. Male circumcision is far from the worst example. But abuse it is, and I do not see that it can be justified on grounds of long tradition or religious belief. A belief, however strongly held, cannot entitle anyone to inflict harm on others. This is above all the case if the others are defenceless, as children are.
It seems to me reasonable to expect that the national Department of Health, as a minimum, should not condone or encourage it. I have not come across a psychological study of the effects on a boy (Muslims are often aged six to eleven) of his loving parents informing him that they have just arranged for a man to cut off part of his penis. A website www.NetDoctor.co.uk gives an extensive run-down of medical reasons against it, in an article written by Dr. John Dean who concludes that the best advice is “if it is not absolutely necessary, don’t do it.” This site also carries 187 questions and answers on the topic. But Dr. Dean bizarrely concludes with the assurance that the author has the greatest respect for all religions, and apologises if his words have given offence. Personally I feel no such respect, indeed this barbaric remnant of primitive behaviour would by itself destroy any vestige of it.”
Tags: Freethinker, male circumcision, mutilation
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Rosemary LYNDALL WEMM on -
Just as we cannot generalize African studies to Western civilization, so we cannot assume that what is best for Western civilizations works well in Africa. There is probably some justification for assuming that there are some real medical benefits to the procedure, in at least some instances, in a country full of poor people, with poor hygiene, poor education and poor motivation to use condoms or carefully wash parts of themselves.
BTW, I elected not to have my son circumcised after I engaged in some considerable invesigation of the usefulness or otherwise of the procedure. But I lived, and continue to live, in a Western civilisation. -
-
Permalink Reply by Dr. Terence Meaden on -
Daniel wrote: "It should be up to adults as to whether the procedure is done on their baby boys."
What??
You might have better said: It should be up to each fully-informed grown-up individual as to whether he should submit himself to self-mutilation.
But I would contest that too.
There are many people in this world who want to commit suicide but we do not allow them to do so if we can stop it by advising otherwise.
There are many people in this world who want to believe in "anthropomorphic glove puppet deities" but given the opportunity we would advise them otherwise.
There are likely to be some people in this world who would want to undergo voluntary self-mutilation.
But my answer would be: no 'cosmetic' or 'cultural' circumcision to be allowed or encouraged if we can do something to stop it or at least be given the chance to advise against it. -
-
Permalink Reply by Dr. Terence Meaden on
-
Daniel: "It should be up to adults as to whether the procedure is done on their baby boys."
What??
You might have better said: "It should be up to fully-informed adults as to whether they should submit themselves to voluntary self-mutilation."
But I would go even further than that.
Many people in this world want to commit suicide but we always do what we can to advise otherwise.
Many people in this world want to believe in "anthropomorphic sock puppet deities" (Clarence Dember) but given the chance we would want to advise otherwise.
Some people in this world might want to indulge in self-mutilation but we would like to be given at least the chance to advise otherwise.
I suggest: no permitted, so-called, 'cultural' or 'societal' or 'sock-puppet' religious circumcision -
-
Permalink Reply by Sentient Biped on -
Actually, re-reading, part of my comment was deleted. I actually meant it should be up to adults as to whether THEY want to be circumcised, rather than parents or others decide to have it done on their baby boys.
Sorry for the confusion. THis is like a recent item that I saw stating that resources were being spent to care for underserved populations but it came out stating that resources were going to undeserved populations. Aaarrghhh. -
-
Permalink Reply by Gecko, Seth...brother of Richie! on -
I have to disagree with you when it comes to adults Dr. I believe adult human being can decide for themselves about circumcision, or "body modification" of any type. Of course others could advise against it but where would the restriction end. No piercings, no tattoos? No vaginalplasties ( did I spell that correctly). And there are certain circumstances in which suicide should not be stopped. A debate which the religious cause to still continue over here.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Dr. Terence Meaden on
-
You have a point about tattooing and other voluntary body piercings, so I suppose someone who wants to cut off part of his own body skin (viz. prepuce) can do so---but he should not feel it to be obligatory on account of religious pressures because all religion is nonsense anyway.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Clarence Dember on -
On the matter of protection, anyone who has visited equatorial regions on the Earth (I've been to Kenya in East Africa) knows that the aggressiveness of insects in these regions can be vectors of disease to humans and that species who can draw up into themselves at their option and in their good time those vital parts concerned with the business of procreation have a better strategy (rule) for propagation than those who don't. Biologically, since no male humans are currently born without foreskins, those who failed to express this characteristic have died out if they ever existed. Notice no one is making a cosmetic argument against scrotum sacks.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Dr. Terence Meaden on
-
Neatly put.
Males are not born with foreskins missing, suggesting that if any had been so born in the distant past they had failed to pass on this variation and had died out.
Remember that homo sapiens spent about 100,000 years inhabiting only hot Africa before moving progressively into other continents. -
-
Permalink Reply by Rosemary LYNDALL WEMM on
-
Equally, males are not born with apendices missing, suggesting that if any had been born in the distant past they had failed to pass on this useful variation and had died in agony in hot steaming Africa as well as every other continent they moved to. A pity, really.
I don't know what it would be like not to have an appendix, since I still have mine. Terence, do you know what it is like to not have a foreskin? -
-
Permalink Reply by Clarence Dember on
-
I know what it's like, not to have a foreskin. My father had one. I saw that his penis was a different shape than my own when we were showering at the beach house in my child hood. That was a strange and un-welcomed feeling, I can assure you. To be fair, the old man did a boat load of proficiation (promising my mother he would help raise their children as Roman Catholics- her converted religion) to have peace in his home. However, the issue of my circumcision was taken out of the reach of my parent's control by the attending physician soon after I was born. There is current veterinary research that has indicated the appendix is a safe harbor for friendly bacteria, which would make it quite useful after all. If we didn't spend so much time clogging the intestines with things that are not requisite to the parastalsis of the intestine, we would find the appendix giving us less trouble. Ask any Naturopath. As to saying any common part of the species is a vestigial remnant is like saying occurrences in the process of natural selection don't happen for a reason. Survival of the species is the reason functional characteristics are expressed over the entire body of humanity with respect to gender specific and species specific organs, and tissues and A,B,O blood groups, etc.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Sentient Biped on
-
Clarence,
I never thought about that aspect - excellent point!
I grew up in a midwestern, Mississippi river town. The summer heat was sweltering, and we often wore minimal clothing. I was often covered with mosquito and chigger bites. Fortunately, we lived in an era of obligatory clothing (different discussion topic there!), so private parts were not exposed to the ravenous insects!
As to those in colder climates, maybe there was protection from frostbite? -
-
Permalink Reply by Gecko, Seth...brother of Richie! on
-
Here here Dr. well put!!
-
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
CONNECT WITH ATHEIST NEXUS
Latest Activity
- Top News
- Everything
Boothby171 liked matthew greenberg's discussion YES!!!! Wolf Blitzer asked the wrong person if she thanked the Lord....Boothby171 replied to John Jubinsky's discussion Parents Lose a Second Child from Opting for Faith Healing in the group Atheist News
Dennis Michael Pennington commented on Debra Stevenson's blog post Yahweh/" Jehovah's"/Allah's origins
© 2013 Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.
