| |


The
news stories below are listed in reverse chronological
order. For a complete listing, please see our
Site Map page.

November 17, 2009
Ritual circumcisions 'illegal'
Exclusive by Stephen Moyes (stephen.moyes@mirror.co.uk)
DOCTORS performing ritual circumcisions on children face financial ruin,
disciplinary action and even jail.
A test-case being brought by a 20-year-old man circumcised as a baby
could, if successful, open the floodgates to claimants.
The unnamed man is to sue a GP still practising in Greater London for
physical and psychological damage.
He will argue that circumcision on a child without a medical requirement
is mutilation.
His father took him to be circumcised shortly after birth in accordance
with his own religious beliefs.
Now the father is mortified at the mental and physical state of his
adult son, and is supporting the case.
The father has documents that prove which GP carried out the
circumcision.
Performing surgery on a person without adequate consent constitutes
battery in law, which can be prosecuted in the civil courts.
But given the lack of consent the surgery also constitutes an assault
which can be prosecuted under criminal law - meaning a guilty verdict
could lead to a prison term.
The test-case is being supported by a legal firm, leading urologist,
child protection agency and circumcision awareness body The National
Organisation of Restoring Men (Norm).
Norm spokesman David Smith said: "Surgery is defined as 'manual or
instrumental treatment of injuries or disorders of the body'. If no
injury or disorder is present, then it can't be surgery.
"Circumcision is a mutilation, which is defined as 'to injure, to make
imperfect by the removal of a part'. It is shocking that the NHS is
responsible for mutilating children.
"We support a man's right to choose a ritual circumcision for himself,
but not for anyone else.
"Adult circumcision is a straight-foward operation which can be
undertaken in under 30minutes under local anaesthetic. There is no
excuse for forcing it on children.
"There is growing belief by many people that the only way to make
doctors put their scalpels down is to take legal action. This is not
about money, it's about protecting the next generation."
Some doctors privately charge up to s350 for 'forced circumcision' of a
baby brought to them by their parents.
Legal action can only be brought when the child reaches 18. There is
then a three-year legal window in which they can take action against the
GP.
Circumcision is a surgical procedure that can be performed on men and
women and is done for a variety of reasons, some of them cultural or
religious.
The General Medical Council does not have a public position on the issue
of ritual male circumcision on children who cannot give informed
consent.
A spokeswoman said: "We do not have general authority to determine
public policy on issues that arise within medical practice - these are
matters for society as a whole to determine, through the parliamentary
process."
Katy Swaine, legal director of Child Rights Alliance for England, told
the Mirror: "The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has made clear
that female genital mutilation violates childrens rights and this
position has been reflected in the banning of such procedures under UK
legislation.
"The carrying out of circumcision procedures on young male children must
also be examined in the context of childrens rights under the treaty -
not least given the requirement for nondiscrimination in the application
of treaty rights.
"A body of medical opinion has for some time supported the view that
most male circumcision procedures do not have a medical basis. As such,
given the invasiveness of the procedure and the negative consequences
suffered by some individuals, there is a strong argument that it should
not be carried out without informed consent from the individual who is
to undergo the procedure.
"It is only a matter of time before these issues are raised in the
courts by those who have undergone the procedure as children and have
suffered negative consequences. In the meantime it behoves the NHS,
Department of Health, professional medical bodies and communities to
examine this issue seriously, acknowledging and addressing its
implications for childrens rights."
The individual bringing the test-case is collating evidence and
financial and legal support and will launch it next year.
A solicitor close to the case said: "The action being brought against
the doctor is more likely to lead to financial damage rather than
prosecution, but it is complicated and nothing can be ruled out.
"Doctors performing 'forced circumcision' on a small minority of
children are acting in defiance of general medical council and are
effectively medical rebels.
"Most urologists will only perform a circumcision on someone who needs
it, just like any form of amputation.
"This is not a straightforward case. Parents have the right to give
consent but only when in the best interests of a child. I don't think
any act involving cutting off half of a child's penis is in their best
interests."
Source:
The Daily Mirror (U.K.)


October
15,
2009
Chiefs apologise to forced initiate
TRADITIONAL leaders have apologised to a
teenager forced to undergo traditional
circumcision after he took the matter to
court, where it was ruled
unconstitutional yesterday.
Bhisho High Court judge Yusuf Ebrahim
ruled that circumcision without consent
was illegal and went against an
individual’s constitutional rights.
He made the ruling during the
unprecedented court battle between a
father and his son.
The son claimed to have been been forced
to undergo traditional circumcision
against his religious beliefs.
Bonani Yamani, a second year
microbiology student at the University
of the Free State, was forcefully
circumcised after he was abducted by his
father Lindile Yamani and 10 other men
at his KwaMasele village near King
William’s Town on March 3, 2007.
This was three months after he had
returned from East London’s Frere
Hospital, where he had been surgically
circumcised in November 2006.
Yamani refused to go with the men,
telling them that he had already been
circumcised, but the men mocked the
circumcision and took him to the bush
were they circumcised him again.
Yesterday Ebrahim said that forced
circumcision was against the
Constitution and it was unfair for
anyone to be discriminated against based
on their religious beliefs.
Following an apology from Eastern Cape
Contralesa, Yamani gave his consent for
a settlement and withdrew his complaint.
The chairperson of Eastern Cape
Contralesa, Nkosi Ngubo Mgcotyelwa,
apologised to Yamani for remarks made by
his predecessor, Chief Mwelo Nonkonyana,
that people such as Yamani, who refused
traditional circumcision, should be
ostracised by the community. —
thanduxoloj@dispatch.co.za
Source:
Daily Dispatch


September 29,
2009
Man sentenced in child circumcision case
By Steve
Obnesorge
LENOIR, NC
(WBTV) - A father who admitted to circumcising his
infant sons earlier this week was sentenced in Caldwell
County court Friday afternoon.
John Marlowe
was accused of two felony counts of abuse in the case
and the jury convicted him Thursday on one count of
misdemeanor child abuse. They jury was deadlocked in
reaching a verdict in the other count and because of
this, Judge Robert Ervin declared a mistrial.
On Friday,
the court gave Marlowe the maximum sentence of 150 days
which must be served after a 12-to-15 year sentence he
received for an assault charge in which he was convicted
of earlier this year.
Prior to the
sentencing on Friday, Marlowe's ex-wife, Amber, pleaded
with the court to keep Marlowe in jail as long as
possible. She told the court that he once threatened
that he would kill her if she ever told police about the
circumcisions or testified against him in court. She
told the court she is terrified that some day he's going
to come after her.
As the
defendant left the courthouse Friday afternoon, WBTV
reporter Steve Ohnesorge asked Marlowe if he still
thought what he did was right. Marlowe responded, "Yes."
When asked if
he would ever circumcise any more children in which he
might have in the future, Marlowe said, "Yes."
After he was
sentenced, Marlowe told the court he would appeal.
During the
proceedings earlier this week, Marlowe said he
circumcised his boys for religious reasons, but he never
specifically said which faith he followed.
He was
convicted back in May of several assault charges with
his ex-wife and children as the victims. Sentencing in
that case was delayed until the trial this week.
On Wednesday,
Marlowe admitted he circumcised two of his children
without any anesthetic. He said God told him to perform
the circumcisions.
"The main
reason I did it was, the Holy Spirit pressed me to do
it," he said.
Marlowe
learned how to do the circumcisions, he said, by reading
books and the internet. He used his shirt to demonstrate
to the courtroom his surgical method.
"[I] pulled
the skin over the tip and cut it off," he said.
He also
revealed that he has circumcised a total of three
children: one in Mecklenburg County and two in Caldwell
County. At this time, he has not been charged in
connection with the alleged incident in Mecklenburg
County.
Marlowe says
the pain couldn't have been that bad for the infants. He
says he knows because he performed a circumcision on
himself a few years ago when he was 30.
"The pain did
not overwhelm me or stop me," he said. "Within an hour
or so, [I] was able to put in 13 stitches."
He claims he
did the right thing with his children and that putting
him in jail for it sets a bad precedent.
On Tuesday,
Marlowe confronted his accusers -- his ex-wife and a
second woman he claimed he was married to at the time.
Marlowe said
this is all about religious freedom and his right to
circumcise his children. "It hasn't been illegal till
now, why should it be illegal?" Marlowe said.
Marlowe kept
reminding witnesses and the court that this was a
landmark case.
"Do you
understand what the outcome of the case will do to the
state and this country?" he asked.
However,
prosecutors say this is not about religious freedom, but
instead is about what one man did to his children.
Marlowe's
ex-wife, Amber Marlowe, said he used a box knife to
circumcise her son.
Sara Fleming,
who also lived with John Marlowe, described how he
circumcised her child.
"He held the
foreskin out, took the box cutter, and made an
incision," Fleming she said.
Marlowe
didn't deny doing that or how the infants reacted.
Both women
said they couldn't stop John Marlowe from performing the
procedure because they were fearful for their lives.
Fleming described her escape months later.
"It was
necessary for me to leave out a back window with just
the clothes I had on," she said, "[I was] running for my
life."
Amber Marlowe
says she's testifying now because she finally feels
safe.
"I'm no
longer under your power, I no longer have nightmares of
you coming and killing me, I know you are safe behind
bars where you can't reach me," she said.
As for the
Caldwell County victims who were just a few days old
when the circumcisions occurred, one is still in the
custody of Department of Social Services. The second
child is with his mother, Sara Fleming. A doctor told us
the children are well and should not have any long
lasting physical effects.
Source:
WBTV.com


July 25,
2009
Swedish doctors refuse to circumcise boys
Many doctors
and several local authorities in Sweden refuse to
circumcise boys unless it is medically motivated,
reported Dagens Nyheter (DN) newspaper.
Gunnar
Göthberg, chairman of the Swedish Pediatric Surgeons
Association (Svensk barnkirurgisk förening), compared
the procedure to female genital mutilation.
A survey done
by the association reported that two of three pediatric
surgeons do not want to perform circumcision. Göthberg
regards the operation as an assault since the procedure
is done without the child's consent.
Dagens
Nyheter reported that 12 of 21 local municipalities also
refuse to perform circumcisions for non-medical reasons.
Around 3,000
circumcisions are estimated to be done in Sweden each
year. Of these, around 2,000 are performed by people who
are not doctors and who do not have a medical license,
which pose risks for the child and lead to
complications.
Circumcision
of boys for non-medical reasons is permitted in Sweden,
and the Swedish Board of Health and Welfare
(Socialstyrelsen) is of the opinion that a prohibition
would be an illegal limitation on religious freedom.
The authority
has proposed that the issue should be legally regulated
and that all municipalities should offer male
circumcision for non-medical reasons. The Swedish
Association of Local Authorities and Regions believes
that a formal recommendation would be sufficient.
Critics claim
that non-medical circumcision is in violation of the
United Nation's Declaration of the Rights of the Child,
reported DN.
Source:
The Local - Sweden's News in English


June 3,
2009
Routine operation may be a crime
By Andrew
Darby
ONCE routine,
now often thought unkind, the cut may also be illegal.
Parental consent might not be enough to protect the
circumcisers of baby boys from later legal action.
In a rare
legal analysis of the medical procedure, the Tasmanian
Law Reform Institute found that criminal and civil law
lacked certainty, and may abuse the rights of a child.
No specific
laws regulate the removal of the foreskin in Australia,
and there are few clear answers in general law,
according to an institute researcher, Warwick Marshall.
"What is clear is that the current laws were not framed
with male circumcision in mind," he said in an issues
paper released yesterday.
About 12 per
cent of newborn boys are believed to be circumcised in
Australia, down from 90 per cent in the 1950s.
Routine
circumcision is no longer performed in most Australian
public hospitals, and Australian medical colleges
combined to conclude in 2004 that "there is no medical
indication for routine neonatal circumcision".
However,
according to the law reform institute, most practising
Jews still consider it a requirement of their faith, to
be conducted by a specially-trained circumciser eight
days after birth, while Muslims are the largest
identifiable group who do it today.
Concerns
about the circumcisers' legal position were first raised
by the Tasmanian Children's Commissioner, Paul Mason,
who referred the issue to the institute.
"The whole
subject of non-therapeutic circumcision on boys is so
fraught with emotion and unreasonable assumption that it
is hard to find answers to the most basic legal
questions," Mr Mason concluded.
He found that
the risks included pain, surgical mishap or
complications, and decreased sexual pleasure. Among the
claimed benefits were reduced chance of infections, and
cultural or religious conformity.
The
institute's paper, "Non-Therapeutic Male Circumcision",
found that the consequences of an ill-advised procedure
could be particularly grave.
"Even if a
court considers the physical loss following circumcision
negligible, the social and psychological effects of a
wrong decision can be devastating."
The institute
said in law the operation might be considered an assault
or a wounding, though there was little legal guidance on
whether a routine circumcision was injurious.
"There is
uncertainty as to whether the consent of a parent for
the circumcision of their child is sufficient to allow a
circumciser to legally perform the procedure," it said.
Source:
The Sydney Morning Herald



"Intactivists," demonstrating yesterday, want a federal ban on newborn
circumcision.
March 31,
2009
Rallying in the Name of the Unkindest Cut?
Sharp Rhetoric Abounds In Circumcision
Debate
By Dan Zak
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 31, 2009; C01
In the shadow
of the nation's most recognizable phallic symbol, they
gather and march. There are about 50 of them, all ages,
both sexes, nearly all white, smiling, quiet, enjoying
the sun as they make a slow loop in front of the White
House with their signs of protest. Their mounted photos
of pink squealing babies make the event look, at first
glance, like an anti-abortion rally.
But look
closer at the squealing baby photos and see why they're
squealing.
On second
thought, don't.
Just read the big black sign with bold white letters:
WHOSE PENIS?
WHOSE BODY?
WHOSE RIGHTS?
These people
are intactivists.
As in, activists who want male genitalia kept intact. As
in, people who want a federal ban on male circumcision
for newborns.
A herd of
eighth-graders on a class trip gets mixed up in the
rally yesterday. The girls snap photos as the boys gawk
and giggle.
"Freedom to
protest, kids, freedom to protest," says their teacher,
delivering the day's civics lesson.
A man walks
by with a sign depicting a cartoon baby exclaiming, "You
Want to Cut Off WHAT?"
To no one in
particular, the teacher mutters: "It's gonna be their
favorite souvenir. They got a picture that says 'penis'
on it."
It's Genital
Integrity Awareness Week, in case you didn't know, as
well as National Child Abuse Prevention Month. Female
genital mutilation has received worldwide attention and
condemnation -- and was banned by Congress 12 years ago
this week -- and now intactivists say it's time for
equal rights for boys. In this case, gender equality
enters a murky, impassioned area in which medicine,
religion, culture, industry, sexuality, language and a
bit of craziness collide over the most common type of
surgery in America (56 percent of male infants were
circumcised in 2006 in the United States, the only
Western industrialized country to routinely practice
circumcision).
It is a
sensitive issue. Pun absolutely intended.
* * *
How
intactivists define circumcision: a cruel, traumatic and
unnecessary surgery (the American Academy of Pediatrics
says the benefits are not sufficient enough to recommend
the procedure) that causes enduring sexual and
psychological injury to a helpless infant who can't give
his consent.
How much of
the medical community defines circumcision: a simple,
nearly painless operation that removes an obsolete part
of the body that can increase a man's susceptibility to
infections and sexually transmitted diseases
(circumcision reduces the risk of getting HIV by 60
percent, studies show).
How religion
defines circumcision: as a covenant with God, as
conveyed to Abraham.
It's a
lopsided fight, but each side has doctors and lawyers.
Each side has data. Each accuses the other of denial.
One side is labeled as a bunch of baby-cutting sex
criminals. The other is labeled as sex-obsessed,
fanatical loonies who are duping the public.
"We don't want to
understand this," says Van Lewis, who has protested
infant circumcision in Tallahassee since the '70s and
helped make Florida one of 16 states that no longer
publicly fund circumcision. "We're living in denial as a
nation. Of what we've done to ourselves."
"The
anti-circs have a lot to answer for," Brian J. Morris,
professor of molecular medical sciences at the
University of Sydney, writes in an e-mail. "Only
deception by their propaganda leads some gullible men
into believing that their sexual problems have something
to do with their circumcision as an infant. This is just
not true. . . . Most are just ignorant do-gooders with a
misplaced sence of political correctness, who get sucked
into these organizations by believing the rubbish posted
on their websites."
The arguments
touch on human rights, bodily integrity and public
health. Strong emotions are just the tip of the issue.
* * *
The rally
departs from the White House about 2 p.m., headed toward
Pennsylvania Avenue, on the breezy walk to the Capitol.
The 50 people include the only man to ever file a
lawsuit over a medically successful circumcision (and
win), the woman who saw him on "Good Morning America"
and later became his wife and joined the crusade, and a
guy from Chicago who mass-produces (in his basement) an
apparatus that he says allows men to grow back foreskin.
He says he's sold 15,000 of the devices over the past
five years. Men want to reclaim what was taken from
them, he says, and they will pay $16 to $60 a pop to
feel whole.
This is the
16th annual march. Numbers are down this year (dang
economy), but everyone still seems to be from a
different anti-circumcision group. And they will talk
your ear off. Spend some time with intactivists and you
will hear how circumcision is responsible for, among
other things, the oppression of women, sexual
disharmony, deforestation, militarization, the rise and
fall of empires and the invasion of foreign lands for
oil.
You will also
hear some sensible things about condoms and
cost-effectiveness and the pain of men who say they are
struggling with the emotional and physical effects of
circumcision. Then there's Soraya Miré, a speaker and
activist who endured female genital mutilation in her
native Somalia when she was 13. After witnessing a male
circumcision in the United States, she broadened her
message to include both genders.
"I understand
women's circumcision is more severe but, to me, pain is
pain," says Miré, who lives in Los Angeles and doesn't
believe anesthesia for circumcision makes a difference.
A young guy
sticks his buzzed head out of a white minivan as the
marchers pass through a crosswalk on Pennsylvania.
"Circumcision increases sensation!"
he shouts, in response to one of the protest signs.
"No, it
causes premature ejaculation!" says Marilyn Milos, a
former nurse and founder of the National Organization of
Circumcision Information Resource Centers.
"That's never
happened to me!" the guy yells back.
"Yeah,
right!"
And everyone
laughs. There seems to be a sense of humor about this,
after all.
Next, the
march passes a cluster of security guards in sunglasses.
"You know
circumcision started in the 1800s to stop our boys from
masturbating," announces David Wilson, who lives in
Cocoa Beach, Fla., and is the director of the Stop
Infant Circumcision Society.
"I'm blind,"
says a security guard, and the marchers discuss whether
that's a poor, ignorant joke or a great, subversive
joke.
* * *
There is, of
course, a serious, disturbing side to this. Leading the
pack are two 21-year-olds, Jason Siegel and Zachary Levi
Balakoff, who are on Day 3 of a hunger strike. They say
they won't eat until genital mutilation is exposed. Go
ahead, ask them why. They'll tell you, for many minutes,
about the "entire realms of exquisite feeling" they are
missing by not having foreskins and the corresponding
nerves. The "giant monstrosity" of circumcision
"envelops" their entire lives.
"If we have
to die, then that's what's necessary," Balakoff says.
They say they'll sit in front of the Capitol until they
starve.
The other
marchers just want people to keep the clamps and knives
away from infants. They just want society to respect the
bodies of everyone, with no disrespect to any religion.
They just want men to know what they're missing, so
maybe they won't choose to do the same to their sons.
They say their message is reaching a wider audience.
Circumcision rates are way down from their peak of 85
percent in 1965. The foundation Intact America started
six months ago to direct the message to the mainstream.
The goal is a male genital mutilation bill.
The march
nears the Capitol. An open-air trolley packed with
tourists trundles past the signs. The tourists can't
help but look. The guide's voice is audible over the
speakers as the trolley rolls by.
"You know
what? This is America," the guide says, and it's hard to
tell if she means it as a celebration or an excuse.
Source:
The Washington Post



Ooni of Ife, Oba Okunade Sijuade
December 20,
2008
In Osun, controversy trails move by House of Assembly
to outlaw tribal marks, circumcision
By Tunde
Odesola
When did it
become an offence for parents to circumcise their
children? That is the question many parents in Osun
State may soon be asking law enforcement agents if the
state government put teeth into the Child Rights Act
recently passed by the House of Assembly. Under the law,
no parent or guardian has the right to “tattoo or make a
skin mark on a child. A person who tattoos or makes a
skin mark on a child commits an offence under this Law
and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding five
thousand naira or imprisonment for a term not exceeding
one month or to both such fine and imprisonment.”
Skin mark, in
the eye of this law, means any form of genital
mutilation or facial mark. But religion appears the
biggest challenge of this law.
Logic and the
rights of the child appear to play little part in
determining the acceptability of genital mutilation in
our society. Article 24(3) of the United Nations
convention on the rights of the child commits all
ratifying states to taking all effective and appropriate
measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices
prejudicial to the health of children.” And article
19(1) says, “States shall take all appropriate
legislative administrative social and educational
measures to protect the child from all forms of physical
or mental violence, injury or abuse.”
Anti-circumcision exponents, Y Hofvander and J Smith, in
their respective works against circumcision, contend
that it cannot be in the best interest of a child to be
subjected, without its consent, to an irreversible
surgical procedure, often without anesthetic.
In the US and
UK, female genital mutilation is expressively barred by
law but the same cannot be said of male circumcision
which is approved if the two parents consent on
religious or cultural grounds.
Among some
ethnic groups, an individual receives his or her first
marks at the age of 14, signifying transition from
childhood to adulthood.
Commenting on
circumcision and facial marks for children, the Ooni of
Ife, Oba Okunade Sijuwade, threw his weight behind the
abolition of the age-long practice, saying it has
outlived its usefulness. The traditional ruler of
Ile-Ife, which is widely held as the cradle of the
Yoruba traditional and cultural practices, held that
practices that were harmful or capable of inflicting
pain on people should be expunged. Sijuwade, who spoke
through his Media Executive, Chief Funmi Olorunnisola,
recalled that facial marks were basically used for
identification purposes, adding that emerging trends in
the 21st Century had evolved modern means of
identification.
But world
acclaimed Ifa priest and Awise of Osogbo, Chief Yemi
Elebuibon, disagrees with the opponents of circumcision
and facial marks. He said, “Tattoo is a form of
identification and beautification practised by
Europeans, Australians and Americans. It is unfortunate
that western values have continued to erode our
tradition and culture. It smacks of inferiority complex
to canvass abolition of facial marks or circumcision.
What government should do is ensure the use of hygienic
needles and maintain best practice during the act of
facial mark or circumcision. Facial marks are rooted in
the history and socio-cultural heritage of our people.
We should not forget our history in order for us not to
go astray. Panegyrics extolling facial marks are fast
dying. The whites still hold on to their tradition and
culture.”
A frontline
traditional ruler in Osun State, the Owa of Igbajo, Oba
Olufemi Fasade, said the Child Right Act would be put to
the test in the law courts by parents and guardians.
According to the Owa, parental discretion, rather than
law, should be employed in determining male
circumcision, noting that the art of facial marks was
gradually dying a natural death.
He said,
“Culture differs from clime to clime. For instance, the
burial of kings has its rites; if a government enacts a
law to prohibit the rites associated with burial of
kings, it might fail because people have their cultural
differences and leanings regarding this matter. Facial
mark art is dying a natural death because people no
longer feel the need for it. Traditional circumcisers
could seek legal protection for their profession by
challenging the Act if they believe that their trade is
under threat.”
The Oludo of
Ido-Osun community in Osun State, Oba Aderemi Adedapo,
said facial marks were used in the slave trade era to
distinguish slaves from freeborn. He said, “Health and
economic developments have rendered some traditional and
cultural practices ineffectual. Polygamy, which was rife
in those days, is fast going out of fashion even among
traditional rulers. Polygamy was rife because of
agrarian farming practices. People nowadays investigate
genotypes before they get married. People ate any type
of food with their bare hands, but all these are fast
changing. Fingerprints and holograms are examples of
modern day identification.@
A US-based
Nigerian medical doctor, Yemi Oladimeji, who owns five
dialysis centres in Maryland, USA, said, “There are
short term risks of bleeding and infection associated
with any surgical procedure. Longer term potential
complications include pain on erection, penile
disfigurement, and psychological problems. A recent
report shows that the non-circumcised adult penis is
more sensitive than the circumcised penis, largely
because the five most sensitive areas in the male organ
are removed during circumcision. This implies a
reduction in future sexual sensitivity for circumcised
adults. Far from being a harmless traditional practice,
circumcision damages young boys.”
Oladimeji
said renowned researchers and crusaders against
circumcision such as Williams Kaplia, Peterson S, and
Sorrells M, in their various works, contend that male
child circumcision has continued unchecked throughout
the world.
The kidney
expert said circumcision phenomenon was a direct tussle
between the primacy of parental religious conviction and
the primacy of the human rights of the child, the
preservation of its bodily integrity, and its right to
self determination. Debunking the insinuations that
circumcision prevents penile cancer, masturbation,
blindness and insanity, Oladimeji said the claims relate
to adult sexual behaviour and not genital anatomy or
best interest of a child.
“There may be
a case that male circumcision reduces HIV risk in
sexually active adults, but the decision about whether
to have this procedure should be left until the person
is old enough to make his own informed healthcare
choices,” Oladimeji contended.
The
President, Association of Resident Doctors, Ladoke
Akintola University Teaching Hospital, Osogbo. Dr
Mobolaji Olaoye, said traditional practices like
circumcision and facial marks could cause children to
bleed to death. “It is high risk to give facial marks or
scarify babies, because they could easily bleed to
death,” he said.
A nurse in
LAUTECH, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said
several cases of infection in children resulted from
scarification and circumcision, adding that the act
disfigures rather that beautifies.
A Muslim
parent, who spoke with our correspondent, said, “I have
facial marks but I didn’t give my five children any
facial marks because facial marks have outlived their
usefulness.”
Predicting
that Christian parents will defy the law against male
circumcision, a pastor of one of the pentecostal
churches in Osogbo, Dr Soji Olabisi, said, “The law
against male circumcision is a law against God’s
commandment. True Christians will resist the law.”
Will
Christians and Muslims in the state bow to temporal law,
in the face of God’s injunction to circumcise the male
child on the eighth day? Time will tell.
Source:
Punch


November
21,
2008
Furor over Proposed Ban of Circumcision in Denmark
Jews and
Muslims in Denmark are in an uproar about a bill to ban
circumcision for boys under the age of 15, according to
Yediot Ahronot. The country's National Council for
Children and Ethics Council have both endorsed the
proposal and only the parliament's medical committee can
prevent it from being heard.
The National
Council for Children argued that, "Circumcision is the
irreversible damage to a child's body before he is given
the chance to object." It also said the ban was a matter
of equality, in the wake of a five-year-old ban on
female circumscion.
Denmark's
Chief Rabbi Bent Lexner – who is also a certified mohel
(circumciser) in the community – told Yediot Ahronot,
"The comparison between circumcision and the intentional
mutilation of the female sex organ in certain societies
is simply complete nonsense." He added, "If the law
forbidding circumcision is ever passed in Denmark, Jews
will have to leave the place they have been living in
for hundreds of years."
Judaism
specifies circumcsion when a boy is eight days old,
unless medically dictated otherwise. Islam does not
specify a date, but allows it through puberty.
Source:
Israel National News


November
18,
2008
Politicians eyeing circumcision ban
Several parliamentary parties are considering creating legislation
that would spare all children from circumcision - not just girls
A proposal to ban circumcision for boys may be on its way to parliament
after intense discussions by MPs over the past week, reports Kristeligt
Dagblad newspaper.
Although circumcision of girls was outlawed in response to the practice
being common among immigrants from some Muslim countries, boys may still
be circumcised if a certified physician is present.
Jewish traditions calls for the circumcision of newborn boys, and many
Muslims and Christians support the practice as well. But both the Ethics
Council and the National Council for Children have recently criticised
the practice, stating that a boy should be able to decide for himself if
he wants the procedure performed when he reaches the age of 15 - the
legal age in Denmark for a child to have sole jurisdiction over his own
body.
While the Social Democrats, Red-Green Alliance and Liberal Alliance have
come out in support of a ban, the Danish People's Party called it
'tyranny'.
'It's completely ridiculous to compare the circumcision of girls - which
is a barbaric mutilation - with that of boys, where it's just the
removal of a skin flap,' said the party's Jesper Langballe.
But the party's own health spokeswoman, Liselott Brixt, said she
supports a ban.
'A lot of parents want it done to their children because they themselves
had it done. But we're living in the present and it isn't fair to expose
healthy children to religious circumcision.'
Medical wisdom is mixed on the supposed benefits of male circumcision,
some studies claiming it prevents disease while others indicate normal
hygiene procedures sufficiently negate the need for the practice.
The American Academy of Pediatrics does not support male circumcision,
indicating any health advantages from it are minimal.
Source:
The Copenhagen Post


October 6,
2008
Supreme court turns away
Oregon circumcision case
The U.S. Supreme Court today declined to
take up an Oregon dispute between a
father who wants to circumcise his
13-year-old son against the wishes of
the boy's mother.
The case now goes back to an Oregon
trial judge to determine whether the boy
wants to undergo the procedure.
James Boldt, a former Southern Oregon
resident who converted to Judaism, says
his son wants to be circumcised for
religious reasons.
Lia Boldt claims her son is afraid to
tell his father that he does not want to
undergo the procedure.
The Boldts married in the early 1990s.
She filed for divorce in 1998.
The boy initially lived with his mother,
but the father later gained custody.
James Boldt started studying Judaism in
1999 and eventually converted.
James Boldt claims that as the custodial
parent he has a constitutional right to
raise his son in his religion.
The Oregon Supreme Court earlier this
year did not rule on the substance of
the dispute, but said the trial judge
needed to determine the boy's wishes
before deciding which parent to side
with.
-- Ashbel S. (Tony) Green;
tonygreen@news.oregonian.com
Source:
The
Oregonian



February 6,
2008
Gaston County Father Charged with
Child Abuse, Circumcision
NORTH
CAROLINA - A
Gaston County man, who is the father of a dozen
kids by two different women, is now facing even
more child abuse charges in Caldwell County.
Last
week, Johnny Marlowe pleaded no contest to
assaulting his wife and neglecting all 12 kids.
WBTV's Michael Handy found out the latest
charges came after Marlowe was accused of
circumcising two of his sons.
Johnny Marlowe remains in the Gaston County jail
tonight, but he could be released within the
next few weeks. Either way, his legal troubles
are far from over now that he's facing felony
child abuse charges in Caldwell County.
"Instead of doing this, could we just give me
the maximum and let it go," asked Marlowe at his
most recent court appearance.
He
pleaded no contest to more than a dozen counts
of child neglect and one count of assaulting his
wife. "I'd rather just take the maximum and let
it go," he said to the judge.
Marlowe made it clear he wanted the whole mess
behind him as quickly as possible and his wife
Amber was barely able to speak.
She
tried to tell the judge that her husband was
married to another women at the same time and
they all lived together in a very small house.
It is
hard to imagine three adults and 12 kids living
in the house, but police say that's nothing
compared to what happened in Caldwell County.
Marlowe and his two wives lived in Lenoir for
several years and during that time Amber says he
delivered and then circumcised two of his
youngest sons.
Police reports indicate that Marlowe used a
utility knife and one of the boys even bled
extensively.
The
question everyone is asking is, what could
motivate a father to deliver and circumcise his
own sons?
Well
Marlowe says it all started back in 2004 at a
Pennsylvania hospital. Doctors there tried to
force Amber to have a C-section and that's
something Marlowe says he strongly opposes.
Doctors at that Pennsylvania hospital even went
to court to try and get legal guardianship of
the Marlowe's unborn daughter.
It
made national news, but the Marlowe's won the
case. Amber gave birth naturally and without
complications at another hospital.
Source:
WBTV


January 25,
2008
Oregon court rejects circumcision case
Salem, Ore.
-- The Oregon Supreme Court Friday blocked a Jewish
convert from having his 12-year-old son circumcised
until the boy's own wishes have been determined.
The state
high court sent the case back to a trial court, The
Portland Oregonian reported.
The child's
parents, James and Lia Boldt, are divorced. The father
argued that having custody of his son gives him the
right to make medical decisions for the boy.
Lia Boldt
argued that circumcision is dangerous. She said that the
boy was afraid to disagree with his father.
Lower courts
ruled in the father's favor. But the state supreme court
found that there had been no adequate finding of what
the 12-year-old actually wants.
"In our view,
at age 12, M's attitude regarding circumcision, though
not conclusive of the custody issue presented here, is a
fact necessary to the determination," Chief Justice Paul
De Muniz wrote. "Forcing M at age 12 to undergo
circumcision against his will could seriously affect the
relationship between M and his father, and could have a
pronounced effect on father's capability to properly
care for M."
Source:
United Press International


December 9,
2007
Doctors back call for circumcision ban
The
Australian Medical Association has backed a call for
laws banning the non-essential circumcision of infant
boys.
The Tasmanian Children's
Commissioner, Paul Mason, says
non-medical circumcision is a breach
of human rights.
The AMA's Tasmanian President, Haydn
Walters, says they would support a
ban on the practice, except where
there are medical or religious
reasons.
He says there is only rarely a
medical need to carry out the
procedure.
"There were quite a lot of folk
myths around the advantages of
circumcision. They've almost all
been debunked," Prof Walters said.
"There are some minimal advantages
in some circumstances, particularly
in some infectious diseases, but
they're overwhelmingly balanced by
disadvantages in other areas," he
said
Source:
Australian Broadcasting
Corporation


September 21,
2007
Frankfurt court finds circumcision an unlawful personal
injury
A regional
appeals court in Frankfurt am Main found that the
circumcision of an 11-year-old Muslim boy without his
approval was an unlawful personal injury.
The Sept. 20
decision opened the way toward financial compensation
for the boy.
The case may
have repercussions for the practice of ritual
circumcision in Germany by Muslims and Jews. The court
suggested, in part, that it was a punishable offense to
subject one's child to teasing by other children for
looking different.
The boy, now
14, plans to sue his father for 10,000 Euro (about
$14,000), according to a report by the German ddp press
agency.
Reportedly,
the boy, whose parents are divorced, was visiting his
father during a vacation when his father forced the
ritual circumcision. The boy lives with his mother, who
had always rejected circumcision. Muslim boys are
traditionally circumcised at elementary school age.
According to
the court, circumcision can "be important in individual
cases for the cultural-religious and physical
self-image," even if there are no health disadvantages
involved. So the decision about whether or not to go
through with a circumcision is "a central right of a
person to determine his identity and life."
The court did
not give an age minimum at which their parents must seek
a child's permission to perform a circumcision . The
amount of damages depends, said the court, on the extent
to which the boy suffered long-term physical or
emotional damage, or "whether his peers would tease him
for looking different."
Source:
JTA


August 13,
2007
Children's commissioner wants circumcision banned
Tasmania's
Children's Commissioner, Paul Mason, wants the State
Government to ban the non-medical circumcision of young
boys.
Female
genital mutilation is illegal in Tasmania.
Mr. Mason
said it's unfair that boys aren't given the same
protection.
"We're
discriminating against the little baby boys themselves,
because they're not safe whereas the little girls are,"
he said.
He said
circumcision is an abuse of human rights and should be
outlawed until the person is old enough to decide for
themselves.
"It's a
permanent procedure, they get no choice."
"It's
painful, even under anaesthetic," said Mr. Mason.
Mr. Mason has
prepared a report on the issue for the Council of
Obstetric and Paediatric Mortality and Morbidity.
The Council
will forward a recommendation to the State Government.
A spokesman
says the Government is not currently considering laws in
relation to the issue.
Source:
Australian Broadcasting
Corporation


July 1,
2007
Controversial Children's Act takes effect today

The Children's Act has come into effect today
The
Children's Act has come into effect today, giving
children from the age of 12, among others, the right to
access medical services such as HIV treatment and
contraception without parental consent.
Approved by
the President, these sections of the act do not require
regulations before being released. Only sections that do
not require regulations are enforced. They include the
right for children from age 12 to get HIV treatment and
contraception without consent. Twelve-year-olds can also
have pregnancies terminated if they wish.
Musa Mbere,
from the department of social development, says: "The
reason behind that is to make sure that our law is
aligned in terms of age, when children can access
contraceptives. Children become sexually active at an
early stage. It's a reality that we're dealing with.
Secondly, children are abused at a very young age."
Younger
age for sexual activity
Concern has
been raised that the act might promote sexual activity
at a young age. Joan van Niekerk, the national
coordinator of Childline, says: "Certainly, one would
question the advisability of giving children access to
contraception from a very young age. But the reality is…
that the age at which children become sexually active is
getting younger and younger."
Under 16s may
not be tested for virginity or be circumcised, unless
required by tradition or religion.
A child is now regarded as an adult at 18, and no longer
21. This means 18-year-olds can now get into contractual
agreements without parental consent. The section dealing
with corporal punishment requires regulations and the
act should be complete by March next year.
Source:
South African
Broadcasting Corporation


April 27, 2007
Divorced parents clash over 12-year-old son's
circumcision
Three-year fight - The father, a convert to Judaism,
sees it as a matter of religious observance
ASHBEL S.
GREEN
The Oregonian
A former Medford man who converted to Judaism wants
his 12-year-old son to do the same. That requires
circumcision -- something the mother adamantly opposes.
The divorced couple has been battling over the issue
for three years, including whether the boy wants to
undergo the procedure. So far, Oregon courts have
squarely sided with the father, who has custody.
That doesn't surprise Kathy T. Graham, associate dean
for academic affairs at Willamette University College of
Law.
"The primary custodial parent is the one that makes
the decisions about religion and education and about
matters of child-rearing," Graham said.
Other family law experts agree, but say the courts
should at least look into the situation to make sure the
surgery is in the best interests of the child.
"You're talking about not just religious instruction
or whether you're going to send the child to parochial
school or public school," commented Lawrence D. Gorin, a
Portland attorney. "This is a matter of permanent change
of bodily structure. And it's irreversible."
The mother is running out of legal options.
The Oregon Supreme Court has been briefed, but has
not decided whether to take the case.
Mark Johnson, a Portland lawyer commenting on the
case, said the court shouldn't let the case be decided
based only on the legal papers filed on behalf of the
mother and father.
"Frankly, the child should have a lawyer," Johnson
said.
The Oregonian is not identifying the family members,
in order to protect the privacy of the minor.
The couple married in the early 1990s. She filed for
divorce in 1998.
The man started studying Judaism in 1999 and
eventually converted. He now lives near Olympia . The
child initially lived with his mother, but the father
later gained custody.
In court papers, the father claims the boy gradually
concluded that he also wanted to convert to Judaism and
understood that this required circumcision.
The father also claims as the custodial parent he had
a constitutional right to raise his son in his religion.
The father made an appointment for a circumcision in
2004.
The mother responded by going to court, saying her
son told her that he was afraid to defy his father, but
didn't want the procedure.
She asked for a hearing where she could present
evidence that the circumcision would be dangerous. She
also sought custody of her son.
But Jackson County Circuit Judge Rebecca G. Orf sided
with the father.
"I am still of the opinion that the decision of
whether or not a child has elective surgery, which this
appears to be, is a call that should be made and is
reserved to the custodial parent," Orf said in a
hearing.
More than a million U.S. infants are circumcised each
year, but circumcising adults or teens remains
relatively rare.
Despite her ruling, Orf ordered the boy not be
circumcised until the legal proceedings were done.
The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed Orf's decision
without an opinion, often an indication that the
three-judge panel found no merit to the appeal.
The lawyer for the mother has asked the Oregon
Supreme Court to take the case, and gained an ally
called Doctors Opposing Circumcision, which filed a
brief last week.
There is no schedule for when the court will decide
whether to review the case.
The mother's attorney declined to comment.
The father, an attorney who is representing himself,
did not return a phone call seeking comment.
Oregon legal experts agree that judges generally
defer to the choices of custodial parents.
"Judges traditionally have stayed away in getting
involving decisions about the day-to-day upbringing of
the child," said Gorin, the Portland attorney.
Still, there are limits.
"It may be that the religious belief is to engage in
human sacrifice or kill animals, but we don't do that,"
he said.
But Julie H. McFarlane, a supervising attorney with
the Portland-based Juvenile Rights Project, said that
the child's consent for a medical procedure is not
required until he turns 15.
"I think the dad has the legal right as the custodial
parent to make those kind of religious or medical
decisions," McFarlane said. "It's not much different
from cosmetic surgery."
The bottom line, McFarlane said, is that "when you
lose custody, you lose a lot of those things that go
with custody -- deciding whether the kids go to school
and the rest of the day-to-day parenting decisions."
Andy Dworkin of The Oregonian contributed to this
report. Ashbel "Tony" Green: 503-221-8202;
tonygreen@news.oregonian.com
Source:
The Oregonian


April 18, 2007
Alleged circumcision injury prompts suit
MORGANTOWN, W.Va. (UPI) -- A West Virginia couple has
filed a medical malpractice lawsuit alleging that their
son was injured during a routine circumcision procedure.
Scott and Sherry Dumire allege that their son, Hunter,
was injured during a circumcision he underwent Oct. 20,
2005, The West Virginian Record reported Wednesday.
The suit -- filed April 9 in Monongalia Circuit Court --
names the West Virginia University Medical Corporation
and the West Virginia University Board of Governors as
defendants.
The couple alleges that due to negligence, their son was
physically disfigured and has required medical care a a
result of the surgery.
The newspaper said the plaintiffs are seeking
compensation and all related damages, along with
reimbursement for costs associated with the medical
treatment their son has required.
Source:
United Press International


October 24, 2006
Judge rules against boy’s circumcision
By
Judy Peres,
Tribune staff reporter
In a
case that has been closely watched by anti-circumcision
groups nationwide, a Cook County judge ruled Tuesday
that the medical benefits of the procedure are not clear
enough to compel a 9-year-old Northbrook boy to be
circumcised against his will.
The boy's mother and her new husband had claimed the
operation was necessary to prevent recurrent episodes of
redness and discomfort. The boy's father sought a court
order barring the circumcision, which he called an
"unnecessary amputation."
The
mother has sole custody, but their 2003 parenting
agreement gave her ex-husband a say in non-emergency
medical decisions. The Tribune is not naming the parents
in order to protect the boy's privacy.
In a written opinion handed down Tuesday, Circuit Court
Judge Jordan Kaplan said, "The evidence was conflicting
and inconclusive as to any past infections or
irritations that may have been suffered by the child.
"Moreover," he continued, "this court also finds that
the medical evidence as provided by the testimony of the
expert witnesses ... is inconclusive as to the medical
benefits or non-benefits of circumcision as it relates
to the 9-year-old child."
Kaplan said the boy, as a minor, cannot make his own
medical decisions but had indicated in a written
statement that he does not want to be circumcised.
"The injury to the child as a result of an unnecessary
circumcision would be irreversible," Kaplan wrote,
adding that his order would remain in effect until the
boy turns 18 and can decide for himself whether or not
he wants to undergo the procedure.
Because there are no U.S. precedents, other courts could
look to this ruling in future cases, said George Hill of
Doctors Opposing Circumcision.
Geoffrey Miller, a law professor at New York University,
called the ruling a "significant victory" for the
growing "intactivist" movement, which has argued
circumcision is harmful and violates the rights of
children, who can't give informed consent.
Miller conceded Tuesday's decision was "limited by the
facts of the case," including the agreement that gives
the father the right to be consulted on medical care.
Nevertheless, he said, "The fact that a non-custodial
parent was able to prevent a custodial parent from
having this procedure done is a sign that courts are
more receptive to arguments against circumcision than
they were in past years."
The father, a 50-year-old building manager from
Arlington Heights, said he was relieved by the decision
and "so happy."
His lawyer, Alan Toback, said, "We always thought it was
not in the child's best interest to have a circumcision
at age 9 that was not medically necessary, and the judge
agreed."
The mother was not in court Tuesday, and her lawyer,
Tracy Rizzo, also was not there because of the death of
her father, famed Chicago private investigator Ernie
Rizzo. The mother was represented instead by Gail
O'Connor, who said, "We're disappointed, of course, but
we will abide by the injunction."
Circumcision, in which the foreskin of the penis is
surgically removed, usually before a newborn leaves the
hospital, was extremely common in the U.S. during the
last century. But the percentage of U.S. babies being
circumcised has gone from an estimated 90 percent in
1970 to about 55 percent today. In most other countries,
circumcision is performed only for religious reasons.
The boy, who never appeared in court, was represented by
attorney David Pasulka, who recommended against
circumcision at this time.
The eight-month dispute took some nasty turns. Rizzo
charged that the father did not care about the boy's
health but feared his ex-wife and her new husband were
trying to convert the boy to Judaism.
The father's attorneys hinted that the mother's aim was
to spite her ex-husband and please her current husband,
who is Jewish.
The boy's stepfather and stepbrother are both
circumcised, while the biological parents are Catholic
immigrants from Eastern European countries where
circumcision is rare.
But Kaplan said he did not address "issues of ethnicity
or religious beliefs relative to circumcision" because
the parents did not raise them in their legal pleadings.
Dan Strandjord, a self-proclaimed "intactivist" who
attended every hearing in the case, was elated Tuesday.
"I believe this is a human rights issue," said
Strandjord.
Source:
Chicago Tribune,
Chicago, Illinois


October 17, 2006
Germany
fines man for initiation circumcision
Dusseldorf - A 77-year-old Turkish national who
performed ritual circumcisions on seven boys was
convicted Tuesday in Germany of causing dangerous bodily
harm and fined €2 100 (about R20 000).
Prosecutors told the state court in Dusseldorf that
circumcision was only allowed in Germany for medical
reasons and could only be performed by surgeons.
Traditional Turkish Muslims practise circumcision on
boys aged 6 to 11 as a manhood initiation ritual.
The accused did not attend the trial, a re-hearing in
an appeal court, two years after he had been fined the
same amount.
At the original trial, the accused agreed he had
performed the circumcisions at the request of parents in
several cities. Police who seized the surgical
instruments at his home described them as dirty and
university scientists said he did not follow hygiene
rules. - Sapa-dpa
Source:
Independent Online -
Cape Town, South Africa


August 7, 2006
Court rules circumcision of four-year-old boy illegal
Legal status of nonmedical procedure remains murky
Finland’s first court ruling on male child
circumcision was handed down by a Finnish court on
Friday. A Muslim mother faced charges of assault in
Tampere District Court for having her four-year-old son
circumcised. The incident was reported to the police by
the boy’s father, who had not been consulted. The court
found that the mother’s action was illegal. However, it
did not assign any punishment. The mother defended her
action by saying that she thought that circumcisions
performed by doctors were legal in Finland. The case
will now go to the Court of Appeals.
The mother said that the procedure is part of the
family’s religion and cultural heritage. The court found
that interfering with personal inviolability could be
allowed only in cases specifically permitted by law.
"There is a perception in Finland that only girls’
circumcisions are banned by law. There is no specific
legislation about them; both types are illegal under the
same criminal law. After all, in both procedures, part
of healthy genitalia is removed without medical
foundation, or competent consent", says local prosecutor
Jouko Nurminen. Nurminen says that the "misconception"
may have arisen in connection with the drafting of the
new constitution, at which time only the circumcision of
girls was part of the debate. In its decision, the court
notes that not even a long religious tradition justifies
protecting the bodily inviolability of boys to a lesser
degree than that of girls.
A working group of the Ministry of Social Affairs and
Health proposed a few years ago that circumcisions
performed under medical supervision in hospitals should
be allowed. The working group wanted to avoid
complications from operations performed at home, and to
reduce the suffering of the child.
Legislation is somewhat vague on the matter, and
practice varies in Finland. For instance, a report
drafted by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health in
2004 notes that male circumcision is permitted in all
countries. "There is no legislation on male
circumcision, but there is also no prohibition. The
operations have been performed on the basis of common
law", says Riitta-Maija Jouttimäki, a lawyer for the
Ministry of Social Affairs and Health.
Source:
Helsingin Sanomat -
Helsinki, Finland


October 12, 2005
Circumcision a 'violation of child's rights'
By Janine Stephen
A group of men caused a stir in parliament on Tuesday
by calling for an end to all circumcision of baby boys -
or anyone under 18 years old.
The National Organisation of Circumcision Information
Resource Centres South Africa (NOCIRC-SA) is fighting
for boys' rights to retain their foreskins. They say
that circumcision without consent is a "violation of a
child's rights".
They are supported by a number of other local and
international organisations, including the International
Coalition of Genital Integrity, Doctors Opposing
Circumcision and the National Organisation of Restoring
Men (NORM).
The select committee on social development was
holding public hearings into the Children's Bill, which
outlaws female genital mutilation and virginity testing.
Under the proposed Bill, which has already been
approved by the national Assembly, anyone who practises
female genital mutilation or virginity testing is guilty
of an offence and can be imprisoned for up to 10 years.
"Male circumcision should not be isolated from female
circumcision," Dean Ferris of NOCIRC said.
This is unlikely to go down well with Jewish, Islamic
and Xhosa groups, all of which see circumcision as an
essential part of their cultures.
According to a Children's Institute discussion paper
on the Children's Bill, if a child is old enough to give
consent, then the boy has the right to say no. Forcing a
child to be circumcised is a criminal offence. The bill
is silent on the age for consent.
However, circumcising baby boys who are too young to
give consent, is not outlawed.
A written statement submitted to the select committee
by NORM states that: "As children, we were unable to
voice our objections to halt these ritual genital
mutilations that were carried out on us in hospitals and
beyond.
"We are now able as adults to loudly and unreservedly
condemn such sexual abuse."
Ferris said that the South African Medical
Association has said that there is no need for
circumcision from a medical point of view.
"It's a human issue," said paediatrician Dr Daniel
Sidler. "It's about the integrity of the genitals. We're
fiddling with normal and healthy genitals."
Source:
Independent Online -
Cape Town, South Africa


May 3, 2005
Muslim
accused of assaulting son through circumcision
By James
Tapsfield, PA
A Muslim
“assaulted” his five-year-old son by having him
circumcised against his mother’s wishes, a court heard
today.
The
father is alleged to have secretly taken the boy to a
doctor in north London for the procedure.
Lewes
Crown Court heard he then told the mother – an English
Christian – what had happened and said: “There is
nothing you can do.”
The
27-year-old man – who lives in Crawley, West Sussex, but
cannot be named for legal reasons – denies committing an
assault occasioning actual bodily harm in August 2003.
Irena
Ray-Crosby, prosecuting, told the court today that the
parents had been involved in a three-month relationship
and the mother realised she was pregnant after they
broke up.
Once the
defendant, who is of Moroccan origin, realised the child
was his he began raising the issue of circumcision in
line with his religious beliefs.
“He told
(the mother) he wanted to have the boy circumcised and
she said she would agree with that only for medical
reasons and never for religious ones.”
The court
heard that in August 2003 – shortly after the boy’s
fifth birthday – he went to stay with his father.
The
defendant telephoned the mother and asked her to come
out of her house to talk to him, at which point he told
her about the circumcision.
According
to Ms Ray-Crosby, the mother accused him of assaulting
their son, and the defendant responded: “There’s nothing
you can do. I’ve looked into it and it’s perfectly
legal.”
He later
sent her a text message saying she should give the boy
salty baths in order to help him heal.
The court
heard that the father had been “under pressure” from
fellow Muslims to get his son circumcised, and paid £100
in cash for the procedure to be carried out.
Ms
Ray-Crosby said the defendant had admitted when arrested
and interviewed by police that he had not told the
mother in advance of his plans. She added that there had
been no medical reason why the boy needed to be
circumcised.
“This is
not a case that is anti-Islam or anti-any other faith.
It’s simply about a boy who was circumcised without his
mother’s consent.”
Ms
Ray-Crosby said the father had never applied for legal
parental responsibility, and therefore could not have
provided proper consent for the operation to take place.
Source: Scotsman.com -
Edinburgh, Scotland


March 24, 2005
Lawsuit
claims circumcision botched
STAMFORD, Conn. -- An Oxford couple on Wednesday sued a
doctor who they say partially amputated their son's
penis during a circumcision at St. Vincent's Hospital in
Bridgeport.
Immediately after his injury last June, the day-old boy
was transferred to Yale-New Haven Hospital where he
underwent reconstructive surgery.
"We are
bringing this case because we already know this baby has
suffered a horrible, life-altering physical injury, but
we are still learning about the long term ramifications
of the injury," said Ernest Teitell, one of the boy's
attorneys. "What happened will profoundly affect him as
he grows older."
Circumcision, often performed for religious reasons,
involves removing foreskin from the penis. The American
Academy of Pediatrics says most complications from the
procedure, such as bleeding, are usually minor.
Robin
Biondo, the boy's mother, said Dr. Daniel S. Gottschall
cut off 40 percent of the tip of her son's penis.
"It was
a very difficult thing to go through to see your new
born child laying there and wondering how much pain he
was in and how this is going to affect him," Biondo
said.
In
2001, a jury in California awarded $1.42 million to a
7-year-old boy for a botched circumcision. In another
case, the late David Reimer, a Canadian, was born as a
boy but raised as a girl after a botched circumcision.
The
lawsuit, filed in Bridgeport Superior Court, seeks
unspecified damages from Dr. Gottschall, who performed
the surgery last June, and his medical and surgical
group, Alliance for Women's Health.
Gottschall said he has performed more than 1,000
circumcisions without a problem.
"There
was a slight tip that was removed, recognized and
repaired," Gottschall said. "We believe there was a
congenital deformity of the penis that made the injury
more likely. Because of my diligence, the boy had the
repair that was necessary."
The
boy, now nine months old, spent about 10 days in the
hospital, according to his mother.
"We
were always told it was uncharted territory because they
had never seen anything like this before," Biondo said.
The
boy's attorneys said the lawsuit was brought in part
"because the family wants to make sure something this
awful doesn't happen to another child when their parents
decide to have them undergo this same procedure."
Source: The
Advocate -
Stamford, Connecticut
(Copyright 2005 by The
Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)


February 2, 2005
Baby dies after allegedly being infected
with herpes
during circumcision
NEW YORK, NY
- City health officials are trying to stop a Rockland
County rabbi from performing circumcisions, after a baby
boy died from herpes he allegedly contracted from the
rabbi during a circumcision.
The city
Department of Health said Wednesday it is seeking a
permanent injunction against Rabbi Yitzhok Fischer. The
DOH says Fischer uses an ancient religious custom of
using his mouth to suck the infant's blood after cutting
the foreskin.
According to
court papers filed in Manhattan, a 3-week-old boy died
from herpes 10 days after he and his twin brother were
circumcised by Fischer in October. The boy’s twin was
also infected with the virus.
In addition,
a Staten Island boy was also reportedly infected with
herpes after a circumcision performed by Fischer in
2003.
DOH officials
say Fischer did not comply with an order given in
November to stop performing circumcisions and to have
his blood tested.
“Infants,
particularly under the age of six months, are highly
susceptible to infections. They do not have a
functioning immune system," said Health Commissioner Dr.
Thomas Frieden.
Fischer's
attorney says his client is cooperating with the city in
an effort to determine what he says is “the true source”
of the infection.
Source: NY1 News -
New York, NY


December 15, 2004

Man sentenced to 36 months for circumcision attempt
RIDGEFIELD, Wash. - A Clark County father of nine has
been sentenced to 36 months in prison after trying to
circumcise his eight-year-old son with a knife. A jury
found Edwin Baxter guilty of assault last week. The
judge formally sentenced him today.
In September, Baxter used a three-inch serrated
hunting knife but called 9-1-1 when his son's bleeding
would not stop. The boy had to get several stitches.
The Ridgefield, Washington, man says he was inspired
to do the circumcision after reading the Bible. He says
he did not mean to hurt his son.
(Copyright 2004 by The
Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
Source: KATU 2 News -
Portland, Oregon


December 9, 2004
Father convicted in circumcision attempt
By Stephanie Rice, Columbian staff writer
RIDGEFIELD, WASH. - A jury deliberated 40 minutes
Tuesday before convicting a Ridgefield man of assault
for attempting to circumcise his 8-year-old.
Edwin B. Baxter, 33, was polite after the verdict as
he was handcuffed to be taken back to the Clark County
Jail. He thanked his attorney and the prosecutor, who
last week offered Baxter a plea deal that would've given
the father of nine credit for the three months spent in
custody and released him from jail. He declined.
Now, Baxter faces up to three years and five months
in prison.
A truck driver and fundamentalist Christian who wears
a long beard, Baxter dressed in flannel shirts and work
boots during his two-day trial and had a Bible with him
in court. He did not testify before the jury of seven
men and five women.
He did, however, make a statement to Judge James
Rulli for the purpose of preserving his right to appeal
on the grounds Rulli did not allow him to use his faith
as a defense.
Baxter said he decided to circumcise his 8-year-old,
the eldest of his four boys, on Sept. 3 after he read in
the Old Testament that males should undergo the
procedure.
"I had no reason to think I would be in violation of
any of God's laws," Baxter said.
"I felt it was an act of obedience."
He said he was only following in the footsteps of
Abraham, Isaac and "every other godly man."
He had his son lay on towels in what was described by
witnesses as a dirty bathtub. He used a hunting knife to
attempt the procedure, but called 911 when his son began
bleeding profusely.
"It breaks my heart to think that this state would
think of me as a child abuser," Baxter said.
Senior Deputy Prosecutor Kim Farr asked whether the
circumcision would have been equally symbolic if it had
been performed by a doctor in a sterile environment.
"I have no reason to think otherwise," Baxter said.
Farr said after the trial that Baxter's son was not
circumcised at birth because none of the Baxter children
have been born in hospitals. He said the family used a
van outside their Ridgefield home as a birthing place.
Baxter's 30-year-old wife, Tammy, is said to be
pregnant with her 10th child.
She and the children have not been found by law
enforcement or investigators from the state Department
of Children and Family Services, who had been seeking
them in connection with the trial.
After the verdict, Judge Rulli dismissed arrest
warrants for Tammy Baxter and the victim.
A urologist who treated the victim said he has not
seen the boy to know if his wound has healed.
Dr. Douglas Masson said he closed the boy's wound,
rather than complete the circumcision, to let it heal
and to minimize the chance of infection.
However, scar tissue could require that the boy be
circumcised in the future, he said.
Stephanie Rice covers the courts. She can be reached
at 360-759-8004 or
stephanie.rice@columbian.com.
Update
Previously: Edwin B. Baxter of Ridgefield was
arrested Sept. 3 on suspicion of attempting to
circumcise his 8-year-old.
What's new: A jury Tuesday convicted Baxter of
second-degree assault of a child.
What's next: He will be sentenced Dec. 15.
Source: The
Columbian - Vancouver, WA



October 4, 2004

Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Dutch MP wants ban on male circumcision
HILVERSUM,
THE NETHERLANDS - A Dutch Member of Parliament, Hirsi
Ali, has told a Dutch television programme that the
government should consider making the circumcision of
boys an offence. The MP, who is often in the news for
her controversial views on integration, says
circumcision can have long-term damaging effects.
The
operation, in which the foreskin of the penis is
removed, is carried out on tens of thousands of Islamic
and Jewish boys in the Netherlands each year for
religious reasons. The Dutch government recently
outlawed female circumcision.
Source: Radio Netherlands
- Hilversum, The Netherlands


September 8, 2004
Father charged with assault for trying to circumcise son
RIDGEFIELD, WASH. - A Ridgefield, Washington, man faces
assault charges after trying to circumcise his
eight-year-old son with a kitchen knife.
The boy had to get several stitches, after his father
called 911 because the child was bleeding so much.
Thirty-three-year-old Edwin Baxter appeared in Clark
County Court yesterday. Baxter could get ten years in
prison.
Baxter says he was inspired to do the circumcision after
reading the Bible.
Baxter lives with his wife and nine children in a two
bedroom rental home. Baxter was once convicted of
domestic violence in 1993.
(Copyright 2004 by The
Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
Source: KATU 2 News -
Portland, Oregon


August 10, 2004
Circumcision completed, despite mom's opposition
By Cherryh Cluckey, The Examiner
Three-year-old Ethan Azar is recovering
well from his recent circumcision, said his father, Ray
Jagoda.
"It was quick and done under anesthesia,"
he said.
A doctor performed the procedure last
week despite opposition from the boy's mother.
Camille Azar, Independence, was denied an
order to protect a child from medical harm from the
Jackson County Circuit Court several weeks ago and was
then denied a writ of prohibition from the Court of
Appeals.
She petitioned the Missouri Supreme Court
to intervene in July. The court was to determine whether
the circuit court should listen to the case instead of
dismissing it.
However, Jagoda went ahead with the
surgery.
"It was for religious reasons and we
found it was medically necessary," he said. "...Or Ethan
would have had future problems if we didn't do it."
Camille Azar disagreed.
"That's not true," she said. "Saying it
was medically justified is a fabrication to justify what
he did."
Jagoda would not reveal where the surgery
was done or who performed it, conditions the doctor had
requested.
Camille Azar said she is angry for her
son.
"He will not be able to function normally
the way nature intended," she said. "There were experts
who tried to talk (to Jagoda about the negative side of
circumcision). Two were even world experts, but he
refused."
Jagoda said he was under no legal
obligation to wait for the circumcision.
"I just had to find someone who had not
been intimidated by Camille," he said.
Jackson County Circuit Judge Christine
Sill-Rogers gave Jagoda full custody of Ethan in May;
Azar gets supervised visits. They had been sharing
custody, but Azar previously had full custody.
Source:
The Examiner -
Independence, Missouri


July 15, 2004
Mother
seeks high court order to block circumcision
By Steve Rock, The Kansas City Star
Kansas City,
MO - A Lee's
Summit woman is asking the Missouri Supreme Court to
prevent the “unneeded and irreparable'' circumcision of
her almost 3-year-old son.
The attorney
for Camille Azar filed a petition for a writ of
prohibition Wednesday with the Supreme Court,
effectively asking the state's highest court to reverse
a decision made in Jackson County Circuit Court.
Ultimately, Azar hopes to stop Ray Jagoda, the child's
father, from having their son circumcised.
The child
turns 3 in September and, according to the petition, is
“aware of his own body.”
“The
potential for psychological harm from non-infant
circumcisions is well established and great,” the
petition states.
Michael
Whitsitt, the attorney for Jagoda, said Wednesday he had
no comment about the latest development in the case.
Jagoda and
Azar never married, and Jackson County Circuit Judge
Christine Sill-Rogers granted full custody to Jagoda
earlier this year. Azar, who was the child's primary
caregiver until he was about 29 months old, has appealed
that ruling.
Her immediate
concern, she said Wednesday, is preventing a
circumcision that she deems unnecessary and potentially
harmful. According to the petition filed with the
Supreme Court, “Mr. Jagoda has indicated that he is
determined to circumcise the child immediately, with or
without a doctor, with or without anesthesia.”
Azar said
Wednesday that, according to studies she has read and
experts she has spoken with, her son's age might be the
worst for a child to be circumcised.
“This is the
most frightening age and damaging age psychologically,”
she said. “I have to protect him.
“He knows his
body very well. He's aware enough to understand what his
body is like now but not able to understand why part of
that would be taken away. Kids this age see the
operation as a punishment, a mutilation, a castration.”
Azar said she
is generally opposed to the idea of circumcision. If her
son were old enough to decide for himself, she said, she
wouldn't object.
So she's
taking her fight to the state's highest court.
According to
legal rules, Whitsitt has 10 days to file suggestions
and oppositions.
“Circumcision
… would be the removal of perfectly healthy tissue from
a person not legally competent to object,” the petition
states. “Circumcision is non-reversible amputation. It
is the permanent destruction of living, non-threatening,
sensitive tissue.”
Source:
Kansas City Star - Kansas City, Missouri

 

Children, circumcision
Foto:
DR, © DR
December
4, 2003
Denmark: National Council for Children calls for ban on
male circumcision
The
National Council for Children has called on lawmakers to
make male circumcision
illegal.
While
media reports of female circumcision in Denmark have
caused a public ou tcry
and prompted lawmakers to amend existing legislation,
this unacceptable practice is still a lot less common
than the circumcision of boys, the chairman of the
council told Danish media this morning.
The
chairman is now calling on legislators to ban male
circumcision for the benefit of the children.
Source:
DR Nyheder Online
- Denmark
|