'My son was circumcised without my consent'

I don't understand how and why the boy was able to be circumcised without his mother's consent or presence?

I thought it was a Jewish tradition not Muslim. I know it can be done by doctors if there is a health problem.

I don't know how she didn't know either, he would be screaming.

magica wrote:I thought it was a Jewish tradition not Muslim. I know it can be done by doctors if there is a health problem.

I don't know how she didn't know either, he would be screaming.

How would she know when the child was in the company of the paternal grand parents. I guess they were looking after him for a night or something. 

I think its daft, how the law allows parents to mutilate babies, when that baby has to live with a decision, they never had a choice over. It would be like a parent having a tattoo of a child's head that said fuck off, as it might as well be. Circumcision, should only be through the choice of an adult child, when they reach the age of 16. No parent should force this decision onto their child. This is not something that can be grown back either. It should only occur with children, when it is a medical problem.

BBC wrote:There was an investigation but the force deemed it not to be a criminal matter, and the case was referred to the General Medical Council.

Very typical of police mentality: Leave it alone, it will go away.  Only when the press gets a hold of a story, do the police get nervous.

This sort of think is rampant in the US.  Europe, being smarter, has never adopted circumcision as routine, except in religious ceremonies.

Circumcision serves no purpose.  It is cosmetic, like a tattoo. Yet for certain hygienic misperceptions (it's a long story) it is thought to be good for preemptive--they call it prophylactic--surgery to be performed.  

Prophylactic surgery is a procedure performed, not because the illness is clinically present, but because it is anticipated to be a problem later in life.  In some very rare cases, prophylactic surgery is warranted.  For example, it happens that one in three women in America will have some form of breast cancer; over 10,000 women will die annually of breast cancer.  A damn good case can be made to cut off the breasts of 3-day old females, to avoid a life-threatening issue later in life.  I"m not in favor of it, but there is a case for it, as you can see.

As serious as it is, we do not routinely perform radical mastectomies (removal of breasts) on three-day old females.  It is seen as heinous.  Some women will do it on their own (eg: Angelina Jolie) if there is a family history.  Yet doctors will  circumcise three-day old boys routinely in America, for no more reason that they think it's hygienic.  Teach the kid to take a bath, fcs!

The problem is vicarious consent.  Allowing parents to make life-changing decisions for infants should be outlawed in medicine, unless the procedure is clinically justified on the spot, on the occasion it is done.  Even then, it should be the least onerous option.  Permanent removal of an organ--yes, the prepuce is an organ--should never be done unless there is legal evidence of the necessity.

It is an assault, and people today are being prosecuted.  Civil lawsuits are being filed every day by grown men who were circumcised as children.  It's a plague that will take generations to eradicate from society.

Thorin wrote:

magica wrote:I thought it was a Jewish tradition not Muslim. I know it can be done by doctors if there is a health problem.

I don't know how she didn't know either, he would be screaming.

How would she know when the child was in the company of the paternal grand parents. I guess they were looking after him for a night or something. 

I think its daft, how the law allows parents to mutilate babies, when that baby has to live with a decision, they never had a choice over. It would be like a parent having a tattoo of a child's head that said fuck off, as it might as well be. Circumcision, should only be through the choice of an adult child, when they reach the age of 16. No parent should force this decision onto their child. This is not something that can be grown back either. It should only occur with children, when it is a medical problem.

Ok didnt see that.

Then as Quill says its assault, and the mother didn't give her consent, so wrong on all sides here!

magica wrote:

Thorin wrote:


How would she know when the child was in the company of the paternal grand parents. I guess they were looking after him for a night or something. 

I think its daft, how the law allows parents to mutilate babies, when that baby has to live with a decision, they never had a choice over. It would be like a parent having a tattoo of a child's head that said fuck off, as it might as well be. Circumcision, should only be through the choice of an adult child, when they reach the age of 16. No parent should force this decision onto their child. This is not something that can be grown back either. It should only occur with children, when it is a medical problem.

Ok didnt see that.

Then as Quill says its assault, and the mother didn't give her consent, so wrong on all sides here!

100% agree