Ritual circumcision of boys must be banned
Ethically, we cannot ban circumcision of girls while allowing circumcision of boys
In 2014, I participated in a hearing in the Danish Parliament about ritual circumcision of boys, which shocked me so much that I explained in a newspaper why doctors have an ethical obligation to refuse to participate in this barbary.1 None of the arguments offered in favour of male circumcision at the hearing held water.
It was one of the most bizarre events I have experienced.2 A Jewish doctor, Henri Goldstein, and a Muslim doctor, Kamran Shah, agreed that circumcision was a very important part of their community. Others pointed out that it is a strange entry ticket to a community that you must cut something off yourself to join.
Goldstein mentioned that 5-10% of Jews are not circumcised. I cannot imagine that they would not be welcome in the community and how would people know? Jews hardly have registers of circumcised people, and if Jewish men show up at a party or at the synagogue, there would not be a doorman asking them to pull down their pants to see if they were entitled to participate in the community.
A Jewish mom regretted having her son, Leo Milgrom, circumcised, and when he grew up, he felt he didn’t belong to the community. He mentioned that some Jews don’t circumcise their boys but use another form of ritual that doesn’t harm them, e.g. by giving the infant’s foreskin a small prick instead.
Goldstein countered that very few Jews use such a ritual, but this is beside the point. The great majority of Jews should learn from the small minority who think more about the welfare of the child than they do.
Someone mentioned that religion is man-made, and that Christianity has changed the perception of many things during history, so why shouldn’t Judaism and Islam also change the perception of something that is highly inappropriate?
Kamran Shah, who, in addition to being a doctor, was also an imam and a representative of the Danish Muslim Union, sharply distanced himself from the idea of changing attitudes - which we have heard before from Muslims - and he stated that there are virtually no Muslims that are not circumcised.
Shah argued that if circumcision is banned, we will see illegal backyard circumcisions under conditions that carry far greater health risks than if done openly. That argument doesn’t hold. We have heard the same argument in relation to female genital mutilation, but that has not stopped us from banning the practice. Further, it has not led to an increase in the illegal, and riskier, circumcision of little girls.
Shah appeared nice and friendly but he was a wolf in sheep’s clothing. He has explained that it is “haram” (sinful, i.e. forbidden by Allah) for good Muslim sisters to train to become social workers, health assistants, nurses, or medical laboratory technicians, because in these professions you come into physical contact with other people.
Shah’s discriminatory attitude to women was documented in a YouTube video that was freely available in 2014. Perhaps it became too embarrassing for himself or his community, as what is shown today is this:3
Shah preferred that women train as schoolteachers, so that there would be a lot of Muslim schools, which could counter the brainwashing that he believed was taking place in Danish schools. A more worthy representative of Danish Muslims could have been found for the hearing than this extreme imam who obviously did not like the country that had accepted him and treated him so well.
Else Smith, Director of the Board of Health, reviewed some of the medical evidence for circumcision and concluded that they could not, based on existing evidence, recommend circumcision as a health-promoting measure. But on the other hand, they saw no reason to advise against circumcision because the Board believed that the risks were very small.
This was countered by researcher in sexual health, Morten Frisch, who mentioned that the Board’s note on circumcision from 2013 was full of embarrassing errors, inaccuracies, trivialisations, and serious omissions that gave way to religious groups’ views on the matter.
Frisch pointed out that some children have died and that quite a few others have suffered serious operative complications. He referred to a report from Rigshospitalet, which showed that 5% of the children developed significant complications from the procedure.
Smith claimed that there had never been serious complications in Denmark, which was incorrect. The Board was aware of a case where an infant boy ended up in a coma at Hvidovre Hospital after a botched circumcision performed by a doctor at a private clinic in May 2014.
Two months after the hearing, a man circumcised a three-month-old boy, which resulted in a life-threatening infection and admission to hospital.4 The man was convicted of serious violence in the district court and received a three-month jail sentence.
Frisch discussed the harmful effects of circumcision on sex life whereas Shah strongly recommended it due to the “fantastic evidence” there was for the many medical benefits. Even if there were, Jews and Muslims did not introduce circumcision to prevent disease. It is an ancient and harmful ritual, nothing else.
Philosopher Klemens Kappel delivered a very strange argument. He said it could be okay for parents to inflict suffering on their children if the aim is to strengthen a community. His argument can be used to legitimise circumcision of girls, and it also fits very badly with the fact that we have abolished the right to discipline our children physically. It is infinitely worse to remove the foreskin of a little boy than to slap him in the face.
Tyge Trier, a lawyer and expert in human rights, advocated that the child should have a say on the decision about circumcision, but he argued that the child was able to see the consequences of such a decision already from 7 years of age. This is not correct. Children that young will be highly influenced by what their parents think. Moreover, tattooing is illegal in Denmark before the child is 18 years old, which is why circumcision should also be banned until the children reach adulthood and can make their own decisions.
Frisch pointed out that the mildest form of circumcision of girls is anatomically quite similar to circumcision of boys, and that it is inconsistent that we have banned one but not the other.
In ethics, we are obliged to demonstrate that there is a relevant, principled difference between two situations if we believe that something is permissible in one situation but not in the other. So, also for this reason, the argument for maintaining the right to male circumcision falls apart.
Joachim B Olsen from a political party stated that there are examples of female circumcision being abandoned in some cultures, and he was interested in knowing if this - due to the much-mentioned importance of circumcision for the community - had had the effect that the culture had collapsed.
Shah was asked to reply. He spoke for a very long time but avoided answering the question. Pressured by the chair, Mette Gjerskov, and the audience, Shah then claimed it was difficult to comment because people do not ask such questions in Denmark, but he added that it had not been a problem abroad. Quite an interesting remark considering all the fuss there was about the importance of circumcision for the community.
Several international conventions can be considered when discussing circumcision, but they are not in agreement. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Per Larsen, chair of the Children’s Council, commented on, is probably the most important one and also the strongest. It is a legally binding agreement setting out the rights of every child, regardless of their race, religion or abilities. It is clear from Article 24, paragraph 3,5 that you must not cause suffering to children:
“States Parties shall take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children.”
Danish doctors’ associations were generally highly critical of ritual circumcision when the Board of Health revised its Guidance on circumcision of boys in December 2013 and sent the draft around for a hearing.
The Danish Society for General Practice has stated that “If circumcision is carried out without medical indication, it is mutilation.” The Children’s Council stated that the Board failed in its responsibility according to the Children’s Convention, Articles 3, 4 and 19 (protection of the child against any form of violence) by not mentioning in the instructions what needs to be considered before a doctor participates in circumcision, which they found violated legal and ethical principles.
According to the Board of Health, circumcision of boys is an operative intervention reserved for doctors. Remarkably, they nonetheless allow nondoctors to perform the circumcision if a doctor is present.
At Rigshospitalet, 315 boys were ritually circumcised from 1997 to 2003. Some of my colleagues have forgotten the most fundamental aspect of being a doctor: First, do no harm (primum non nocere).
In the USA, 64% of newborn boys undergo circumcision,6 even though only 3.6% of the population are Jews or Moslems. Many things are crazy in the USA but this is one of the craziest.
Boston Children’s Hospital list some potential benefits including less risk of getting penile cancer and HIV and over 90% reduction in the risk of urinary tract infections during infancy. These diseases are very rare and cannot justify male genital mutilation without informed consent.
Danish doctors and 80-90% of the population believe that non-medical circumcision of children under 18 should be illegal. Do something. Stop the barbary by law. Now.
References
1 Gøtzsche PC. Læger bør nægte ritual omskæring. Politiken 2014;Nov 14.
2 Gøtzsche PC. Ritual circumcision of boys: a barbaric practice that must stop. Copenhagen: Institute for Scientific Freedom 2022;Dec 5.
4 Gøtzsche PC. Omskæring er grov vold. Berlingske 2015;June 8.
5 Convention on the Rights of the Child. United Nations, General Assembly resolution 44/25 1989;Nov 20.
6 Circumcision. Boston Children’s Hospital (undated, accessed 14 Sept 2024).
In the US there’s medical coercion. I told numerous medical providers that I’m not Muslim or Jewish and my kid was unlikely to grow up and have routine unprotected sex with prostitutes in HIV high prevalence areas (the sample of men included in one of the big studies) but still they kept asking me when I would circumcise my newborn. Horrific.
Thank you for bringing attention to this barbaric practice .
Thank you so much for speaking out on this important issue. Circumcision of male children is genital mutilation and is a crime against humanity. This barbaric practice needs to end.