Barrister James Chegwidden takes us through the English Court’s current views on genital autonomy. The presentation was given at Keele University, September 2016. This video is essential viewing for anyone interested in child protection and the Family Courts in particular.
Listen to this excellent interview with philosopher and ethicist Brian Earp on a podcast from the organisation Philosophy 24/7. Click the image to hear the podcast.
Female circumcision is regarded as a violation of a human right. The World Health Organization says “It reflects deep-rooted inequality between the sexes, and constitutes an extreme form of discrimination against women.” But male circumcision, practiced in various cultures and prevalent in various religions, barely generates any controversy. Brian Earp argues that the parallels between the two are much closer than people are usually willing to acknowledge.
Presentation by Brian Earp on the topic of non-therapeutic male circumcision, examining; cultural bias, medical ethics and harm. How do you assign values to benefits and risks? The talk was given to the 23rd Congress of the World Asociation for Sexual Health. In Prague on Monday 29th May 2017
Using letters and emails received over the last 20 years David Smith presents testimony from men sent to the charity NORM-UK now known as 15 Square. His presentation concentrates on the psychological aspects of the harm caused by the non-therapeutic circumcision of male children.
Three people have been arrested by police investigating the circumcision of a three-month-old boy.
A 61-year-old man, believed to be the doctor who carried out the procedure, has been arrested on suspicion of grievous bodily harm with intent.
News of the arrests has brought a lot of traffic to the MDC website, and resulted in us receiving some specific reports of three past tragedies.
The first story concerned the suicide of a young man. At inquests, circumcision is usually ruled out as anything more than a possible contributory factor; other problems and issues are deemed more significant. The tragedy reported to MDC yesterday came from a mother who had had extensive conversations with her son concerning his resentment and anger about his circumcision before he took his own life. She was in no doubt that non-therapeutic circumcision in childhood was the reason her son took his own life. The mother’s regret at going along with poor medical advice is a continuing legacy of a needless act.
Poor medical practice used to involve the forced retraction of a tight foreskin. Today, that practice has been largely abandoned because of the trauma involved. MDC has been told about a child who was diagnosed with phimosis (tight foreskin) and referred for circumcision. After a while the boy was returned to the mother while lashing out at the medical staff around him and screaming. The mother was told “we didn’t have to do a circumcision we just did some stretching”. The mother had to sit with the boy on the hospital steps for twenty minutes before she felt her son was calm enough to be in the car with her for the drive home. It is now recommended that the only person to try to retract a boy’s foreskin is the boy himself, as he will stop before any pain and damage occurs. The foreskin will usually separate of its own accord from the glans (head of the penis), to which it is naturally attached in infancy. This separation can sometimes occur even after puberty. As a result of his experience, the child in this incident has grown up suspicious of the medical profession.
MDC was also told of another example, similar to the Nottingham case, of one parent unilaterally circumcising a boy against the wishes of the other parent. Sadly this is a lot more common than you might think, though in recent years, family courts have tended to take the position that, if the circumcision hasn’t yet happened and the parents are conflicted, the matter should be left until the child is able to give informed consent.