ShareBBC recently reported an incident that occurred in the UK that raised arguments and debate over its legality and importance. Here is what happened: Three people have been arrested by police for investigation due to their connection to the circumcision of a three-month-old boy. The boy's mother complained to police, saying her son was circumcised without her consent while staying with his paternal grandparents in July 2013. The mother said she was shocked when she opened her baby boy's nappy and saw blood. She found out that he had been circumcised without her consent and filed a legal complaint. The doctor is one of the suspects along with the grandparents over suspicion of grievous bodily harm with intent. All three were released pending further investigations.
I think the root of the problem here is the absence of the mother's consent, because she sees the procedure as a violation of the rights of a young child and "inhumane". Male circumcision is the removal of the foreskin. It is a sensitive fold of skin and other tissues that covers the head of the penis. It is mostly confined to Jewish and Muslim communities. The aim of circumcision is hygiene and to reduce the risk of urinary tract infections and penile cancer in adulthood. Opponents of circumcision say removing the foreskin decreases sensitivity and limits sensation during sexual activity. Others say circumcision is a human rights issue, and that it's unethical for a family to make the decision for their child.
In the past, perhaps 50 years ago or more, girls were also circumcised in some rural and ignorant communities, and I see this as a harsh matter and a violation of their humanity. Sometimes, when I see pictures of children over the age of six who are standing in queue waiting to be circumcised, I feel frightened. The issue of circumcision is a controversial one between the East and West. Some have corrupted the process and made it look like a violation of human rights, although it is widely practiced daily in most countries of the world, and not only by Muslims.
For example in Kuwait, circumcision is done only for male newborns at the hospital by a doctor with the consent of the parents. Medical care to relieve the pain is also provided. It is not done for older children, or as we see in some Islamic countries, at the hands of a barber!
Brian Morris, coauthor of a new report and professor emeritus at the School of Medical Sciences at the University of Sydney, said in a press release that "infant circumcision should be regarded as equivalent to childhood vaccination". So ethically, doctors should offer the parents the option of circumcision for their new baby boys. Because a delay puts the child's health at risk and may never take place. If they refuse, then it is their choice and decision.
Morris and his colleagues found the circumcision rate in newborns has declined from 83 percent in the 1960s to 77 percent in 2010. Additionally, data suggest there is a racial disparity, driven primarily by access to the procedure and cultural and educational factors. The study says the benefits of newborn circumcision exceed the risks by at least 100 to 1.
Circumcision is not related to human rights as much as the medical importance of it, and the approval of the parents to perform circumcision is essential. If a dispute between the two becomes an issue, legal intervention is necessary, because the child's body is the responsibility of the parents. Therefore, it is not right to allow any person to take any part of his body without the knowledge and consent of the parents. After all, parents are responsible for a child's care, protection, and health. If no protections are provided, it may lead to health problems for an innocent child.
By Muna Al-Fuzai
[email protected]
