The
Danish State Advisory Children Council Position on Circumcision
-
Translated from the Danish by Troels Schmidt:
CIRCUMCISION
- LET THE BOYS THEMSELVES
DECIDE
Topic for debate in the Danish daily Politiken on the 3rd of December
2008:
The
Danish State Advisory Children Council Position on Circumcision of
Boys
By Charlotte Guldberg, President of The Danish State Advisory Children
Council
[Translation from the Danish by Troels
Schmidt]
DEBATE
ON circumcision of boys tends to be emotional.
We have seen
several examples in recent weeks. Some positions were, inter alia,
based on religious and cultural considerstions, both of which are
significant and important, perhaps especially in Denmark. However,
when The State Advisory Children’s Council, and The State Advisory
Ethics Council have dealt with issues of infringing the body, it is
because there are also other key considerations to be made and there
is a tendency to overlook these considerations.
The
crux of the discussion deals with the child's right to exercise its
own personal body sovereignty. In that debate the Children's Council is obviously an advocate of
children's rights. They are clearly outlined in the UN Child
Convention. Article 24 mentions society's duty to protect children
against following traditional social practicies that are harmful to
health.
Supporters of circumcision of boys suggest that surgery is in the best
interests of child, and we are accustomed to three arguments being
employed:
The first is that circumcision of boys is only a relatively harmless
incision. Another, that surgery promotes health. The third, that
circumcision is a religious and cultural right. Let us look at each
argument:
Complications
resulting from circumcision is a fact.
Scientists discuss to what extent and frequency, but even in so-called
best-practice settings, it appears that there are complications
between 0.2% and 3% of all surgery. There is everything from petty
bleeding and infections to more complex and serious problems, which
sometimes leave lasting injury. It is rare, but it happens and it
happens also in Denmark. Doctors at our national hospital,
Rigshospitalet, tell us that at least every two months they treat
mutilated boys for complications.
There is sound evidence that boys without prepuce have reduced risk of
urinary tract infections. This is of course a question of hygiene. But
consider the benefits: Less than 2% of non-circumcision boys get
urinary tract infections. The option of using circumcision as a
prevention means that at least fifty boys must be circumcised to
prevent one case of urinary infection that could be treated with
antibiotics.
We also know that women who have circumcised male partners, have lower
incidence of cervical cancer, and circumcised men are protected better
against HIV infection. But neither the cancer nor HIV is caused by
newborn boys foreskin. Both diseases are linked to adult sexual
behavior, and they can both be prevented effectively without surgery
in the boys' genitals.
Culture and religion are sometimes depicted as static entities. Change
is unthinkable and devastating for culture, it is argued, even when
the subject is circumcision of boys. But as
numerous sociological and anthropological studies have shown, cultures
and their traditions are not immutable - on the contrary, they are
constantly evolving.
In all
cultures and religions, there are discussions and negotiations, power
struggles and interpretative discussions of how community rituals are
to be performed. For example, among Jews, there is a lively debate
about circumcision. There are different ways to perform surgery, and
there are both Muslims and Jews, that are directly opposed to
circumcision of boys.
THE
DANISH STATE ADVISORY CHILDCARE COUNCIL has taken a position on
surgery from a child perspective based on the UN Child Convention. We
believe that the boys themselves must be allowed to decide whether
they want to be circumcised, and if so, then this cannot take place
before the child reaches the age of 15. This view has triggered a
debate in which opinions and facts once again are brought up front, so
everyone can have an opportunity to weigh the pros and cons of surgery.
From a child perspective, this is an important debate. Whether this
will lead to a ban on circumcision of boys is not for the Children
Council nor the Ethics Council to decide. But it is a worthwhile
consideration.
|