Religious circumcision, invasive rites, neutrality and equality: bearing the burdens and consequences of belief

Abstract

The decision of the German regional court in Cologne on 26 June 2012 to prohibit the circumcision of minors is important insofar as it recognises the qualitative similarities between the practice and other prohibited invasive rites, such as female genital cutting. However, recognition of similarity poses serious questions with regard to liberal public policy, specifically with regard to the exceptionalist treatment demanded by certain circumcising groups. In this paper, I seek to advance egalitarian means of dealing with invasive rites which take seriously cultural diversity, minimise harm and place responsibility for the burdens and consequences of beliefs upon those who promote practices.

Recommendation by a law body to ban infant male circumcision has serious worldwide implications for pediatric practice and human rights

“…Even some opponents of infant male circumcision do not support its criminalization, instead, in the case of religious circumcisions, insisting that it be performed in a medical setting by trained professionals [19-22]. …”

Should liberal government regulate male circumcision performed in the name of Jewish tradition?

“…Some have argued that the procedure is akin to clitoral prepuce (Benatar and Benatar 2003, p. 44;Earp 2015). While the remaining shaft skin can be restored with operation, the unique features of the double-layered foreskin, such as the highly innervated outer layer and highly sensitive inner layer, with its ridged band and suggested role in the ejaculatory reflex, are lost (Johnson 2013;Frisch et al 2011). Critics mention the presence of scar tissue and associated discoloration and distinguish between early and late complications of the procedure.…”

“…No medical expert disputes the argument that FGM inflicts major injury (World Health Organization 2020; Social Care, Local Government and Care Partnership 2016; Davar 1997;Lee 1994, p. 35), 12 while many medical experts argue that male circumcision cannot be considered an infringement upon the health or rights of boys and young men as it rarely implies permanent damage to health. In sub-Saharan Africa, male circumcision is used as a means of combating HIV transmission (Weiss et al 2002;Johnson 2013, NHS 2018. 13 Current epidemiological evidence clearly supports the promotion of male circumcision for HIV prevention, especially in populations with a high HIV prevalence and low circumcision rates (Oluwabunmi Olapade-Olaopa et al 2019, p. 3).…”

The ethics of infant male circumcision

“…Accordingly, one argument against the immediate prohibition of infant male circumcision is that Western cultures may simply not yet be ready for so strict a legal manoeuvre—especially in light of the notorious ‘double standard’20 21 regarding male versus female genital cutting that prevails in Anglophone societies. Indeed, as Julian Savulescu,22 Matthew Johnson8 and Hanoch Ben Yami10 all point out, fully fledged prohibitions instituted in advance of cultural readiness can lead to troubling side effects, such as a black market for the banned practice, which in this case might involve ‘back-alley’ circumcisions performed by incompetent individuals. Accordingly, Savulescu advocates a policy of harm reduction rather than prohibition; Johnson suggests that religious groups should be held accountable for any injuries that do ensue from their ‘invasive rites’; and Ben Yami outlines a series of gradual reforms such as mandatory administration of anaesthesia and the narrow illegalisation of the metzitzah b'peh.…”

“… ii The Cologne court ruling is discussed in detail by Reinhard Merkel and Holme Putzke,6 as well as by Joseph Mazor7 and Matthew Johnson 8…”