Germany Debates Male Circumcision
Bad Medicine in the Name of Religion
In violation of their Hippocratic Oath to do no harm, doctors are interpreting a medical practice in purely religious terms -- choosing religion over science.
During the past decade, life has become more difficult for Jews in Europe. They are not only the victims of a rise in anti-Semitic violence and intimidation, mostly as a result of the growing numbers of radical Muslim immigrants in Europe. They are also finding their right to practice their religion restricted as Europe becomes an environment where Jewish dietary rules and ancient traditions are being criticized and even outlawed. This time, ironically, they are being joined by Muslims.
Male circumcision -- a medical procedure in both Judaism and Islam that has nothing to do with female genital mutilation or "female circumcision," which is not required by the Koran, and which has no medical benefits, only medical liabilities -- could well be the latest victim of misguided political correctness, despite massive medical evidence that male circumcision is "cleaner," meaning that the area involved becomes less prone to harboring infections and transmitting diseases.
Last month, Dieter Graumann, the president of the German Zentralrats der Juden (Central Council of Jews), warned that "Jewish life will become practically impossible" if circumcision of male infants is banned in Germany. On May 7, an appeals court in Cologne ruled that circumcision is an infringement of a child's physical integrity and that it violates the child's right to self-determination. Subsequently, the German Medical Association advised doctors no longer to perform circumcisions for non-medical reasons. The decision to prohibit male circumcision on the grounds of "religion" embodies a breathtaking lack of regard for both personal and public health, and the regressive preference for religion and political correctness over science. In the United States, for example, it has long been considered a fundamental of public health to circumcise all male infants shortly after birth -- unless specifically asked not to -- regardless of religious affiliation.
Last Thursday, fortunately, the German Bundestag approved a cross-party motion to protect the religious circumcision of boys. The resolution urges the government to draw up a bill explicitly allowing the practice. Nevertheless, it is indicative of Europe's growing intolerance towards religious practices that courts have begun to issue verdicts such as the one in Cologne that prohibits circumcision.
The Cologne Landgericht ruled that religious circumcision of boys is a violation of the child's physical integrity and hence unlawful. The verdict states that circumcision has a "permanent and irreparable effect" on the child's body, which violates the child's physical integrity and infringes on its right later to change its religion. The court added that the child's right to self-determination has precedence over its parents' freedom of religion.
The case began after a Muslim doctor circumcised a 4-year old boy. Two days later, the wound began to bleed and the child was rushed to a hospital. The hospital informed the authorities, whereupon the public prosecutor brought the doctor to court. When the court acquitted the doctor, the public prosecutor appealed the verdict. Although the Cologne Landgericht again acquitted the doctor on the basis that "the legal status (of circumcision) is very unclear," the ruling unequivocally condemned male circumcision. Fearing that the ruling would set a precedent to be followed by other German courts, the Medical Association advised doctors to stop circumcisions for religious reasons.
The verdict was applauded by many organizations. Deutsche Kinderhilfe, a non-profit organization to aid children, said that the wellbeing of children had been served by the court. The German Institute for Pediatric Surgery stated that the verdict conformed to medical ethics. The Professional Union of Pediatricians warned "for the trivialisation of this form of physical damage by the circumcision defenders" and said that the right of children to physical integrity should be society's primary concern.
The International League of Non-Religious and Atheists also welcomed the verdict, stating that religiously motivated circumcision is a form of physical damage and mutilation. Terre des Femmes, an international women's rights organization, also applauded the Cologne verdict. It said the physical integrity of children should not be restricted for religious reasons.
In the German media, psychotherapists stated that circumcision on six- or seven-year old boys can have a traumatic effect. Jewish organizations pointed out that Jews have been circumcising boys on the eighth day after birth for thousands of years, without any Jewish men later complaining about harmful side-effects. They also emphasized that male circumcision cannot be equated to female genital mutilation.
A joint statement of the Rabbinical Centre of Europe, the European Jewish Association, the German Turkish-Islamic Union of Religious Affairs and the Islamic Center Brussels, said that the Cologne verdict was "an affront to our basic religious and human rights."
The critics of the Cologne verdict were supported by Cardinal Joachim Meisner, the Catholic Archbishop of Cologne. "We have to speak out against the tendency to restrict religious freedom and the right of parents to raise their children in a religious way," he said. He was supported by Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Mueller, the Vatican's Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The Protestant Church also criticized the verdict. Hans Michael Heinig, the president of the Institute for Ecclesiastical Law of the Evangelical Church, called the verdict "a triumph of antireligious zealots."
The verdict also drew criticism from Germany's three major political parties, the Christian-Democrats, Social-Democrats and Liberals. Last Thursday, the governing Christian-Democrats and Liberals teamed up with the oppositional Social-Democrats to call on the government to "present a draft law in the autumn … that guarantees that the circumcision of boys, carried out with medical expertise and without unnecessary pain, is permitted." The cross-party motion explicitly acknowledges that "circumcision has a central religious significance for Jews and Muslims" and adds that "Jewish and Muslim religious life must continue to be possible in Germany."
The new law would overrule the decision of the Cologne court. For the time being, however, the verdict still stands, as does the advice of the German Medical Association for doctors not to perform religious circumcisions.
An opinion poll indicates that, despite the political initiative to have the Cologne verdict overruled by a law later this year, a majority of Germans favors a ban of male circumcision. In a Europe that is becoming ever more secular, there is a real danger that religious practices will gradually be pushed aside in order to assure that the impression is not given that little children and (in ritual slaughter) animals are made to suffer.
It is indicative of this trend that the doctors' associations in Germany are mostly in favor of the ban on religious circumcision of boys. Outside Germany similar attitudes are gaining ground. In the Netherlands, for instance, the Royal Dutch Association of Physicians published a paper two years ago advocating a ban on non-medical circumcision of boys, analoguous to the ban on female genital mutilation. In violation of their Hippocratic Oath to do no harm, doctors are interpreting a medical practice in purely religious terms -- choosing religion over science.
Reader comments on this item
|There is no mention of circumcision in the Quran. [103 words]||Fatima Q.||Jul 25, 2012 16:02|
|↔ Some points regarding circumcision not mentioned in the article [383 words]||An Interested Reader||Aug 8, 2012 18:04|
Comment on this item
by Pierre Rehov
For terrorists, the death of innocent children is irrelevant. In a society that promotes martyrdom as the ultimate sign of success, the death of innocent children can sometimes even be seen as a public relations blessing.
In every action, intent is paramount. There should never be a moral equivalence painted between the deliberate killing of civilians, and a retaliation that tragically leads to casualties among civilians.
There is, however, one small difference: in the Middle East, reporters are threatened, except in Israel. Their choice becomes a simple one: promote the Palestinian point of view or stop working in the West Bank. Keep the eye of the camera dirty or lose your job. This show should not go on.
by Khaled Abu Toameh
Since 1948, the Arab countries and government have been paying mostly lip service to the Palestinians.
"They have money and oil, but don't care about the Palestinians, even though we are Arabs and Muslims like them. What a Saudi or Qatari sheikh spends in one night in London, Paris or Las Vegas could solve the problem of tens of thousands of Palestinians." — Palestinian human rights activist.
"Some Arabs were hoping that Israel would rid them of Hamas." — Ashraf Salameh, Gaza City.
"Some of the Arab regimes are interested in getting rid of the resistance in order to remove the burden of the Palestinian cause, which threatens the stability of their regimes." — Mustafa al-Sawwaf, Palestinian political analyst.
"Most Arabs are busy these days with bloody battles waged by their leaders, who are struggling to survive. These battles are raging in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Libya and the Palestinian Authority." — Mohammed al-Musafer, columnist.
"The Arab leaders don't know what they want from the Gaza Strip. They don't even know what they want from Israel." — Yusef Rizka, Hamas official.
by Soeren Kern
European elites, who take pride in viewing the EU as a "postmodern" superpower, have long argued that military hard-power is illegitimate in the 21st century. Unfortunately for Europe, Russia (along with China and Iran) has not embraced the EU's fantastical soft-power worldview, in which "climate change" is now said to pose the greatest threat to European security.
For its part, the European Commission, the EU's administrative branch, which never misses an opportunity to boycott institutions in Israel, has issued only a standard statement on the shooting down of MH17 in Ukraine, which reads: "The European Union will continue to follow this issue very closely."
The EU has made only half-hearted attempts to develop alternatives to its dependency on Russian oil and gas.
by Shoshana Bryen
Proportionality in international law is not about equality of death or civilian suffering, or even about [equality of] firepower. Proportionality weighs the necessity of a military action against suffering that the action might cause to enemy civilians in the vicinity.
"Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable does not constitute a war crime.... even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality)." — Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Chief Prosecutor, International Criminal Court.
"The greater the military advantage anticipated, the larger the amount of collateral damage -- often civilian casualties -- which will be "justified" and "necessary." — Dr. Françoise Hampton, University of Essex, UK.
by Irfan Al-Alawi
"Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi" is Abu Du'a, a follower of the late Osama Bin Laden. By adding the name "Al-Qurayshi" in his current alias, he is also seeking to affirm descent from Muhammad.
The allegation of theological sovereignty over all Sunnis extends to Indonesia and Morocco. The idea that the borders between Syria and Iraq will be dissolved by the new "caliphate" defies all Islamic theology and history. As the Qur'an states, "Allah "made the nations and tribes different." (49:13) Syria and Iraq have been distinct for millennia.
The "Islamic State" seeks to obliterate these diverse identities by expelling or killing all Shias and Sunni Sufis. And it does not invoke the Ottoman caliphate in its propaganda, demonstrating decisively the fake nature of the "Islamic State."
A caliphate is obsolete and the "Islamic State" is totalitarian. All Sunnis need to repudiate them soundly, even by force of arms.