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.
BBC News
Three arrested over boy’s circumcision in Nottingham
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.
Suicide
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.
Forced retraction
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.
Spite circumcision
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.
Click here to view the BBC article about the arrests in Nottingham.
I am so pleased to hear that the law is finally being invoked in a case of MGM. Hopefully this will be a prelude to banning MGM for non-therapeutic conditions for males under the age of 18. I have no problem with men aged 18 or over having the procedure as long as there is no coercion and they can make an informed decision.
This should be a test case for all MGM. If it is Grievous bodily harm, it is grievous bodily harm – both parents agreeing does not change the end result. Both parents agreeing to starve or neglect a child does not make it legal, so why is it so for MGM? The government must address this hypocrisy.
Except no one will dare to, for fear of offending some touchy religious groups.
As far as I’m concerned, MGM is as bad/unnecessary as FGM. I have 3 sons and it wasn’t even discussed, it is quite rare in Australia for boys to be circumcised. It certainly isn’t ‘general procedure’ like it once was. My sons can decide if they want it done (I bet they never even think about it!) How dare someone decide to remove another persons body part (an important one) with out permission. It is unlawful to dock a dogs tail here too, as it should be.