German court rules circumcision goes against "fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity"

istockphoto

(CBS News) Religious leaders are outraged after a German court ruled that circumcision infringes on a child's right to be protected from bodily harm.

The regional court in Cologne said that circumcision went against the "fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity outweighed the fundamental rights of the parents." They added that religious freedom would not be curtailed because the child would be able to choose later whether he wanted to have a circumcision. However, if the parents decided for the boy, it changed the body of the child "irreparably and permanently" and went against that child's rights to choose his religious beliefs.

"The religious freedom of the parents and their right to educate their child would not be unacceptably compromised, if they were obliged to wait until the child could himself decide to be circumcised," the court added.

The ruling has now set a precedent that anyone in the future who performs a circumcision on a child not old enough to consent could potentially be breaking the law. Experts say that the decision would not be enforceable in other jurisdictions but because of the legal limbo and possibility of charges brought upon them, doctors may decline to do the procedure, according to the New York Times.

The head of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, Dr. Dieter Graumann, said in a statement that the ruling was an "unprecedented and dramatic interference in the right of religious communities to self-determination," calling it an "inappropriate and insensitive act."

Graumann said that circumcision by a medical doctor or a mohel with "medical competency" is "an integral part of the Jewish faith that has been practiced around the world for millennium."

"This right is respected in every country of the world," he added.

Male circumcision is an integral part of both Jewish and Muslim religions, and is also practiced by some tribal groups. It is very common in many African countries, and is often done in North America and most of West Africa. Although female circumcision is outlawed in Germany, male circumcision had been completely legal.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), about 30 percent of men - 665 million men - were circumcised as of 2006. In the United States, the WHO estimates about 76 percent to 92 percent of men are circumcised today.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) does not recommend routine circumcision, according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), but defers to parental choice based on religious, cultural and personal beliefs. The WHO says that circumcision can lower HIV infection risk by about 60 percent. Circumcision can lower risk of urinary tract infections, penile cancer and sexually transmitted diseases, according to the NIH, but can cause unwarranted pain and a low risk of bleeding or infection.

The case was brought to the German court system after a four-year-old Muslim boy in Cologne was rushed to the hospital when he was found to be bleeding heavily a few days after a doctor had performed a circumcision under the boy's parent's request. The doctor was charged with grievous bodily harm.

The doctor was both acquitted by a lower court that determined that he was legally right to perform the circumcision because he had parental consent and cited religious freedom. The ruling was appealed, and although the regional court also acquitted the doctor of any wrongdoing, it was the court's reasoning that caused controversy in the religious community.

Holm Putzke, a professor of criminal law at the University of Passau in Germany, told JTA that he hoped the decision would inspire conversation about "what should be given more weight - religious freedom or the right of children not to have their genitals mutilated." Putzke has crusaded for anti-circumcision laws for children for many years.

"After the knee-jerk outrage has faded away, hopefully a discussion will begin about how much religiously motivated violence against children a society is ready to tolerate," he said to German news agency DPA according to the New York Times.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has more on circumcision.

[Huh_Now]

I agree with the court that a parents rights stop at altering a child in a way that as an adult they cannot rectify the change. Suppose ur parent are religious, but ur not and change religious beliefs. Ur right to body integrity is permanently changed. You can restore the foreskin's appearance but not the nerves that we amputated.
If your religion requires one the cut yourself, then choose that religion as an adult and have yourself cut. We all have the right to reject our parents religious beliefs. I did!
As for HIV prevention, the vast majority of men will never have sex with someone who is HIV+. so ther is no need to protect yourself from a desease you will never be exposed to. Plus, condoms are the best protection. They stop the virus. Cutting only slows the rate of acquisition. read John Hopkins university study in south Africa, 2007. If u want to know more.
Altering a boy denies the right of the man to choose for himself. Maybe the religious people need to put down their dogma and see how unethical their practice in this "law" they attribute to a higher authority.

[howieeg]

Some people obviously are way too fixated on sexual jollies to add any credibility in parroting overreaching, unfounded medical jargon. Their misuse of the word "mutilate" tells me they do not even have any grasp of the difference between the sacred Jewish-male rite of a bris, and practices in third-world countries that indeed destroy the functionality of the female genetalia.

[JackieNO]

How does any one disagree with the point that amputating nerves, blood vessels, protective covering and pleasure zones is bodily HARM?

Finally a country is standing up for the basic human right of a human to keep all of his sensory system, all of his nerves, all of his blood vessels, protective covering and pleasure zones.

Other countries should follow this lead. Baby boy ***** parts removal should be considered illegal NOW in the United States under the 1996 federal law banning genital cutting -- 14th Amendment equal protection clause.

Those saying that preventing the cutting off of ***** parts of a baby boy violates the cutter's freedom of religion, are way out there in irrational land. One's religion ends where their knife touches another human's body. The idea that another human's ritual (rite) trumps ones right to body parts is insane and creepy. Baby boy ***** parts removal cuts off thousands of fine touch and stretch nerves. This is like disconnecting the fingertips, nipples or lips from the brain. No human should be subjected to sensory system harm as well as a forced decrease of sexual function and PLEASURE for life!

[howieeg]

No one should be so outraged over a procedure he clearly does not understand, a sacred religious rite he wontonly misunderstands.

[syslmod]

So you christians are just like us, huh. The is a commandment directly from G_d just as important as the 10. I think Islam is more like Judiaism.

[Thaigold]

Mutilation of a child's body is a crime by any sane person's understanding of civilized behavior. This is just another example of the damage done by mythic belief systems. People of rational thought demand an end to this nonsense. We abhor this crime against girls in Africa, why allow the same crime against boys in the United States?

[howieeg]

Stop the insane misuse of the term "mutilation" over a quarter-inch of spare skin. It no more disturrbs the function or look of the male human sexual system than ear piercing the male human auditory system.

[JackieNO]

Howieeg, you obviously have been mutilated if you say "a quarter-inch of spare skin" The male prepuce is not just skin and does not just protect the glans (head). Circumcision is now known to ablate the most sensitive parts of the male genitals. This surgery takes away the main male pleasure zones with about 20000 fine touch and stretch nerve endings amputated.

[Hugh_Intactive]

'The head of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, Dr. Dieter Graumann, said in a statement that the ruling was an "unprecedented and dramatic interference in the right of religious communities to self-determination," calling it an "inappropriate and insensitive act."'
It is cutting babies' genitals that is inappropriate and insensitive, and a dramatic, but sadly not unprecedented, interference in the right of individuals to self-determination.

Male circumcision compares directly to female genital cutting in the way that matters here, as a violation of the person's right to choose the state of her or his own genitals, when she or he old enough to do so. (Not all FGC is as horrific as in Africa; much is comparable in severity to MGC - yet ALL is outlawed throughtout the developed world, even though religously motivated. It's a pure double standard.)

STBY21: Whenever they may begin, human rights do not END at birth.

Goffredo and restoredcanadian, don't let them silence or dismiss you, you are far from alone. Your cause is just and people should listen to you.

caljack: If men want to have (the best) part cut off for (bogus) health reasons or any other or none, they are still free to do so. The crime is doing it to non-consenting people.

[Deist]

The ancient practice of mutilating the human body for religious "reasons" violates our God-given reason. Not only does circumcision mutilate an innocent boy's body, in the USA Jewish children have died because of the Orthodox Jewish practice known as metzitzah b'peh. This ancient practice involves the rabbi/mohel using his mouth to directly suck on the bloody ***** of the freshly circumcised infant in an effort to remove the blood. So far, and as far as is known, two infants have died from this unnatural and repulsive practice.

I think it's time people all over the world brought about a revolution in religion based on our God-given reason and Deism. This is what Thomas Paine called for in his thought provoking book on God, Deism and religion, The Age of Reason, The Complete Edition.

Progress! Bob Johnson

www.deism.com

[STBY21]

"The regional court in Cologne said that circumcision went against the 'fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity outweighed the fundamental rights of the parents'."

I wonder if Germany will now ban abortion for that same reason?

[howieeg]

How true. I am hardly what anyone would call an avid anti-abortionist, but I am dumbfounded at the bloggers foaming at the mouth with hyperbolic rantings about snipping away a quarter inch of extra infant penile foreskin when they apparently would have no compunction about "snipping away" the entire infant a few months earlier.

[JackieNO]

Howieeg, you obviously have been mutilated if you say "a quarter-inch of spare skin" The male prepuce is not just skin and does not just protect the glans (head). Circumcision is now known to ablate the most sensitive parts of the male genitals. This surgery takes away the main male pleasure zones with about 20000 fine touch and stretch nerve endings amputated.

[pammmmmm]

There is more to this decision than meets the eye. The Jewish custom is to circumcise the male baby at 7 days old. It is flying in the face of the Jewish faith. Apparently Germany hasn't learned anything from the past. Or they are deliberately making a point.

[Big-Daddy-Kahuna]

Well, guess there will be a whole lot of uncircumcised ******* in Germany in the future....