South Africa outlaws circumcision, sort of
|
UNICEF UNICEF applauds passing of South Africa's historic Children's Bill
Pretoria, 15 February 2006 - UNICEF today applauded the Government of South Africa and the National Assembly on the passing of the Children’s Bill, after years of deliberation and debate with major stakeholders.
“With the passing of this pioneering and visionary Bill, South Africa has taken an important and hopefully transformative step forward in its action and commitment to the rights of the nation’s most important resource, its children,” said Macharia Kamau, UNICEF Country Representative.
Noting the legislation’s provision to bar anyone that has been found guilty of an offence against children from working with or around children, UNICEF said the organisation was especially pleased with all the Bill’s provisions to meet the most urgent needs of vulnerable children and especially in securing their care and protection from abuse and exploitation. "When it comes to the protection of children, this Bill gets it right,” he said.
Calling the long awaited Bill “a victory for the right of children to be free to be children and to be protected as they grow up," the UNICEF Representative added, “It fills important legislative gaps and provides a valuable legal backbone for those engaged in the struggle to put children first.” The Bill, which stresses the protection of children, addresses issues of female and male circumcision, early marriage, corporal punishment and other potentially harmful cultural practices.
Full text:
|
A voice of sanity from Africa
|
The Swazi Observer 'Circumcision No AIDS Cure'
CIRCUMCISION - may result in false belief that safe-sex practices are no
longer necessary. The result could be a worsening of the incidence of HIV
infection, especially for women.
A paper, read at a conference in Brazil, claims that male circumcision has
the potential to reduce female-to-male transmission of human
immunodeficiency virus (HIV). The 'Wall Street Journal' reported that the
'Lancet,' the pre-eminent medical journal in the world, refused to publish
the paper for unknown reasons.
The researchers said circumcision might help in reducing HIV transmission
women-to-men. What they don’t say is that male circumcision doesn’t
protect women from HIV. [And the most recent study, widely reported as showing that it does, does no such thing.] An infected circumcised man having sex with a
woman is just as likely to spread the disease as an intact man. The same
goes for any male partner with whom he has sex. The problem is that men
and women may erroneously believe that circumcision is like a condom,
which then leads to unprotected sex and transmission of the virus.
Robert Bailey, the scientist who sponsored the study, has been promoting
circumcision to prevent HIV transmission since 1989. The world medical
community thus far has not accepted his published studies. The present
study, which was conducted in South Africa, is his latest effort. In such
cases, one must be aware of possible researcher bias. [At last someone dares to say it!]
UNAIDS has cautioned against circumcision.
If circumcision were promoted as a way of preventing HIV infection, people
might abandon other safe sex practices, such as condom use. This risk is
far from negligible - already, rumors abound in some communities that
circumcision acts as a “natural condom. A sex worker interviewed in the
city of Kisumu in Kenya summed up this misconception, saying, “I can sleep
with circumcised men without a condom because they don’t carry a lot of
dirt on their penis.” While circumcision may reduce the likelihood of HIV
infection, it does not eliminate it. In one study in South Africa, for
example, two out of five circumcised men were infected with HIV, compared
with three out of five uncircumcised men.
Relying on circumcision for protection is, in these circumstances, like
playing Russian roulette with two bullets in a (five-shot) revolver rather
than three.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) said they were concerned that demand
for circumcision, as a result of misinterpreting this study, may encourage
healers and witch-doctors, which could boost the risk of contracting HIV
rather than prevent it due to using contaminated instruments. They also
fear a false security from having been circumcised, and reduced
sensitivity in the penis may cause an increase in risky, sexual behavior
and a decline in condom use leading to increased transmission of the
virus.
Circumcision itself is believed to be a vector for transmission of HIV in
Africa due to the unsanitary condition of African hospitals, clinics, and
traditional circumcisors.
Many South African tribes, such as the Xhosa, practice male circumcision
as a cultural ritual, yet South Africa has an extremely high incidence of
males living with HIV. Male circumcision apparently has not worked in
South Africa. Recently, authorities in Eastern Cape Province arrested a
ritual circumciser who was circumcising numerous youths with the same
non-sterile knife.
Circumcision is a radical operation that amputates significant erogenous
tissue from the penis. Many people call forced or coerced circumcisions an
assault and male genital mutilation. Men must be warned of loss of
sensation ñ resulting in decreased erectile power, difficulty in
ejaculating, and decreased sexual satisfaction, before consent for the
surgical amputation is obtained.
Two similar studies have not yet been published. Bailey’s present study
has not yet been peer-reviewed. The three studies must be carefully
reviewed before a determination of the value of circumcision in preventing
female-to-male HIV transmission, and even then, legal and ethical issues
about self-determination must be addressed before advocating the
procedure.
Even if the studies prove true and accurate, Africa cannot afford to
circumcise all its males. A safe circumcision costs $15, compared to the
already-proven methods for stopping the spread of HIV and AIDS, education
and condom use, which cost $1 (E6.50). [Of course, a condom only works once.]
Circumcision has many risks, including infection, penile loss, hemorrhage,
hypovolemic shock [in babies], and death. The claimed benefit must be balanced against
these very real risks - |
Almost old enough to say what he wants. Why not wait till he is?
|
Yahoo news Circumcision battle lands parents of eight-year-old in US court
CHICAGO (AFP) - A clash over of their son's circumcision [not yet it isn't, it's a clash over his foreskin] has landed the
parents of an eight-year-old Illinois boy in a US court where there is no
apparent precedent.
A Cook County judge ordered the mother in the case not to have her son
circumcised until the court can hear arguments from the child's father,
who opposes the operation, and decide if it is in the boy's best interest.
Jews and Muslims circumcise their sons for religious [and a variety of other] reasons.
But this case instead involves shifting medical and cultural preferences,
which have recently become [which have long been] a matter of debate in the United States.
The mother, 31, is a homemaker from Northbrook, Illinois. She says two
doctors recommended the procedure for health reasons.
But her ex-husband, 49, a building manager in Arlington Heights, Illinois,
has called the procedure an "unnecessary amputation" that could cause his
son physical and emotional harm.
In the 1900s [no, not until the mid-20th Century], surgical circumcision, in which the foreskin of the penis is
removed usually before a newborn leaves the hospital, was the norm in the
United States.
But the percentage of US babies being circumcised has plunged from an
estimated 90 percent in 1970 to some 60 percent now, data show.
The American Academy of Pediatrics no longer recommends routine neonatal
circumcision [it never did - it has always sat on the fence] but says the decision should be left to the parents. That has
added fuel to the fire where until recently there was little debate on the
issue at all among the US Christian [or rather, gentile] majority.
Some staunch opponents of the procedure see it as akin to female genital
mutilation. They argue that the procedure is medically unnecessary and
morally wrong. Still others have launched support groups for those who
have been circumcised and would rather not have been; some have even
pursued surgical [and more often, non-surgical] options for restoration.
Legal experts however say that there are no published US opinions to serve
as precedents in this case. As such it normally would be determined based
on the best interests of the child.
When the divorced parents appeared Friday in Cook County Circuit Court,
Judge Jordan Kaplan got the two sides to agree that the child would not be
circumcised "until further order of (the) court."
He also also ordered them not to discuss the case with their child.
Tracy Rizzo, an attorney for the mother, said the father scared the child
by telling him frightening stories about what might happen if he were
circumcised.
The father's lawyers, John D'Arco and Alan Toback, have argued that the
couple's divorce agreement provides that the father must be consulted
before any non-emergency medical care.
Male circumcision is much more widespread in the United States, [the Philippines, South Korea,] Canada [no, not Canada],
and the Middle East than in [the rest of ] Asia, South America, Central America, [Scandinavia, Britain, the Commonwealth] and most of Europe .
[The question arises, why now? The role of the mother's new partner comes into focus. It would be an act of unbelievable cruelty for a court to order that a boy suffer an unnecessary operation on his genitals now, when he is well able to understand what is being done.]
The big business of circumcision
Metro (Boston) March 1, 2006 - My view by Andrew Tavani
An 8-year-old boy in Chicago is at the center of a battle over — of all things — his foreskin. The boy’s mother, who said two doctors advised circumcision following repeated infections, wants the young man to be circumcised. His father, who’s vigorously opposed to the idea, requested a restraining order to block his ex-wife from having their son circumcised. A Cook County judge has temporarily sided with the father and ordered circumcision proceedings halted until the court can decide if the operation is in the best interests of the child.
As a man — and a circumcised one at that — I appreciate the father’s compulsion to protect his son’s manhood. A neonatal circumcision, one performed before a newborn boy leaves the hospital, is a frightening concept in and of itself, but circumcising an 8-year-old is nothing short of nightmarish and brutal when you consider its potential health implications. I lament the circumcision of my foreskin. A circumcision removes about 70 percent of genital nerve endings. That sounds like a party in my pants. There is no telling what lingering psychological effects I’ve suffered as a result of the pain experienced during my neonatal circumcision.
It’s vexing that the medical community allows the removal of a body part we could actually find useful. Why not circumcise my appendix at birth instead of my foreskin? My appendix could potentially kill me one day if it bursts and I don’t receive medical attention swiftly.
My foreskin posed no such diabolical threat. The boy’s mother undoubtedly wants the best for her son, but considering that she is not the natural owner of a penis, I’m wary of her qualifications to make such a critical decision. Clearly her son’s health concerns complicate the issue beyond the cosmetic or religious reasons behind most circumcisions in our culture.
Circumcision has long been a controversial issue, but anti-circumcision sentiment in America has been growing and the number of actual neonatal circumcisions being performed is sharply declining as myths about circumcision are debunked.
It’s no surprise that circumcision is rooted in religion. Puritanism run amok has led to the mutilation of boys throughout history, while religious leaders explained away the bizarre ritual as an important covenant with God, among other deity-related rationales. Seriously, do you think God wants us to chop off part of our genitals to appease him?
In modern America circumcisions are primarily performed for non-religious reasons. Business is the driving force behind the myth that circumcision is necessary for proper hygiene. In 1999 the American Academy of Pediatrics reversed its position on routine circumcision because the practice “is not essential to the child’s well-being.” Circumcisions run about $400 for a procedure that takes roughly fifteen minutes. $400 may not seem like a lot, but multiply that number by all of the baby boys born every year and it adds up to big revenue for hospitals.
Nowhere in the world is circumcision as prevalent as it is here in America. Perhaps, one day, our culture will cease practicing this antiquated ritual and reserve the procedure for worst-case scenarios that leave no other less invasive alternative. I say, save the foreskins.
Also in his blog, February 22, 2006 |
Study fails to find circumcision protects women, but ...
|
Khaleej Times (United Arab Emirate)
Male circumcision protects women from AIDS: study
(Reuters)
[This is absolutely false and a complete garbling of the facts:
]
[Therefore, the following speculation about the role of the foreskin is irrelevant.] Circumcision also reduced the risk of infection with other sexually-transmitted diseases such as trichomonas and bacterial vaginosis, but not syphilis, gonorrhea or chlamydia, the researchers told an AIDS meeting in Denver.
|
Back to the Intactivism index page.