Instead of trying to ban circumcision (of minors) altogether, I have some ideas for a law that would have a more realistic chance of passing (and avoids bringing religion into question):
1. Consent for circ must be on its own form that covers nothing else (besides any other issues from the circ that may arise).
2. Unless the father is unknown and cannot be determined right away, BOTH parents would be required to sign the consent form.
3. Hospitals would not be allowed to solicit circ; parents must ask about the procedure.
4. Any medical professional that would handle boys' penises would be required to demostrate proper penis/foreskin care in order to be licensed.
5. Any doctor that wants to opt out of performing routine circs would be allowed to do so without any reprimation by his/her employer (or instructor for medical students).
6. Pain relief to the extend that can safely be provided would be required.
7. Anyone performing a circ without these rules being followed would be subject to the same criminal penalties that those performing FGM would face.
What do you think?
Kelly, a man who is proud to be intact!
I can see those measures as good places to start.
Ultimately, I want all amputations of healthy normal tissue from all children stopped unless there is disease which has not responded to all other available treatment to to correct a deformity.
Baby steps, baby steps, baby steps.
I also think all insurance needs to stop paying for circumcision unless it's medically indicated as the last untried treatment.
It still comes down to HIS penis, HIS choice. It absolutely needs to be illegal just as FGM is illegal. We wouldn't settle for a little pinprick on a girl's clitoris, why should we settle for the amputation of a healthy body part on a baby boy?
I like where you are coming from, but I'm not sure how practical it is to implement some of these ideas.
1. Makes sense and very easy to implement, but possibly unnecessary. In my experience, most consent forms keep different issues separate from each other as it is, with a different form for each issue. They do try to make it clear what you are and aren't consenting to, otherwise it defeats the purpose of having a paper trail. Is this to avoid mix-ups in case someone is accidentally circ'ed? I really think that is a rare situation today.
2. There are no precedents that I know of in medicine where more than one power of attorney needs to sign something. If both parents are there, it may seem easy to require both signatures. But once people realize that all they have to do is show up alone and claim they don't have a partner, that is what they will do to get around this. I really don't believe any medical personnel are going to have the time, energy, or ability to determine whether someone really is single.
3. There are some hospitals that actually do not perform circumcisions at all. People must make arrangements with their doctor in another location if they want it done.
4. Maybe doctors and nurses who work in related fields could be required to complete CEU's.
5. This is already true. I think the only time there might be issues is between students and their instructors, and that may depend on individual situations.
6. Definately agree with this one. It's only "recommended" now, with "guidelines" that vary greatly.
7. What kind of criminal penalties would there be? This is where the lines blur because you would have to determine which laws were broken and to what extent, especially a procedure that has been common for many years and is done with parental consent.