Mothering Forums - Reply to Topic

Thread: England: Public Health - new inquiry accepting written evidence (deadline Monday 13 June 2011) Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
11-29-2011 12:26 AM
Minuteman

The Health Committee has now published it's report from the inquiry, which can be viewed here:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmhealth/1048/104802.htm

It appears that the case against re-instating circumcision on the NHS or in publicly-funded facilities has, for the time being, been shored-up (but while the practice of circumcision remains legal, readers from the UK should remain vigilant).

It appears that circumcision-proponents in the UK are now trying to use professed concern for the well-being of boys of certain ethnic and religious origins to have UK child-protection authorities advertise the services of "safe" circumcision providers ( see http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1336756/uk-greater-manchester-safeguarding-children-partnership-circumcision-services-for-boys-in-gm ). Readers from the UK should learn the workings of these agencies, their community consultation processes and which Parliamentary Committees they are ultimately accountable to.

Since it has now been published on the Health Committee web-page, my written submission to the Public Health England inquiry is below. It's basically and abridged version of an earlier Department of Health community consultation response (why re-invent the wheel?) and probably represents the last of my meddling in England's affairs.
 

 

Quote:
Summary

- There has been a concerted effort in the professional literature, from a small cabal within the medical fraternity, to argue the case for reinstating non-therapeutic circumcision at the expense of the NHS, frequently using professed concern for the well-being of boys of certain ethnic or religious backgrounds receiving circumcision in non-medical settings, as a pretext.

- Recently, there has been a string of mainstream media items favourable to male circumcision, which amount to nothing less than a marketing campaign to motivate parents to have their sons circumcised. Many of these articles draw upon established marketing concepts (in turn derived from insights of behavioural science), most notably, the use of “experts”. In the context of promoting circumcision to parents, such “experts” generally include medical practitioners who work at private circumcision clinics and religious officials.

- Regardless of whether it is performed in a medical or non-medical setting, a significant number of boys subjected to the practice of circumcision will later fulfill the DSM-IV criteria for a diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

- Circumcision removes the most sexually sensitive parts of a boy’s penis, including the foreskin, the frenulum, and the ridged band of nerves. The male foreskin is also designed to protect the glans of the penis throughout a man’s life, ensuring that the internal mucosal tissue remains moist and sensitive (much the same way that a woman’s clitoral hood protects the clitoris). In addition, the foreskin acts as a natural gliding mechanism to reduce chafing and dryness during intercourse.

- The British Medical Association advises against routine male circumcision, and no national medical association in the world recommends that boys be forcefully circumcised for preventive health reasons.

- There has been little incentive for the medical profession to investigate the long-term effects on men’s sexual and psychological health and well-being, but the growth of groups such as NORM-UK (an organisation registered with the Charities Commissioners for England and Wales), suggests that a substantial number of men genuinely resent being circumcised.

- It is imperative that Department of Health and Public Health England mandate that all staff, contractors, agencies, facilities and departments under their auspices, including GPs and GP practices: Must not offer among their services the harmful male genital mutilation known as circumcision; Must not permit on their premises individuals or organisations promoting the harmful male genital mutilation known as circumcision; Must not be refer patients explicitly for the harmful male genital mutilation known as circumcision; Must not be employed or associated with any facility offering the harmful male genital mutilation known as circumcision; Must not allow their facilities to be used for the harmful male genital mutilation known as circumcision.; and Must not stock or allow on their premises literature or other material promoting the harmful male genital mutilation known as circumcision.

- Given the dearth of research in this area, it would be appropriate for the Department of Health and Public Health England to partner with registered charities such as NORM-UK and to create incentives for medical researchers to investigate the long-term effects of circumcision on men’s sexual and psychological health and well-being.

1. There has been a concerted effort in the professional literature, from a small cabal within the medical fraternity, to argue the case for reinstating non-therapeutic circumcision at the expense of the NHS, frequently using professed concern for the well-being of boys of certain ethnic or religious backgrounds receiving circumcision in non-medical settings, as a pretext,1 a call loudly echoed in sections of the mainstream media.2 Regardless of whether it is performed in a medical or non-medical setting, a significant number of boys subjected to the practice of circumcision will later fulfill the DSM-IV criteria for a diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.3 Further, circumcision removes the most sexually sensitive parts of a boy’s penis, including the foreskin, the frenulum, and the ridged band of nerves.4 The male foreskin is also designed to protect the glans of the penis throughout a man’s life, ensuring that the internal mucosal tissue remains moist and sensitive (much the same way that a woman’s clitoral hood protects the clitoris). In addition, the foreskin acts as a natural gliding mechanism to reduce chafing and dryness during intercourse.5

2. Recently, there has been a string of mainstream media items favourable to male circumcision, which amount to nothing less than a marketing campaign to motivate parents to have their sons circumcised.2,6,7,8 Many of these articles draw upon established marketing concepts (in turn derived from insights of behavioural science), most notably, the use of “experts”. An “expert”, in a marketing context, is an individual who, because of their occupation, or perceived experience, is uniquely placed to lend credence to the product or service that an advertisement promotes.9 In the context of promoting circumcision to parents, such “experts” generally include medical practitioners who work at private circumcision clinics6,8 and religious officials.7 Following complaints from the public, the Press Complaints Commission has reached resolutions noting the inappropriate implication in media items that religious officials are qualified to offer medical advice in regard to circumcision, the minimisation of the inherent risks of circumcision as a medical procedure, and the implication that circumcision is of minimal discomfort through the impression that it is legitimate practice to conduct the procedure without anaesthesia.10,11 Both the hospital and doctor (who is also a Consultant Urological Surgeon at Royal ********* University Hospital NHS Trust) featured in a recent episode of the Channel 4 television series Embarrassing Bodies,8 linked to the video on the Channel 4 website from their respective web-pages,12,13 effectively by-passing the General Medical Council Guidelines about how medical practitioners should promote and publish information about their services .14 It is unsurprising that such symbiotic relationships should form between private doctors seeking to promote their practice and mainstream media outlets who want to appease advertisers by keeping such a high-profile controversial social issue alive, since advertising is the force which has historically sustained all commercial media.15

3. The British Medical Association advises against routine male circumcision,16 and no national medical association in the world recommends that boys be forcefully circumcised for preventive health reasons. The Royal Dutch Medical Association’s very up-to-date policy on circumcision states that “KNMG is calling upon doctors to actively and insistently inform parents who are considering the procedure of the absence of medical benefits and the danger of complications”, and that there is a good case for making it illegal.17 Female genital mutilation has been illegal for a number of years now.18 There has been little incentive for the medical profession to investigate the long-term effects on men’s sexual and psychological health and well-being, but the growth of groups such as NORM-UK (an organisation registered with the Charities Commissioners for England and Wales), suggests that a substantial number of men genuinely resent being circumcised.19

4. A recent statement from the British Association of Paediatric Urologists on behalf of the British Association of Paediatric Surgeons and The Association of Paediatric Anaesthetists admitted that some doctor’s under its charge “have been willing to provide non therapeutic circumcision without charge rather than risk the procedure being carried out in unhygienic conditions.”20 In its statement on the law and ethics of male circumcision, the British Medical Association has concluded that “it is for society to decide what limits should be imposed on parental choices.”16

5. It is therefore imperative that Department of Health and Public Health England mandate that all staff, contractors, agencies, facilities and departments under their auspices, including GPs and GP practices: Must not offer among their services the harmful male genital mutilation known as circumcision; Must not permit on their premises individuals or organisations promoting the harmful male genital mutilation known as circumcision; Must not be refer patients explicitly for the harmful male genital mutilation known as circumcision; Must not be employed or associated with any facility offering the harmful male genital mutilation known as circumcision; Must not allow their facilities to be used for the harmful male genital mutilation known as circumcision.; and Must not stock or allow on their premises literature or other material promoting the harmful male genital mutilation known as circumcision.

6. To best develop and enhance the availability, accessibility and utility of public health information and intelligence regarding the harmful male genital mutilation known as circumcision, it is imperative that the Department of Health and Public Health England establish a central information store of the harm caused by male circumcision, which will form the basis for establishing a dictate that staff, contractors, agencies, facilities and departments under its auspices, including GPs and GP practices, will not perform nor refer patients for circumcision; and to make use of the insights of behavioural science to research and implement strategies which discourage parents from subjecting their sons to the harmful male genital mutilation known as circumcision, without lending to its prestige by implying that it is a practice worthy of its own policy statement or the subject of a legitimate “debate”.

7. To counteract the mainstream media marketing of circumcision to parents, it is appropriate that the Department of Health and Public Health England mandate that staff, contractors, agencies, facilities and departments under its auspices, including GPs and GP practices, will not perform nor refer patients for circumcision; and should use the insights of behavioural science to research and implement strategies which discourage parents from subjecting their sons to the harmful male genital mutilation known as circumcision, without lending to its prestige by implying that it is a practice worthy of its own policy statement or the subject of a legitimate “debate”.

8. It would be appropriate to invite appropriately registered charity organisations such as NORM-UK to partner with the Department of Health and Public Health England to contribute to compiling and improving the use of public health evidence to counteract the mainstream media marketing of circumcision to parents and discourage parents from subjecting their sons to the harmful male genital mutilation known as circumcision, without lending to its prestige by implying that it is a practice worthy of its own policy statement or the subject of a legitimate “debate”.

9. Given questions raised about the professional conduct of some medical practitioners with regard to the continuing practice of male circumcision, whatever system of voluntary regulation may be implemented, it is appropriate that the Department of Health and Public Health England mandate that staff, contractors, agencies, facilities and departments under their auspices, including GPs, GP practices and other public health specialists, will not perform nor refer patients for the harmful male genital mutilation known as circumcision.

10. Given the dearth of research in this area, it would be appropriate for the Department of Health and Public Health England to create incentives for medical researchers to investigate the long-term effects of circumcision on men’s sexual and psychological health and well-being.

June 2011
References

1 Paranthaman K, Bagaria, J & O’Moore, E (2010) The need for commissioning circumcision services for non-therapeutic indications in the NHS: lessons from an incident investigation in Oxford J Public Health first published online July 14, 2010http://jpubhealth.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2010/07/14/pubmed.fdq053.full

2 Campbell, D (2010) NHS urged to offer circumcisions to avoid botched operations in The Guardian Sunday 11 July 2010 http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jul/11/doctors-urge-circumcision-on-nhs

3 Samuel Ramos and Gregory J Boyle. Ritual and Medical Circumcision among Filipino boys: Evidence of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder Humanities & Social Sciences papers (2000). Available at: http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1120&context=hss_pubs

4 Morris L Sorrells, James L Snyder, Mark D Reiss, Christopher Eden, Marilyn F Milos, Norma Wilcox, Robert S Van Howe Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis British Journal of Urology International, Volume 99 Issue 4 Page 864 – 869 April 2007 http://www.nocirc.org/touch-test/bju_6685.pdf

5 Taylor, JP, AP Lockwood and AJ Taylor The prepuce: Specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision Journal of Urology (1996), 77, 291-295 http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/

6 Renton, A (2010) It protects men (and women) against fatal diseases and sexual infections. So, should all boys be circumcised? in The Daily Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1199472/It-protects-men-women-fatal-diseases-sexual-infections-So-boys-circumcised.html

7 Rich, B (2010) To snip or not to snip? in The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/oct/30/circumcision-jewish-son-ben-rich

8 Channel 4 (2011) Embarrassing Bodies Series 4 Episode 4http://www.channel4.com/programmes/embarrassing-bodies/episode-guide/series-4/episode-4

9 Schiffman, L Bednell, D O’Cass, A Paladino, A Kanuk, L (2005) Consumer Behaviour 3rd Edition Pearson Education Australia, Australia: Frenchs Forest

10 Press Complaints Commission (2011) Parkes vs The Guardianhttp://www.pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=NjkxNg==

11 Press Complaints Commission (2010) Warren vs Daily Mailhttp://www.pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=NjIyNA==

12 http://www.spirehealthcare.com/*********/Our-Facilities-Treatments-and-Consultants/Our-Treatments/ Adult-circumcision/

13 http://www.spirehealthcare.com/*********/Our-Facilities-Treatments-and-Consultants/Our-Consultants/Mr-P-Cornford/

14 General Medical Council (2011) Good Medical Practice: Providing and publishing information about your services http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/good_medical_practice/probity_information_about_services.asp

15 Cunningham, S & Turner, G (2002) The Media & Communications in Australia Allen & Unwin, Australia

16 British Medical Association. The law and ethics of male circumcision: guidance for doctors. London: BMA, 2006 http://www.bma.org.uk/ethics/consent_and_capacity/malecircumcision2006.jsp

17 KNMG (2010) Non-theraputic circumcision of male minors http://knmg.artsennet.nl/web/file?uuid=579e836d-ea83-410f-9889-feb7eda87cd5&owner=a8a9ce0e-f42b-47a5-960e-be08025b7b04&contentid=77976

18 LASSL (2004)4: Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003, DoH, published 27 February 2004

19 http://www.norm-uk.org/

20 British Association of Paediatric Urologists (2007) MANAGEMENT OF FORESKIN CONDITIONS Statement from the British Association of Paediatric Urologists on behalf of the British Association of Paediatric Surgeons and The Association of Paediatric Anaesthetists. http://www.apagbi.org.uk/sites/apagbi.org.uk/files/circumcision2007.pdf

 

 

05-13-2011 02:10 AM
Minuteman

I got this email a few minutes ago. Anybody interest in making an anti-circumcision submission is welcome to copy, paste, amend or adapt any or all of my previous submission to the Public Health England Whitepaper community consulation, here: http://www.mothering.com/community/forum/thread/1304154/please-lodge-this-important-anti-circumcision-government-submission-closed

 

Be aware that the Health Committee has it's own guidelines for the format of written submissions (see below):

 

Select Committee Announcement

 

13 May 2011

For Immediate Release:

Invitation to submit written evidence

Public Health

Public health is a vital, but too often neglected, aspect of the National Health Service. The current constraints on public finances make it more important than ever to limit and reduce the overall demand for NHS services by the public health goals of preventing disease, prolonging life and promoting health. At the same time, the aim of reducing health inequalities becomes ever more pressing as the burden of ill health falls in an increasingly disproportionate way on the poorest, as well as on other disadvantaged social groups.

 

It is also particularly important to review this topic at this time given that the Government is proposing major changes to the organisation of public health services, as part of its wider plans for reform of the NHS. These changes, which are being legislated for in the Health and Social Care Bill, were originally welcomed by those in the field but have subsequently become highly contentious. The Committee believes it is important that these plans be effectively scrutinised not least because of the importance of public health in ensuring that health services are commissioned effectively.

 

In its inquiry, the Committee will consider:

 

·         the creation of Public Health England within the Department of Health;

·         the abolition of the Health Protection Agency and the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse;

·         the public health role of the Secretary of State;

·         the future role of local government in public health (including arrangements for the appointment of Directors of Public Health; and the role of Health and Wellbeing Boards, Joint Strategic Needs Assessments and Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategies);

·         arrangements for public health involvement in the commissioning of NHS services;

·         arrangements for commissioning public health services;

·         the future of the Public Health Observatories;

·         the structure and purpose of the Public Health Outcomes Framework;

·         arrangements for funding public health services (including the Health Premium);

·         the future of the public health workforce (including the regulation of public health professionals); and

·         how the Government is responding to the Marmot Review on health inequalities.

The deadline for submitting written evidence is noon on Monday 13 June 2011.

Guidance on submitting written evidence

It assists the Committee if those submitting written evidence adhere to the following guidelines:

Each submission should:

 

    * state clearly who the submission is from, ie whether from yourself in a personal capacity (Submission from, eg, Miss Dee Dee Lee) or sent on behalf of an organisation (eg Submission from Insert Name Ltd)
    * be 3,000 words in length;
    * as far as possible comprise a single document attachment to the email;
    * begin with a short summary in bullet point form;
    * have numbered paragraphs; and
    * be in Word format with as little use of colour or logos as possible (Reports are published in black and white).

 

A copy of the submission should be sent by e-mail to healthcommem@parliament.uk and have the ‘Name of the inquiry’ in the Subject line.

 

Please supply a postal address so a copy of the Committee’s report can be sent to you upon publication.

 

It would be helpful, for Data Protection purposes, if individuals submitting written evidence would send their contact details separately in a covering email in a block of text laid out vertically (not horizontally). See example below:

 

eg: Miss Dee Dee Lee

London House

London Avenue

London SW00 0WW

Tel: 0000 000 0000 / Mob: 00000 000000

deedeelee1005@xxxxxxx.uk

 

You should also be aware that there may be circumstances in which the House of Commons will be required to communicate information to third parties on request, in order to comply with its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

 

Though there is a strong preference for emailed submissions, those without access to a computer should send a hard copy to:

 

 

Committee Assistant

Health Committee

Committee Office

House of Commons

7 Millbank

London SW1P 3JA

 

·         A guide for written submissions to Select Committees may be found on the parliamentary website at: Commons: http://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/have-your-say/take-part-in-committee-inquiries/witness/

Please also note that:

·         Committees make public much of the evidence they receive during inquiries. If you do not wish your submission to be published, you must clearly say so. If you wish to include private or confidential information in your submission to the Committee, please contact the Clerk of the Committee to discuss this.

 

·         Material already published elsewhere should not form the basis of a submission, but may be referred to within a proposed submission, in which case a hard copy of the published work should be included.

 

·         Evidence submitted must be kept confidential until published by the Committee, unless publication by the person or organisation submitting it is specifically authorised.

 

·         Once submitted, evidence is the property of the Committee. The Committee normally, though not always, chooses to make public the written evidence it receives, by publishing it on the internet (where it will be searchable), by printing it or by making it available through the Parliamentary Archives. If there is any information you believe to be sensitive you should highlight it and explain what harm you believe would result from its disclosure. The Committee will take this into account in deciding whether to publish or further disclose the evidence.

 

·         Select Committees are unable to investigate individual cases.

 

For up-to-date information on progress of the inquiry visit: http://www.parliament.uk/healthcom


Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off