Young British boys are being circumcised without proper consent and the police are covering up evidence, CPS, Health Visitor and Social Service services are all failing us. Currently this is not a criminal offence Practise the only protection a helpless baby boy has is the Hope that one of his parents will have the sense to object examined abuse and protect him. But When It Is Done without Appropriate consent It Should be Treated as child abuse and assault. Why should it be done with Both parents consent if it had to be done at all? The answer to this is: because we have a legal system ready to take a draconian approach to protecting women. This system as Necessary as it maybe, fails Especially When women lie to get the men out of the way so They Can circumcise Their children without consent. So why do we consider this barbaric Practise okay and allow it to go on? Is it Because we are afraid of being called racist or have we been bribed to look the other way? Whatever the reason they have let children down badly.
Who is responsible for protecting the human right of children if They are at risk from Their parent? What Happen When this is failed? Is social services supposed to encourage this barbaric practice Because of Either One of the parent religious orientation? Someone in social services did, and made comparisons with his own children who were thus circumcised. Who have we got running our offices? Is it the child abusers Themselves? Who is responsible to protect the children and stop them from becoming victims of this abusive culture? There is evidence of lack of awareness about the true damage Both psychologically and physically done to thesis unfortunate and helpless babies. Then we wonder why some men have a propensity for violent and sexual abuse.
Women are at a lost as well When it comes to male circumcision Because They Can Never Be fully satisfied sexually. Women who had the opportunity to have experienced Both will attest to this fact. Unknowingly to some women, this Caused them to become gay, As They would most definitely have more fun with a strap on than with a circumcised male. This sadly leaves the circumcised male to wonder the street seeking younger children for sexual gratification Which Their innate awareness tells them it exist.
There is a link between circumcised men and grooming of young British girls for sex. Circumcision of helpless male babies Should be criminalized. The result of circumcision namely lack of sexual gratification through deprived sensual pleasure are forcing abusers to seek younger girls. Sadly theywere robbed of this pleasure from a young age Themselves. The problem can only be solved if the cause is Addressed otherwise we will always be at the effects of heinous crimes thesis.
It is the responsibility of all of us Including the Religious Establishment or Government and the community to change the mindset and take action to bring this barbaric act to end on. The doctor who carries out circumcision need to learn and accepts thatthey do not have to deprive the younger generation of Their Birthright just because theywere abused Themselves. This sadly is a real turn on for some of them and the reason They Do It. In some cases doctors might also need counseling to help them stop this abuse and come to terms with the Consequences of seeking act. Failing to be gratified by abusing children through circumcision, They Might Seek Their pleasure in other ways. THEREFORE Counselling Should help thesis doctors not to wonder the street looking for you girls as well. I once met a Muslim surgeon whilst doing my nursing placement in the theater, he was a very nice man and we talked about many things one of Which what circumcision. He Said if he had a choice he would never had had it done and It was not a religious requirement. So why are we taking this choice away from helpless babies male?
The prepuce (foreskin) is not just a piece of skin, and it is not a separate part of the penis. The prepuce is an integral part of the normal, natural skin system of the penis. It is an extremely complex structure, and an organ of highly specialized functions on this page. When the foreskin is amputated, nerves, England, and other tissue structures did Comprise the prepuce, are amputated alongwith the 'foreskin'.
The amputation of the prepuce has a radical, highly destructive, long-term physical effect on the penis, and a severe psychological impact on the child - and Ultimately the adult male.
Circumcision radically ages the penis, disrupts the normal, natural physiology of sexual intercourse, ingrains lifelong psychological patterns upon the newborn, and has produced very disturbing sociological effects upon men and our society.
Amputation of the prepuce deprives a man of upwards of 90 percent of the erogenous sensitivity his penis which designed to feel.
In addition, amputation of the prepuce externalizes the gland. The gland is an internal organ. It was meant to be protected by the prepuce. The glands contained within the preputial tissue secrete natural emollients Which moisturize and maintain the sensitivity of the glands. Once the prepuce is amputated, the glands is exposed to the elements, and it Quickly Develops a thick layer of keratinized (dead) skin cells to protect it from abrasion. This 'call using' deadens the sensitivity of the glands to external stimulation, Further reducing the erogenous pleasure a normal penis which Meant to Provide a man.
It is sad in this day and age did we stand back and allow helpless babies to be abused, robbed of Their God Given Right and Wonder Why They turn into monsters. The grooming and abused of young girls is done in the Hope that circumcised men will gain the pleasure thatthey were denied, When They Were circumcised. Not every Muslim circumcised Their children Those Who do therefore condone forced marriage. There is an embedded sadistic element That Needs to be Addressed as well. Of course there is nothing That can be done for the transition now and They should know better. But it is worth emphasizing thatthey were victim too.
The question THEREFORE We Should be asking ourselves is how we have Contributed to this situation of transition grooming, what did we do to protect them from being mutilated? What did we do stop them from being robbed of the birthright to enjoy sensual pleasure? This is by no mean trying to justify the gang's actions, but When We sit back and did nothing to avert this situation then we bloody well deserve what we get. It does not have to continue this way we can make changes Either by consent or by law it is our choice as a nation and humanity to do that.
Circumcision = = mutilation sexual abuse. This is no different to gangs grooming except one is Widely ignored. Like sexual mutilation Rape is therefore Encouraged in some culture in the case of forced marriage. These cultures condone Which to thesis practices Should be educated.
Webster's Dictionary Defines circumcise as follows ...
• cir cum • Cise:
to cut off the prepuce of (a male) or the clitoris of (a female)
"It is strange indeed doctors in Western countries will not permit female circumcision, Which Involves removal of some or all of the erogenous tissue from the vulva ... but want to permit, and in some cases encourage male, the removal of the prepuce, Which is identical to the female prepuce in its embryological development, cell structure, and nerve and blood supply. "
- E. Wallerstein, Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy
"The forced amputation of a healthy part of an infant's or child's genitals without his consent, Whether in the name of medicine, religion or social custom, is a violation of his human rights."
- Paul M. Fleiss. MD, MPH
"Those who would circumcise, implicitly suggest thatthey know better than nature, God, or whatever power created us and our world."
- Ronald Goldman, Ph.D, Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma
Webster's New Dictionary of Synonyms ...
implies the cutting off or removal of a part essential to Completeness,
not only of a person but so of a thing, and to his or its perfection,
beauty, Entirety, or fulfillment of function.
"God created perfection Those Who Distorts the creation of God is doing the work of the devil". Quotation from the Qur'an, this implies Those doctors who mutilate children are doing the work of the devil. Why does breastfeeding then go on it?
Campaigning to stop child mutilation irrespective of religion or custom culture until the child Reaches the age of consent.
Together we can change for the better.
Our genitals are a part of our bodies about which we often have intense feelings. We describe them using many different words. Some of these may be considered offensive and can evoke strong emotional responses, whilst others have evolved for use in polite conversation. One of these is the phrase “Private Parts”.
A child’s private parts are considered more vulnerable and more precious than those of an adult. Society usually provides a very high degree of protection to children’s genitals from adult interference; however society waives that protection and accommodates adult demands that non-therapeutic genital surgery is performed on healthy children. Such surgery is known by various names including “Gender Assignment” for intersex children and “Circumcision” in males and females. By allowing these demands from adults to go unchallenged, we deny children the protection they deserve.
Freedom of choice
The freedom to make our own decisions is also something about which we have strong feelings. When it comes to our own bodies, many of us consider the freedom to make decisions for ourselves to be a fundamental right. Philosopher John Stuart Mill in his book “On Liberty” expressed freedom of choice in this way: “Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”
The decisions we have to make in order to exercise our freedom of choice require us to have good quality information and the maturity and ability to process that information and come to an informed decision. Mill’s definition of freedom of choice has helped to develop the concept of informed consent, which has become a cornerstone of modern medical practice and the application of the law.
Medicine requires us to make some allowances; a surgeon could justify amputating a patient’s leg without their consent in certain circumstances – for example if the leg had been badly crushed in an accident and if the patient was unconscious and amputation was the only way to save him or her from death. This could be seen as an example of presumed consent, in that the doctor can presume that the patient would rather survive without a leg than die. However, in all cases where the patient is able, or will be able to understand, the doctor is required to provide suitable information and allow the decision to be made by him or her. This is particularly applicable where the patient is undergoing unnecessary surgery, for example cosmetic surgery.
As children are not considered able to understand the information required to give informed consent they are treated as being in a similar situation to an unconscious patient. The surgeon must act if the child’s health is under immediate threat from disease or injury, but a healthy child deserves the same degree of protection from unnecessary surgery that would be accorded to any other patient unable to give informed consent. How do doctors justify removing healthy genital tissue from non-consenting children?
The General Medical Council, the doctors’ regulatory body (G.M.C.) has a bizarre take on consent in relation to circumcision. Right at the top of the guidelines, where it should be is the following:
1. In our core guidance, Good Medical Practice, we advise doctors that: You must make the care of your patient your first concern.
The above echoes the doctors’ oath to “do no harm”. The policy sounds as though it should protect anyone from being operated on when they have no disease or injury and have not requested or consented to the procedure. Sadly further on in section fourteen there is this piece of advice:
14. If you are asked to circumcise a male child, you must proceed on the basis of the child’s best interests and with consent. An assessment of best interests will include the child and/or his parents’ cultural, religious or other beliefs and values. You should get the child’s consent if he is competent. If he is not, you should get consent from both parents if possible, but otherwise from at least one person with parental responsibility.
The first sentence of section fourteen sounds as though it offers a child protection – no consent means no surgery. Whatever “assessment” the G.M.C. may make about the child’s “best interests” it cannot be proper to circumcise a child on the basis of his parents’ beliefs and values as they are not necessarily the beliefs that the child may hold in the future. This not a situation in which presumed consent could apply as the child is not under any immediate threat from disease and has no injury. Lastly how can it be right to accept the consent of two parents as valid consent? Neither parent is the patient, the patient has no disease or injury and therefore they have no right to consent to and the doctor has no justification for carrying out a medically unnecessary procedure. Doctors must remember that the child is their patient, not the parents and also remember their oath to do no harm.
The British Medical Association (B.M.A) holds a similar position to that of the G.M.C. Although the B.M.A. goes so far as to acknowledge, in their guidelines, that there is a downside to circumcising children.
In the past, circumcision of boys has been considered to be either medically or socially beneficial or, at least, neutral. The general perception has been that no significant harm was caused to the child and therefore with appropriate consent it could be carried out. The medical benefits previously claimed, however, have not been convincingly proven, and it is now widely accepted, including by the B.M.A, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks. It is essential that doctors perform male circumcision only where this is demonstrably in the best interests of the child. The responsibility to demonstrate that non-therapeutic circumcision is in a particular child’s best interests falls to his parents.
The last two sentences are where the profession washes its hands of responsibility, if the parents convince the doctor that they will get the child circumcised elsewhere the doctor can say it is in the child’s best interests for him or her to do the circumcision and so limit the potential damage. The way to limit the harm to a child known to be at risk from abuse however is to inform the child care agencies and if necessary, get the child put on the child protection register so that the authorities can protect the child with court injunctions or other methods. It is not for members of the medical profession to collude with parents in an act that the profession itself says “has medical and psychological risks“. Surely exposing a healthy child to unnecessary medical and psychological risk can only be considered an abuse.
Everywhere you look in the National Health Service the emphasis is on freedom of choice, the right to choose your consultant, the right to choose your hospital; but if you are a young boy few in the medical profession will uphold your right to freedom of choice by protecting you from being subjected to unnecessary non-consensual genital surgery. If children were left intact until they could make an informed choice this sorry practice of cutting children’s genitals would probably come to an end as within a generation there would be no more mutilated parents pressurising doctors to violate children’s rights.