| Submit your comments on this article |
| International-UN-NGOs |
| Activists Want UN to Declare Circumcision a Human Rights Crime |
| 2005-08-05 |
| (CNSNews.com) - New research linking male circumcision with significantly reduced HIV/AIDS infections has sparked a backlash from anti-circumcision groups, with some calling on the United Nations to label the procedure a crime against human rights. An international AIDS conference in Brazil last week was told that researchers tracking 3,000 young African men in a randomized controlled trial found the number of HIV infections among those who had been circumcised to be three times lower than among those who had not. The dramatic result prompted some medical experts to call for routine circumcision of young males to be promoted in the drive against the deadly disease, although U.N. agencies, while calling the research "promising," cautioned that such a step would be premature. Anti-circumcision groups are alarmed that the research may encourage a greater acceptance of a procedure -- surgical removal of the foreskin -- which they consider to be mutilation. Several have joined together in calling for the U.N. "to classify circumcision of male children as a human rights crime." Millions of parents in America and other western countries routinely circumcise their baby boys for reasons including hygiene, health benefits or family tradition. Carried out on the eighth day after birth, the procedure is a central tenet of the Jewish faith, while it is also a rite of passage in Islam -- sometimes at birth, sometimes at a later age. Some African groups, Australian aboriginals and Pacific islanders also practice circumcision. Marilyn Milos, director of the California-based National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers (NOCIRC), noted that the U.N. convention on the rights of the child says member states "shall take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children. "This terminology is fully applicable to male circumcision," she said. Another campaigner, Dr. George Denniston of Doctors Opposing Circumcision in Seattle, said circumcision "removes erogenous tissue and leaves the genitals with significantly diminished sexual capacity. "The best way to prevent HIV transmission is by using condoms, not by cutting off part of the genitals," he argued. San Diego-based activist Matthew Hess focused on the age of boys undergoing circumcision. "Circumcision of children is genital mutilation ... and the U.N. needs to take action now to ensure that male circumcision is performed only on fully informed consenting adults," he said. Hess represents a group called MGMbill.org, named for a piece of legislation that it hopes lawmakers will take up at a state and federal level. The group is currently looking for a legislative sponsor in Congress for the Male Genital Mutilation Bill, which seeks to make it an offense to circumcise, or help or facilitate circumcision, of a child or a "nonconsenting" adult, punishable by a maximum 14-year prison term. It would also prohibit Americans from arranging circumcisions abroad. 'Benefits outweigh risks' Prof. Fred Ehrlich of the School of Public Health and Community Medicine at the University of New South Wales in Australia said Friday he has safely circumcised about 3,000 boys -- both as a surgeon and as a mohel, or traditional Jewish circumciser. It is essential that circumcision be carried out by someone who is competent and trained, he said. "I've never had a complication." The best age is undoubtedly the biblically mandated eighth day after birth, Ehrlich said. "If you do it on the very newborn, they have a higher tendency to bleed. By the eighth day, the bleeding is less. If you wait say until the baby is a year old, two years old, they can remember it -- it hurts -- whereas in a newborn, they don't even notice it." He compared the anti-circumcision lobby to groups opposing the immunization of children. "There are plenty of mad people in the world." "There is not a shadow of a doubt that circumcision is beneficial," Ehrlich said. Apart from AIDS, "there are many other good reasons why it should be carried out." These included reducing urinary infections -- "not common in little boys, but when it does occur, it is a serious problem" -- and cervical cancer in circumcised men's partners. "In India, the Muslim women have much less cancer of the cervix than the Hindu women because the Muslim men are circumcised." Ehrlich distinguished between what he called "the lunatic fringe" among anti-circumcision groups and "a genuine medical anti-circumcision position," tied to the risk that some infants may bleed or become infected. Immunization also carried risks, he argued, but in both cases, "the benefits outweigh the downside." Ehrlich said there was no likelihood that the drive to have the U.N. act against circumcision would succeed, "if for no other reason than because there are so many Muslims in the world." Prof. Brian J. Morris, professor of molecular medical sciences at the University of Sydney and a firm advocate of male circumcision, also dismissed the latest campaign. "Whenever there is yet further evidence in support of circumcision, the anti-circumcision lobby goes into panic mode," he said Friday. "Their propaganda machine gets propelled into action with this kind of misinformation in an attempt to shore up their untenable cultist position." |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #9 Okay! Which one of you guys wants to pay for a new keyboard for my laptop!!!? Gimme' a warning of some kind or else! Thanks, LC FOTSGreg (cleaning beer off his laptop) |
| Posted by: LC FOTSGreg 2005-08-05 21:20 |
| #8 ...circumcision "removes erogenous tissue and leaves the genitals with significantly diminished sexual capacity. Hey - thanks for the tip! |
| Posted by: Raj 2005-08-05 16:51 |
| #7 Activists Want UN to Declare Circumcision a Human Rights Crime Now what are they going to tell those 1.3 billion Muslims? Maybe the Muslims will declare a 'fatwa' against the activists? |
| Posted by: Hupaiter Glinenter1110 2005-08-05 12:26 |
| #6 No, I didn't know that, Mucki. And I'm going to try to forget that particular piece of information as fast as I can. ;-) |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-08-05 11:54 |
| #5 I know I'm new here and all, but can't we work on a "definition" of terrorism first? |
| Posted by: John Bolton 2005-08-05 11:53 |
| #4 Do these people react as violently when the subject of Female Circumcision is brought up? |
| Posted by: Cheaderhead 2005-08-05 11:53 |
| #3 kan we cirkemsise dokter denistons hed? goddamer idjit! evrywun knoew cirkumsides helper fore kep teh han from slideeng off. >:( |
| Posted by: muck4doo 2005-08-05 11:23 |
| #2 Dr. George Denniston of Doctors Opposing Circumcision in Seattle, said circumcision "removes erogenous tissue and leaves the genitals with significantly diminished sexual capacity. I beg to differ Doc. Shwinggggg! |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2005-08-05 09:46 |
| #1 Moyle jokes in: 5...4...3...2...1... |
| Posted by: Mark E. 2005-08-05 09:27 |