Tomorrow morning I’m going to be interviewed by a radio station in connection with this. The piece in today’s Independent starts off encouragingly:
Boys should not be circumcised until they are old enough to choose for themselves, doctors in Denmark have said.
The Danish Medical Association said it had considered suggesting a legal ban on the procedure for children under the age of 18, because it believed circumcision should be “an informed, personal choice” that young men make for themselves.
When parents have their sons circumcised, it robs boys of the ability to make decisions about their own bodies, and choose their cultural and religious beliefs for themselves, the organisation said.
… but then descends into this:
The doctors stopped short of calling for an all-out legal ban on the procedure, which is currently allowed but remains relatively rare in Denmark, because it said the move could have too many negative consequences.
“We have discussed it thoroughly, also in our ethics committee,” Ms Møller said. “We came to the conclusion that it is difficult to predict the consequences of a ban – both for the involved boys, who could for example face bullying or unauthorised procedures with complications – and for the cultural and religious groups they belong to.”
The end of the article:
Past polls have shown that upwards of 87 per cent of Danes support banning the practice on boys under the age of 18, the Local reported.
Without a legal ban, nothing will change, and the wishes of 87 per cent of Danes will count for nothing. One consequence of a legal ban which is easy to predict, would be an end to the physical and psychological harm caused to male minors by the unnecessary procedure. I despair of the medical profession in the area of MGM, in the UK and elsewhere. Whatever came of the Hippocratic oath, ‘First, do no harm’?
If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.
Justice for Men & Boys 
“I despair of the medical profession in the area of MGM, in the UK and elsewhere. Whatever came of the Hippocratic oath, ‘First, do no harm’?”
An step which is entirely within the purview of the medical profession is to make it clear that performing circumcission on minors without medical justification is a breach of medical ethics subject to professional discipline and loss of license/striking off. The legality of circumcision and the treatment by society of those who perform circumcisions on minors is not something the medical profession needs to address except for the need to report any infants they treat for complications as evidence of child abuse.
This avoids the question of legality which is not the medical professions responsibility and focusses on medical ethics which is.
LikeLike
Once again MONEY and keeping males down trumps everything else. “”We came to the conclusion that it is difficult to predict the consequences of a ban”. That’s an outright lie! The “CONSEQUENCES’ would be that a male would finally be allowed to chose for himself!
LikeLike
“cultural and religious groups they belong to” I suspect there’s the crucial bit. It is a contravention of multiculturalism which risks the ire of considerable religious/ethnic lobbies .An attempt for a German Lande to put in a ban was ended with charges of “anti Semitism”. FGM has the virtue of being pretty rare and practiced by rather obscure cultures out of the “mainstream” Islamic world. An easy target. Ideal virtue signalling stuff. Unlike addressing the pretty universal muslim practice of circumcision.
LikeLike
If assault is illegal in Denmark, then forced circumcision or circumcision without informed consent , is already illegal. Their premise is it’s a medical procedure. It’s not. If it was, female circumcision would be a medical procedure, but it’s rightly viewed as assault.
How can any sane person NOT see that it’s assault? You’re cutting off part of someone’s genitals (the part with all the pleasure) for no valid reason. It’s an ancient religious blood sacrifice that’s meant to suppress males sexually.
LikeLike
Mike,
What are your thoughts on the stories we’re getting today about anti-stalking laws being strengthened? I think this is yet another widening of definitions in order to catch innocent men in the net. I can just see guys being sent on reeducation courses and getting ASBOS for sending a woman flowers.
LikeLike
Lawrence, do you have a URL? More than three years ago I predicted where the pathologising of men could lead //j4mb.org.uk/2013/07/29/the-next-feminist-campaign-men-should-wear-blinders/
LikeLike
On the beeb site. They are new “orders” which don’t require proof of an offence having been committed. Following on from ASBOs thence to “Go” orders following accusations of DV all part of a growing number of “orders” that in effect short circuit legal processes. The order is made on accusation and a police assessment of “risk”. Once the order is made then the “crime” becomes breaking the order (eg sending flowers) rather than harassment, or stalking or indeed DV or ASB. So the arrest and charge and conviction is about breaking a civil order rather than for crime. This removes the need to prove stalking or any of the other criminal behaviours “beyond reasonable doubt”. These have obvious attractions to the police (removing the need to build a “case”) and have grown in use.
LikeLike
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38226264
LikeLike
‘ … the move could have too many negative consequences … ‘
Would enrage a very powerful religious minority that puts large sums of money into the coffers of our major political parties?
‘We have discussed it thoroughly … Ms Møller said. “We came to the conclusion that it is difficult to predict the consequences of a ban … for the cultural and religious groups … ‘
… We are in thrall to?
How much flesh might it be necessary to hack from the most sensitive parts of Ms Møller before she ‘came to the conclusion’ that non consensual, brutally invasive non surgical procedures carried out on individuals are not acceptable, whatever the consequences for (non indigenous) cultural and religious groups?
I wonder what Ms Møller’s opinions would be were she to be asked to rate the distress suffered by baby boys cut without anaesthetic in their most sensitive body parts and the distress suffered by women who weren’t in control of the sex they may have had thirty or forty years ago.
LikeLike
Bugger. If only one could preview and edit.
LikeLike