Our thanks to HEqual and others for pointing out that the BBC has responded promptly to complaints about its error concerning the legality of MGM. However, in typical BBC fashion, rather than publishing the truth, it has replaced the error with a misleading point. Hequal has pointed us to the News Sniffer record, showing this amendment:
According to the British Medical Association, male circumcision in the UK is generally assumed to be lawful provided there is valid consent.
Since when is the BMA a legal authority? And while it’s true that ‘male circumcision in the UK is generally assumed… valid consent’, that general assumption is manifestly and demonstrably WRONG.
The BBC article now has a link to the BMA website section Law and ethics of male circumcision which starts off encouragingly:
Circumcising male babies and children at a parent’s request is an increasingly controversial area and there are strongly opposing views about circumcision in society and within the BMA membership.
The BMA Ethics Committee is reviewing its position in this area, and is expected to produce revised guidelines next year.
Our thanks to the people who took the trouble to contact the BBC.
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 
And they still don’t call it what it is, and what the mother in this case did call it: male genital mutilation.
LikeLike
Wow, Victoria Derbyshire just interviewed Richard Duncker of Men do Complain. It was only 5 minutes but he managed to say he thinks it’s illegal under TOATPA 1861, that it’s the same as FGM, that there are deaths and soforth. This recent prosecution has made them take notice. But 5 minutes max is a paltry amount of time to devote to such a complex and important issue.
LikeLike
Thanks Lawrence, we’ll try to link on iPlayer when available.
LikeLike
My jaw hit the floor when Victoria announced the topic of discussion. Considering it’s the BBC, it was remarkably fair, too. My only gripes were the brevity of the interview, the insistence on referring to mutilation euphemistically, and that they only interviewed one victim who admits he has no point of comparison. Unquestionably progress though.
LikeLike
Yes it is interesting. The BMA is accorded great weight, yet it is only the Trades Union for Doctors. As you say the legality is not addressed. The advice from the General Medical Council is ” 8. The legal position is untested in the context of circumcision and therefore remains unclear” Which shows the importance of a case that does “Test” the Law. Until there is a case taken to court resulting in a Judgement, bodies can hide behind “consent” or “culture” . I wish the people involved every success as I expect the CPS to wriggle like anything to avoid bringing such a “test” case to court. the police investigation is only a start not an end. It is however good to see growing publicity highlighting the issue.
LikeLike
The legal position is 100% clear, but untested. Hence the importance of the Dr Mehat and Dr Spitzer cases, hopefully. And you have to say, if the BMA believes the legal position to be unclear, surely they should be advising doctors to not carry out the procedures, lest they face criminal charges?
LikeLike
The Charlie Guard case perhaps gives a current example of the complexities of treatment and consent issues. Doctors will generally try to “cover” themselves through “consent” to treatment. I don’t know but would guess few Doctors would enter into MGM given the GMC and BMA view. However those who might prioritise “curtural” issues may feel the absence of a past case makes it unlikely a prosecution would happen, after all the criminal case has been brought by a parent. In a similar way Doctors sail “close to the wind” on abortion on a presumption that they will not be prosecuted.
I was rather ignorant of this whole issue so I would not presume to say more than if one compares it to other contentious issues I’m more familiar with, actual judgements are vital.
LikeLike