1/31/15 Edit: This news is from last January. I first saw it in this story posted this week. I looked for other news articles and used the one in this post because the quote from Mr. Ullenhag was more complete. I noticed the date of January 26th, but missed that it was from last year, unlike the link above. My analysis is the same, obviously, but the mistake is mine.
Large medical associations in Sweden and Denmark recommended banning non-medical circumcision of boys.
In Sweden, the recommendation came in a resolution that was unanimously adopted last week by the ethics council of the Sweden Medical Association â€” a union whose members constitute 85 percent of the countryâ€™s physicians, the Svenska Dagbladet daily reported on Saturday.
It recommended setting 12 as the minimum age for the procedure and the boyâ€™s consent. Jewish ritual circumcision, or brit milah, is performed eight days after birth. Muslims typically circumcise boys before they turn 10.
In Denmark, the Danish College of General Practitioners â€” a group with 3,000 members â€” said in statement that non-medical circumcision of boys amounted to abuse and mutilation, the Danish BT tabloid reported Sunday.
I don’t know that 12 is the right minimum age, but I’ve long been willing to accept an age below that of majority as long as the boy can offer his informed consent. I have concerns about how informed it could be at earlier ages, but I’m willing to leave the option for consideration.
The resolution is non-binding, which is still fine for this process. Less change is needed in Scandinavia than in the United States, but change is still needed. This is a step in demonstrating that even well-intentioned non-therapeutic circumcision constitutes harm, and the boy himself has the sole right to request or reject non-therapeutic circumcision for himself.
Any effort at respecting ethics in this area always brings some variation of this quote, with little variation:
â€œI have never met any adult man who experienced circumcision as an assault,â€ [Swedenâ€™s minister for integration, Erik] Ullenhag said. â€œThe procedure is not very intensive and parents have the right to raise their children according to their faith and tradition. If we prohibit it, we must also address the issue of the Christian ritual of baptism.â€
Mr. Ullenhag has apparently done little research on the issues of circumcision and ethics. He is ignorant of what many adult men think of their parents making this choice. He does not understand the principle against direct physical harm involved that distinguishes circumcision from baptism or virtually any other ritual of any religion in which parents may want their children to participate. His approach implies no limits on parental authority. Surely he does not believe that is valid.
These recommendations are progress. These medical authorities, unlike American medical authorities, grasp the issues involved for the child. They are taking a principled stand. It is a positive and, more importantly, necessary step in the process to achieving proper protection for the rights and bodies of all children.