German Court Criminalizes Religious Circumcision
Latest update: June 27th, 2012
print
tell a friend
Religious Circumcision
Photo Credit: Serge Attal/Flash90
A Cologne district court ruled on Tuesday that parents may not have their sons circumcised for religious reasons. The ruling has angered Muslims and Jews.
Non-medical circumcision is a “serious and irreversible interference in the integrity of the human body,” the court declared, essentially criminalizing religious circumcisions performed by Jews and Muslims, the Financial Times Deutschland newspaper reported.
The court now considers circumcision a crime of bodily harm.
The court decided that a legal guardian’s authority over a child does not allow them to subject the child to the procedure.
Also, the court rejected the notion that religious freedom, which is protected by law in Germany, should permit a guardian to make such decisions for the children in their care.
German doctors performing circumcisions that are not medically necessary could claim, until this ruling, that they were unaware that performing a circumcision is a crime, writes the Financial Times Deutschland. This is no longer the case, said.
Before the Cologne district court was a case against a Muslim doctor, who performed a circumcision on a four-year-old boy at his parents’ request. Two days later the child started to bleed and was taken to hospital.
German authorities launched a criminal investigation against the doctor. The original court trial ruled in favor of the doctor, but the local prosecutor appealed to the Cologne district court.
Tuesday’s decision sets a precedent, which may affect medical and religious practice across Germany.
Because of the involvement of religious rights in the case, experts have suggested the case will be further appealed to the Federal Constitutional Court.
Holm Putzke of the University of Passau, who has been advocating for years against circumcisions, told the Financial Times Deutschland that “the court has, in contrast to many politicians, not allowed itself to be scared by the fear of being criticized as anti-Semitic or opposed to religion.”
He added: “This decision could not only affect future legal rulings but in the best case it could lead to a change of consciousness among the affected religions when it comes to respecting the basic rights of children.”
The possibility of a legal ban on circumcisions is causing outrage among Jewish and Muslim organizations in Germany.
“The Court’s decision is unacceptable and gravely violates religious freedom,” says Rabbi Aryeh Goldberg, vice president of the Rabbinical Center of Europe. “The decision is contrary to human rights charter of the European Union, to which the German legal system is committed, and undermines the basic right to worship in the German Constitution.”
tell a friendAbout the Author:
You might also be interested in:
If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.
226 Responses to “German Court Criminalizes Religious Circumcision”
6
Loading ...
Where did all the anti-circumcision trolls come from?
europe
It's called Genital Mutilation, not circumcision.
Well, Charlie, maybe the 2 trolls that just found you will answer your question.
The like being called "Intactivists".
They've got an entire Aryan-like cult going on.
Most of the intactivists I know are Jews. I know you don't consider us "real Jews" but I've got news for you. You're not "real Jews" either, at least according to someone who's more frum than you. And there's *always* someone who is. It's like a fun little pecking order. You can berate non-cutting Jews, someone else can berate you for shaving your beard, someone will judge them in turn for driving on shabbos, etc. etc. and so on. That's how you create a society based on fear, judgment, and oppression instead of one based on morality, reason, choice, and individuality.
Stephen Leavitt · "Aryan-like cult"? Nonsense. The Intactivist movement is mainly fuelled by men who bitterly resent that they were circumcised before they could resist, whether for religion or quack medicine.
Jason — You continue to misrepresent the truth. No one is berating Jews who do not circumcise their sons. The problem here is that it is the other way around altogether — your side is trying to keep ME from following my divine command. It's not about what I think about a fellow Jews or vice versa. It's about an instrument of the state turning on my religious practice because it doesn't complement its sensibilities. That's the very essence of fascistic and colonialist behavior.
Yori, I think cutting the genitalia of an unconsenting child in the name of a faith they have no belief in is the very *essence* of fascism and colonialism. I know *you* don't see it that way; oppressors never see oppression that way until someone, usually the Sate these days, steps in and says, "Stop!." Like I pointed out before, EVERY piece of progress made in any area of human rights and social justice in the last few centuries has entailed limiting the rights of some in the interest of others. For better or for worse, when women get more rights, men lose some. When Gays get more rights, straights lose some. When children get rights, parents lose some as well. EVERY time a vulnerable population receives protections and rights they deserve, those oppressing them lose the ability to do the oppressing they have enjoyed for ages — usually sanctioned by some religion or cultural norm. Circumcision, like spanking, wife beating, Gay-bashing, or slave-owning is simply the next issue that society is having this debate about. Feel free to join the right side of history any time. The future is waiting. Or you can stay camped out with the wife-beaters and slave-owners.
I wonder if the Mohelim fanatic "trolls" are in full force here too. Yori is that your problem? You losing business (Brit Milahs) over this?
Just wondering as there is also alot of money to be lost in the catering business too & usually things that people are so adamant about losing involve money too….just wondering.
Baby seal clubbers had issues with that ban as well..they lost jobs!
You see I have no dog in this race, only baby boys who grow up to be men who are scarred and cannot have normal sex lives, and all because they needed their "papers"
I am so sad for my husband that he cannot feel what he would had he not been cut!
Also cutting has been proven to interfere with breastfeeding, which is most important to the health and development of human beings.
I see that the anti-circumcision extremists are using arguments that are identical to those of many anti-abortion extremists. No surprise given that the Children's Rights argument used by the German court is based on the same logic as the Fetal Rights that Germany uses to ban most abortions. Jews should be wary of the anti-abortion movement.
Charlie, while there are good debates to be had about when life begins and when a fetus might be considered a human being with rights, there are *no* pro-choice advocates that have ever gone so far as to say that a newborn infant isn't fully human. None. If you can find someone on the pro-choice side who says that an 8-day old infant doesn't deserve rights, please point them out to me so that I, as a pro-choice advocate, can condemn them, just as I condemn you. You are saying that an 8-day old infant does not have rights to his body. If you think that's somehow "pro-choice" then you are far more dangerous to the pro-choice cause then any run-of-the-mill antiabortionist.
Stephen Leavitt : Godwin's Law. You lose. Next.
How much ignorance and anti Jewish tradition can there be from once post. To the Gentiles here, I have nothing to say to you. Not because I disrespect you but we have a LONG history of you not understanding me and my religion. I am just happy this time you are bashing me online and not with pogroms or worse.
For those Jews or Israelis who have sacrificed their life for the cause of canceling, stripping or prove irrelevance of Jewish law and tradition, you will lose.
In every generation there have been Jews who have tried with all their might to bash Judaism. Some of those Jews over the generations sometimes did a better job and with more effort than the Gentiles who have despised us forever. However, unfortunately for you, we have survived and they are no where to be found ( Maybe in the Haifa and Tel Aviv Circumcision resource centers).
Lynn it always surprises me when people take time out to write and have absolutely ZERO knowledge on the matter they are commenting about.
The first mention of Mohel is in Tractate of Shabbat page 156 A! The act of circumcision is mentioned in the Tanach (Genesis 17:9-14) as removal of the foreskin not a snip as you comfortably translated using your comfort dictionary.
You all can disagree with the Torah but don't even attempt to try to change what it says to match your comfort zone.
In terms of female mutilation? YES! That is mutilation! Why because the definition of right and wrong for a Jewish person is defined by G-d not by society or Lynn's or the circumcision resources opinions.
I know you all think it is ridiculous for me to believe in morals from above BUT in your world where there is no GOD I don't really have to care what you think since it's all opinions anyway!
Personally I am more frightened of a world that leaves the definition of morality up to man. A world that 60 years ago calls abortion murder and today says it's pro choice! All in the name of humanity of course.Then again since it is Germany that is saving humanity in this case I don't think I have to explain just how dangerous it can be to leave moral definitions up to man.
BAMMMMM ….. WELL said …. BIG LIKE !
Natan Epstein "BUT in your world where there is no GOD"? Really because I question what has been done for 3500 years (which is debatable) then there is no GOD in my world? Rabbis have always taught to question everything, which is the hallmark of Judaism that leaves room for growth and change. Well it is time to stop cutting baby boys and it is clearly time for you to look at why you feel the need to harm a child to be a JEW!
"To the Gentiles here, I have nothing to say to you. Not because I disrespect you but we have a LONG history of you not understanding me and my religion."
There are also many Jewish people against this barbaric practice. So talk to them.
http://www.jewishcircumcision.org/
http://jewsagainstcircumcision.org/
And then there's Eliyahu Ungar-Sargon – a Jewish filmmaker (from an orthodox family):
http://cutthefilm.com/Cut_Website/Home.html
Read the rest of my post to the Jews. Why would you respond without reading? silly, no?
Lynn, with all do respect ( not sure how much) questions are accepted and healthy as long as you are searching for the ultimate truth and not substituting it with your own ideas.
According to statistics, in one or two generations down the line your kids will either not be Jewish at all or become religious.
"Why I feel the need to harm a child to be a Jew"
Again, let me try to clarify the point that morality is not in your hands to decide. The only measurement that exists here is if a G-d exists and if he gave the world a book of morals or not? Everything else is opinion and not even worth an argument.
I personally believe that when you bite into a vegetable you are killing a living organism! I really hope you are at least a vegetarian?! Of course you are against abortions right? (I wonder)
No I am not comparing a Brit to eating meat, rather I am pointing out that your opinions that are not based on the Torah, are based on nothing but thin air! It's about what you fell is right or comfortible and has nothing to do with an ultimate good or bad.
You don't have to give your son a brit and you don't have to keep Kosher or Shabbat or anything else other laws of Judaism.
You can change the laws of Judaism as much as you like and do what you please, just one simple request; If you're changing the rules of the game DON'T CALL IT JUDAISM.
"Read the rest of my post to the Jews. Why would you respond without reading? silly, no?"
No. What's silly (and that's putting it mildly) is continuing to support the genital mutilation of children.
This whole discussion reminds me a lot of the debate about spanking. It used to be normal for parents, teachers, police, and any adult to have the right to spank and even beat children. And many (most?) people who did so defended that practice with scripture. Now the rights of children *not* to be beaten are more important in many places than the rights of adults to beat children. Even the rights of parents are being limited to prevent them from spanking children, or at least doing so severely. Society has progressed. ALL the same arguments we hear about circumcision we heard about spanking. Thankfully, despite the cries of "persecution" and "parental rights" that we heard with spanking, we are moving in the right direction to protect children from bodily harm. Circumcision is simply the next issue where this same logic is being applied.
As an advocate of non-violent parenting and a parent myself who never raised my hand on my child, I beg to differ. The decision to spank reflects a failure on the part of a parent to establish a strong communication with their child and the result is frustration. Perhaps a case could be made, according to some, that when it comes to imprinting the notion of grave danger, the spanking improves a child's memory. I doubt it very much. There is also a view that one may only hit a child if it is done without anger. That's also bullshit, as far as I'm concerned, but I can see the point.
There's also the fact that parents who don't hit their children can be just as baffled about what to do with them, how to get them to do stuff.
All of that goes into the art of communicating with our children. It has nothing to do with a commandment from God.
I will grant you that without the divine decree, circumcision is one barbaric thing to do to a child. I would not have dome it on my own, that's for sure/ What am I, a monster?
But I accept that this is a huge mitzvah from God, and on that basis I uphold it. I think that if someone does it to their child without believing in God, they should see a psychiatrist. But to stop me with the power of the state from fulfilling God's command is simple fascism.
Israeli doctors are helping Africans learn about circumcisian t
To help prevent AIDS. A Jew enters the covenant through circumcism
Circumcision does not stop AIDS. The United States has the highest rate of HIV/AIDS in the developed world. It also has the highest rate of circumcision. For much of the 20th century, until about 1970, almost all baby boys born in the US were circumcised. The rate is still almost half in many places, maybe higher. That means the vast majority of sexually active, adult American men are circumcised. And yet no benefits where HIV is concerned. It could very well be that circumcision *contributes* to AIDS. In any case, if there were any benefits for circumcision, you would see them in the US. Instead, the US has the highest HIV rates, highest STD rates, highest infant mortality of any western nation. I would say the US is a great example NOT to follow. Watch what they do and do the OPPOSITE.
Jason, not only have you just fallen for the ecological fallacy, you failed to understand the research on circumcision and HIV transmission. In fact, circumcision has been shown to reduce the risk of HIV transmission by heterosexual sex. In the US, HIV has mostly been transmitted by homosexual sex and by needle sharing by drug addicts. It is entirely possible that the high rates of circumcision prevented HIV from spreading wildly to heterosexuals in the US. Not for nothing did AIDS activists join with the religious community to fight San Francisco's proposed circumcision ban (which a judge kicked off the ballot before the vote).
Charlie, I'm a doctoral candidate who has researched this issue extensively in the US, EU, SE Asia, and the Middle East. I started by doctoral research in Thailand examining the tremendous success that the Thais have enjoyed through massive, grassroots condom campaigns. As you may know, Thailand was facing an AIDS pandemic in the 90s. A combination of condoms and cheap retrovirals were able to turn the situation around. No circumcision (Thailand is a majority Buddhist nation where circumcision is practiced only by the Muslim minority in the south). Considering the fact that circumcision has not worked in the US and has not been shown to work anywhere in Africa (despite the false claims of pro-circumcision advocates) then Africa would be much better served by massive condom and retroviral campaigns that actually *have* been shown to work in Thailand and Brazil.
Charlie Hall : with regards to the fallacy that circumcision helps prevent the spread of HIV: it is you are out of your league here and do not possess all the facts in the matter. The studies that claim that circumcision prevents the transmission of HIV were flawed from beginning to end and the reported percentage of protection (which I cited in an earlier post) is grossly misleading.
"you failed to understand the research on circumcision and HIV transmission. In fact, circumcision has been shown to reduce the risk of HIV transmission by heterosexual sex."
You fail to realize that the 'research' in question was based on flawed methodology and in fact the opposite has been discovered in other studies.
Further detail here:
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/HIVStatement.html
http://www.thewholenetwork.org/14/post/2011/08/where-circumcision-doesnt-prevent-hiv.html
Statements of opinion are not evidence. Let the opponents do their own trials and we'll talk.
Charlie Hall:
You seem to be confused as to the methodology and purpose of scientific studies is.
Scientists SHOULD be acting at the mercy of the results in the testing and not trying to skew the results to mislead the public (which is exactly what happened in the Africa trials. What they are doing now ('They' being UNAIDS, WHO & CDC) on the basis of those badly run and misreported studies is counterproductive.
It's not necessary for 'Opponents' to do their own trials. It is enough that SCIENTISTS adhere more closely to ethical behaviour and don't report false or misleading results of their studies have run trials already. The evidence speaks for itself.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA458066
http://ijsa.rsmjournals.com/content/10/1/8.short
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003362/abstract
http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v13/n3/full/nm1541.html
(you won't understand why, but this last study is particularly relevant: go back to school and when you do understand, THEN we'll talk)
And:
http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9
This isn't about singling out religions, this is about protecting children. I would think protecting Jewish children too would be a good thing. The court is considering the rights of it's youngest citizens, so they can grow up to be their own man, and a Jewish man who is intact is still a Jewish man. That can never change, no matter what mark is "missing" from him. This is the best possible decision for all, and I'm happy all my Jewish brothers and sisters can adapt to a happier future for all.
Shalom friends.
"This isn't about singling out religions, this is about protecting children. I would think protecting Jewish children too would be a good thing."
You would think so, wouldn't you? Especially since cutting the body of a child runs counter to Jewish law that prohibits torture.
Exactly. Sounds like a simple train of thought to me, especially now that so many Jews are keeping their children intact. Doesn't make them any less Jewish.
Exactly!
Permanently altering another person's body for your religious beliefs is not acceptable. Forcing someone to undergo a surgery they don't want, need, or as for it not acceptable. Your son can get circumcised when he is an informed and consenting adult if he wishes.
Yori, Natan.
Keep riling these guys up. We've gotten a few good thousand pageviews just from them refreshing the page.
Snip snip.
lol
Yori, Natan.
Keep riling these guys up. We've gotten a few good thousand pageviews just from them refreshing the page.
Snip snip.
I guess we have a real dilemma, don't we: We have one group of adults who really, really want to cut the private parts of unconsenting baby boys and another group of adults who just really don't think that's a good idea. Looks like a tie. I guess the only fair thing to do is ask the kids themselves. They can decide when they're old enough.
If a divine document were not involved I would probably have endorsed your sentiment. But, alas, God is on the side of the cutters, expressing His will in so many words, and the ritual has gone uninterrupted for close to 3500 years. That ruling in Cologne will not last a month.
No, my sentiment still applies. After all, by the admission of even those who subscribe to the "divine document", the covenant of the bris amounts to a contract. The German ruling simply states, like all good post-Enlightenment ruling, that the terms of the contract need to be approved by the Individual at the heart of the issue, namely the child. Since ALL contract law in every modern society affirms that children must be mature enough to consent to any contractual agreement, it makes sense to wait for the child in question to reach maturity before the terms of the contract are acted upon. The logic is infallible and there is ample precedent. Regardless of whichever direction the next ruling goes, ultimately all modern societies will side with this court. Infant circumcision will be illegal in every developed nation within a generation or two. Todah l'El.
Yori Yanover 3500 years uninterupted, you say? 2000 years ago a bunch of rebel Jews started the hygienic baptism ritual to replace the excision ritual, and the birth of Christianity resulted.
The claim has been made that there is no medical benefit to circumcision. While brit milah is not done for medical benefit, the claim is false:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm
Charlie, the claim that circumcision has "medical benefits" has been amply refuted by numerous other medical bodies, like the Royal Dutch Medical Society, the Australian and New Zealand Paediatric Societies, as well as Norwegian, Finnish, and Swedish groups.
The notion that circumcision has "medical benefits" is also refuted by reality. The United Sates has the highest circumcision rate of any developed nation — perhaps as high as 90% at the height of circumcision's popularity in the late 60s and early 70s. That means that the vast majority of sexually active, adult American men are circumcised. Despite this fact (or because of it) the US also has the highest HIV and STD rates of any developed nation, FAR higher than in the EU where circumcision is rare. If there were any benefits at all to circumcision, you would see them in the US. Instead, you see just the opposite. Even when we look at Africa, the results are mixed at best. In 10 out of the 16 nations surveyed, HIV rates are actually *higher* in countries where circumcision rates are highest. In others it's about equal, and in a few, yes, HIV rates are lower in areas that circumcise. These results indicate that circumcision is a false variable. It is not the circumcision that is responsible for the lower HIV rates in countries/cultures that circumcise, but something else we have yet to identify fully.
Sorry Charlie: the studies that policy was based on have since been peer-reviewed and found to be lacking on medical/ethical/legal grounds. the original percentage of protection reported of 50-60% is actually the *relative* percentage of protection, rather than the *absolute* percentage of protection that everyone assumed. The absolute percentage of protection (even if they were valid studies not fraught with methodological errors) is closer to 1.8, which is clinically insignificant.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22320006
and the real life statistics counter the claims.
And tell the babies in NYC and Israel given herpes by their mohel's that there are medical benefits to circumcision.
http://newyork.newsday.com/hudson/circumcision-gives-orange-county-baby-herpes-officials-1.3804551
Naturally, the two who died will never be able to voice their opinions on the matter…
Sorry Charlie: the studies that policy was based on have since been peer-reviewed and found to be lacking on medical/ethical/legal grounds. the original percentage of protection reported of 50-60% is actually the *relative* percentage of protection, rather than the *absolute* percentage of protection that everyone assumed. The absolute percentage of protection (even if they were valid studies not fraught with methodological errors) is closer to 1.8, which is clinically insignificant.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22320006
and the real life statistics counter the claims.
And tell the babies in NYC and Israel given herpes by their mohel's that there are medical benefits to circumcision.
http://newyork.newsday.com/hudson/circumcision-gives-orange-county-baby-herpes-officials-1.3804551
Naturally, the two who died will never be able to voice their opinions on the matter…
It's not a false claim. There is no overall medical benefit to cutting off a healthy body part. In fact, the risks far outweigh any *potential* positive.
The studies WERE peer reviewed and published in high impact journals. I've never heard of the journal in which that article was published, and my institution's library doesn't even carry it.
However, if you want to send me a copy of the article I would be happy to review it. If the clinical trials WERE flawed in a way that made the conclusions suspect I would of course change my opinion. I will say, however, that the questions raised in the abstract are mostly not ones that would cause concern. It is easy to be nihilistic as you can find flaws with any medical research study, however, in practice most such flaws are minor.
And you don't have to give me a lecture on the difference between relative risk and attributable risk. I teach that to medical students and public health students! A risk difference of 1.8% means that 55 men would have to be circumcised to prevent a single transmission. That is a tiny number compared to other medical interventions.
The Orange County cases are likely the result of a version of the Orthodox Jewish procedure that the leading Orthodox rabbis have been trying to stamp out for a long time.
1. God said to do it and that is the bottom line.
2. circumcision is widely recognized as reducing the rates of sexually transmitted disease. 2005 article in Pediatric Journal reports "Estimates of the population-attributable risk suggested that universal neonatal circumcision would have reduced rates of sexually transmitted infection in this cohort by 48.2%. "
3. another research article published in Pediatrics Journal in 2000 states "Our results confirm the highly protective effect of newborn circumcision against IPC and the less protective effect against CIS." IPC stands for Invasive Penile Cancer and CIS stands for Carcinoma in Situ.
4. Africa has recogized that circumcision reduces the rate of HIV transmission and is trying to train the medical community on how to perform it.
I hope this encourages Jews living in Germany to make Aliyah!
@Vicki Southern Wetting: The results of those studies have been called into question after peer review. Next.
I agree with Vicki, most of Western Europe does not believe there is a G-d. Although there could be cases where humanistic-atheistic morality could clash with religious rules, this case, like Schitah, is not such a case. Germany owes the Jewish community the benefit of the doubt.
Sorry, Laurel. I am currently reading on "Uptodate" CURRENT benefits associated with circumcision. Here is the source: Neonatal circumcision: Risks and benefits
Author
Laurence S Baskin, MD, FAAP
Section Editors
Charles J Lockwood, MD
John G Bartlett, MD
Deputy Editor
Vanessa A Barss, MD
Disclosures
All topics are updated as new evidence becomes available and our peer review process is complete.
Literature review current through: May 2012. |This topic last updated: Mar 20, 2012.
I will copy salient points in following posts, all of which come from this article.
"Reduction in urinary tract infection — Urinary tract infection (UTI) is uncommon in males at any age. The effect of circumcision on UTI has been studied primarily in infants because they have a higher prevalence of UTI than older males. UTIs in infants can result in pyelonephritis requiring hospitalization and, rarely, septicemia and death. In infants with congenital uropathy UTI can have serious sequelae, such as renal scaring and lifelong renal insufficiency.
Studies consistently report that circumcised male infants have significantly fewer UTIs than uncircumcised male infants [10,18-24]. A meta-analysis found that among febrile male infants less than 3 months of age, the prevalence of UTI in circumcised and uncircumcised infants was 2.4 and 20.1 percent, respectively [24]. The risk of developing a UTI is, on average, 3 to 12-fold lower in circumcised infants. However, since the absolute risk of UTI is small in male infants (0.4 to 1 percent), 100 to 200 circumcisions would need to be performed to prevent one UTI."
"Adult circumcised men have a lower rate of UTI than uncircumcised men [27]. The prevalence of UTIs in uncircumcised adult males increases with age and certain disease states, such as diabetes mellitus [27,28]. (See "Acute uncomplicated cystitis, pyelonephritis, and asymptomatic bacteriuria in men" and "Epidemiology and risk factors for urinary tract infections in children".)
Reduction of cancer — Compared to uncircumcised men, circumcised men appear to have a lower risk of penile cancer, and their sexual partners may have a lower risk of cervical cancer.
Penile cancer — Squamous cell cancer of the penis is a rare disease. The age-adjusted incidence in the United States is less than 1 per 100,000 males, comparable to that in other developed countries [29]. It has been estimated that the risk is increased three to six-fold in uncircumcised men. Much of the protective benefit of circumcision is lost if circumcision is not performed in early infancy. The data supporting these conclusions are presented separately. (See "Carcinoma of the penis: Epidemiology, risk factors, and clinical presentation".)
Cervical cancer in partners — Cervical cancer is less common in the sexual partners of circumcised men. In one study, sex with either uncircumcised men or men circumcised after infancy increased a woman's risk of cervical cancer four-fold [30]. In another, monogamous women whose circumcised male partners had ≥ 6 sexual partners had a lower risk of cervical cancer than women whose partners were uncircumcised (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.23-0.79) [31].
HPV infection is a necessary, but not sufficient, factor in development of virtually all cervical cancer. A partial explanation for the link between cervical cancer and lack of male circumcision is that uncircumcised men are more likely to acquire and transmit HPV to their partners [32] (see 'Sexually transmitted infections (not including HIV)' below and "Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: Definition, incidence, and pathogenesis", section on 'Overview of HPV infection')"
"Other — Case-control studies have reported that circumcised men have a lower rate of prostate cancer than uncircumcised men [33,34]. This could be related to multiple confounders; further investigation is required.
Reduction in penile inflammation and retractile disorders — Penile inflammatory disorders, such as meatitis and balanitis (ie, inflammation of the glans), are extremely uncommon in circumcised men, but can develop whether or not circumcision has been performed. Balanoposthitis, a suppurative inflammation of the glans and foreskin, usually requires surgical intervention [28]. Uncircumcised males who retract the foreskin while bathing are less likely to experience problems with inflammation [35]. (See "Balanoposthitis in children: Clinical manifestations, diagnosis, and treatment".)
Most studies suggest penile problems occur more often in uncircumcised men [36-38]:
•A longitudinal study of 500 New Zealand boys followed from birth to age 8 reported that circumcised infants had a higher rate of meatitis in infancy, but a lower rate of penile problems after infancy due to absence of foreskin-associated disorders (eg, balanitis and inflammation) [36]. By age 8, the rate of penile problems in circumcised and uncircumcised boys was 11.1 and 18.8 problems per 100 children, respectively. Most of these problems were minor and could be treated medically, but some required surgical intervention for phimosis or balanoposthitis.
•A retrospective survey of 272 uncircumcised boys and 273 controls who were circumcised at birth found that the total frequency of medical visits for penile problems (eg, balanitis, irritation, phimosis) was significantly lower in the circumcised group (5 versus 10 percent, respectively) [37]. Most of the problems were minor.
Chronic inflammation or repeated forceful retraction of a congenital phimosis may cause scarring and secondary phimosis, which sometimes requires surgical intervention [14,15,39]. Frequent catheterization without replacement of the foreskin, poor hygiene, and chronic balanoposthitis can also lead to phimosis and eventual paraphimosis (ie, entrapment of a retracted foreskin behind the coronal sulcus). Urinary obstruction, hematuria, pain, and edema and necrosis of the glans may occur in severe cases. (See "Paraphimosis: Definition, pathophysiology, and clinical features".)
Acute and recurrent problems of the foreskin can sometimes be managed medically with hyaluronidase or topical betamethasone cream [40-42], but mechanical or surgical intervention may be required.
Reduction in sexually transmitted infections — If only biological factors are considered, uncircumcised men may be at greater risk of acquiring sexually transmitted infections because the warm, moist environment provided by the prepuce may provide more favorable conditions for infection than the circumcised glans.
A significant reduction in risk of acquiring sexually transmitted infections would be an important medical benefit of circumcision. However, behavioral factors, such as having a low number of sexual partners and consistent correct use of condoms, are probably more important than circumcision status for protection against sexually transmissible diseases. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that any public health or educational program has had an effect on the hygienic practices of adolescent or adult males, other than the increased use of condoms in a few HIV high risk populations in the western world [43-45]. (See "Prevention of sexually transmitted diseases".)"
"There is high quality evidence that circumcision protects against acquisition of HIV, HPV, and HSV-2, but not gonorrhea or syphilis (see below). It appears to protect against trichomonas infection as well.
HIV infection — A systematic review of randomized trials performed in South Africa, Kenya, and Uganda found that adult male circumcision reduced the acquisition of HIV by heterosexual men by 38 to 66 percent over 24 months [46]. It is presumed that neonatal circumcision would offer a similar benefit.
In Africa, the lack of circumcision appears to be one of several facilitating factors in HIV seroconversion. (See "The stages and natural history of HIV infection", section on 'Lack of circumcision'.) The World Health Organization has recommended that circumcision be considered as part of a comprehensive HIV prevention package that includes provision of voluntary HIV testing and counseling services, treatment for sexually transmitted infections, promotion of safer sex practices (delayed initiation of sexual activity, reduced numbers of sexual partners, avoidance of penetrative sex), and provision of male and female condoms and promotion of their correct and consistent use [47]. Additional research is required to develop male circumcision programs in resource poor settings, but there is increasing support for circumcision as a part of the preventative public health care plan for the prevention of HIV spread in Africa [48].
It is important to remember that circumcision only reduces the risk of acquisition of HIV infection by about half and that there is no strong evidence that circumcised HIV-infected men are less likely to transmit the infection to their female or male partners [47]. Consistent correct use of condoms are highly effective for both preventing acquisition of and transmitting HIV.
Circumcision may significantly reduce HIV infection because the inner aspect of the foreskin appears to be richer in cells with HIV-1 receptors than the glans [49-51]. Thus, removal of these target cells may reduce, but not eliminate, the risk of acquiring infection when the man is exposed to HIV."
"Sexually transmitted infections (not including HIV) — An embedded study within the randomized South African trial discussed above [52] assessed the effect of circumcision on acquisition of high oncogenic risk HPV (HR-HPV), Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and Trichomonas vaginalis infections [53,54]. Urethral swabs and urine samples were analyzed using PCR.
•Male circumcision had a protective effect on HR-HPV prevalence (intention-to-treat analysis, HR-HPV prevalence in the circumcision group 14.8 percent (94/637) versus 22.3 percent (140/627) in the control group; RR 0.66, 95%CI 0.51-0.86) [54].
•Male circumcision had a borderline effect on prevalence of trichomonas infection (intention to treat analysis OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.29-1.03), but the reduction became statistically significant in the 'as treated' analysis (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.25-0.93) [53].
•There was no evidence of a protective effect against Neisseria gonorrhoeae infection [53].
This study is the best evidence to date that circumcision reduces the risk of HR-HPV and trichomonas infections among heterosexual men and explains why women with circumcised partners are at a lower risk of cervical cancer than other women.
The Ugandan randomized trials of adult male circumcision confirmed and extended these findings [55]:
•Male circumcision had a protective effect on HR-HPV prevalence (HR-HPV prevalence in the circumcision group 18 percent versus 27.9 percent in the control group; RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.46-0.90).
•Male circumcision had a protective effect on HSV-2 seroconversion (HSV-2 seroconversion in the circumcision group 7.8 versus 10.3 percent in the control group, RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.56-0.92).
•There was no evidence of a protective effect against syphilis infection.
Females can benefit from male circumcision, as well. An analysis of the spouses of men enrolled in the Ugandan randomized trial of adult male circumcision for HIV prevention [56] found partners of circumcised men had lower rates of genital ulceration (adjusted prevalence risk ratio [aPRR] 0.78, 95% CI 0.61-0.99), trichomonas infection (aPRR 0.55, 95%CI 0.34-0.89), and bacterial vaginosis (aPRR 0.82, 95% CI 0.74-0.91) than partners of uncircumcised men [57]. Possible explanations for these findings are that circumcised men may be less susceptible to infection/colonization with these organisms or the circumcised penis may be less likely to transmit these organisms than the uncircumcised penis.
Easier hygiene — Genital hygiene is easier in the absence of a foreskin. Good hygiene may prevent many problems associated with the foreskin [35], but can be difficult to maintain in uncircumcised boys, even in developed countries. Studies of middle class British and Scandinavian schoolboys concluded that penile hygiene is usually not well-maintained [11,58]. Care of the uncircumcised penis is described separately. (See "Care of the uncircumcised penis".)"
The studies also show that supposed protection of circumcision against UTI's disappears after the age of six months: and the last sentence of your 1st post there says it all:
However, since the absolute risk of UTI is small in male infants (0.4 to 1 percent), 100 to 200 circumcisions would need to be performed to prevent one UTI
(the rate of UTI infections in infant girls is significantly higher than in boys, but you don't see us now cutting girls and trying to justify it by skewing study results: they just get antibiotics)
The HIV/Circ connection has been addressed. The studies also report that Circumcision is a risk factor for the female partners of those men. Selective 'evidence' if you can call it evidence, does not make it truth.
What is your interest here? Defending your cultural practice or the truth?
MY cultural practice? These are the words of the Lord most High to His children. I am a Christian, not Jewish. Culture has nothing to do with it. It is a relationship and convenant with our Creator and the Jewish people. Since He Created and established Truth, He is the one to define it. I don't have an agenda outside the Truth of the Living G-d.
Really Vicky? You're a Christian? Then you should know that Christians are directed to not circumcise, as it is a mark of disbelief in the purpose of Christ (your professed savior).
The passage in Romans goes:
~Rom. 2: 17-19 "But if you bear the name Jews and rely upon the Law…You who boast in the Law through your breaking the Law, do you dishonor God?…For indeed your circumcision [i.e. the mark that is already on your genitals] is of value if you faithfully keep the Law, but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has been made obsolete. If therefore the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be counted the same as your circumcision? And will not he who is physically uncircumcised , if he keeps the Law, will he not condemn you who, through the letter of the Law and through circmcision, are a transgressor of the Law. For he is not a Jew who is one externally. Neither is circumcision that which is external in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly. And circumcision is that which is of the heart by the Spirit. . .and hispraise is not from men, but from God."
Now, there are numerous analyses available online as to why, for other reasons, Circumcision is contrary to the Christian Ideal, and I suggest you go ahead and search them out and read them because right now you have shown yourself to be a first class hypocrite.
With response to the charge of it being a cultural practice, if you are North American based, Israeli, from another country where RIC is performed, then yes: it is a cultural practice (for less than a hundred years in North America, I might add). Circumcision in America and Canada was promoted, not as a religious practice, but as a cure all for ails such as Epilepsy and Masturbation. Only later, when people started getting used to the practice and it became more widely practice did Christians start trying to find some justification for what had been done to them and why they would continue to do it to their children.
Ignorance of a faith you proclaim to adhere to is hardly impressive Ms. Vicky Southern Wetting, though hardly surprising. You're human, just like the rest of us, and if you cut your boys or were trained and swallowed the lie that God wanted boys to have their genitals cut, it can happen: millions of others before you made the same error. But at this juncture, what course of action do you think God will look favorably upon? Defending a train of thought which you have been shown clearly and in no uncertain terms to be be erroneous? Or admitting you were wrong, educating yourself and stop fighting those arguing for compassionate laws to protect innocent children who should have a say in the matter what sort of alterations will be done to their bodies (should you also believe that we were made in God's image…God doesn't make mistakes: if boys and girls were meant to not have certain bits the blueprint would have been different).
UTI's in infants are caused from un attentive mothers and dirty diapers, for both sexes.
Vicki Southern Wettig Jesus was circumcised by Jewish law and chose to nullify the lawl by committing suicide by blasphemy to the covenant law. Infant circumcision is antichrist.
When any government or people disagree with the King and Creator of the Universe, they should not be obeyed. The Jews who love and revere Hashem will do as He directed, not as the government directed. If Germany prevents circumcision now, it will soon prevent something else. How quickly we forget painful lessons inflicted on previous generations. WAKE UP!
Vicki: Pulling the Holocaust card anytime anyone disagrees with you does not invalidate their argument: and in this case, it cheapens the horrific events that occurred then. Not only does this invoke Godwin's Law (hence, you automatically lose this debate) but it is an offence to the people who actually suffered at the hands of the Nazi's. No one is saying don't circumcise, no one is saying 'no Jews allowed' and besides the bigotted trolls, the only thing anyone is arguing for is for children to be afforded their own rights: including that of freedom of religion and bodily integrity.
To the jews : God told you to circumcise your kids *supposedly* 3500 years ago, that's lovely. My god told me to put to death anyone who touches a baby in that manner. Your mohel needs to watch his back, because my knife is much MUCH bigger. I am happy to see a government make it illegal for you to do what YOUR god wishes you to do. Perhaps once it becomes illegal all over the world you will then learn that this god of yours is letting us do it for a REASON.
How dare you change anything God made perfect.
There is no room for improvement in anything God made, and not just in circumcision.
Let me just make sure you’re eating your steaks raw, your wheat unpressed, you don’t get glasses, or have your tonsils removed, and ignore that design flaw with the punctum caecum.
The covenant law only applies to the chozen ones in their promised land. They have to abide by the laws of the land they live in or go home. It is against Islam to distroy other peoples healthy body parts when education can can keep them healthy. They are acting on circumcision induced paranoia.
Jewish history shows how circumcision can be used as a weapon against non Jews.
I am not Jewish but I am outraged on their behalf – and on behalf of Muslims too this is an outrageous, bigoted, antisemitic ruling no matter what excuse they give. Germany never learns, does it?
And what are they going to do, go around pulling down the pants of Jewish boys to see if they're circumcized?
It would be advantagous for Jews to help outlaw the practice of the covenant law of infant prepuce excision sacrifice in all countries except the promised land. Then they can get rich, allbeit on blood money, and people like me who had excessive flesh, muscle and nerve excised from blaiming the Jews for causing sexual dysfunction upon them.
Sadly, some parents just love their religion more than they love their children.
Latest article on circumcision is here:
http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/german-ruling-shocks-jews-muslims-may-lead-to-circumcision-tourism/2012/06/28/
Thanks for sharing article.
LOL! Its amazing that ALL the anti-circumcision trolls are the same ones that were trolling the circumcision articles at Times of Israel!
There aren’t that many of them. It takes a lot of energy to constantly obsess about one subject.