No regulation for circumcision!

[GadgeS3C]

Child dies after non-therapeutic male circumcision.

From BBC article - "The coroner said there are no national safeguards governing non-therapeutic male circumcision, with no requirements for training, accreditation or registration of those carrying out the procedure, and no rules on record keeping, infection control or aftercare."

Not interested in a discussion of the rights and wrongs of circumcision - but I'm totally gobsmacked that there is no regulation of the procedure. I'm just amazed this can be done by anyone - WTF!

[ChocolateFrog]

Amazed it's legal.

We live in a fked up world.

[Jasandjules]

IIRC 2-300 boys die a year in the US from this "procedure"... - the stats show about 1-150 so I would say double it....

[oddman]

GadgeS3C said:

"The coroner said there are no national safeguards governing non-therapeutic male circumcision, with no requirements for training, accreditation or registration of those carrying out the procedure, and no rules on record keeping, infection control or aftercare."

The language deployed is interesting. The counterpart procedure in females is regarded as mutilation and outlawed.

[Derek Smith]

oddman said:

GadgeS3C said:

"The coroner said there are no national safeguards governing non-therapeutic male circumcision, with no requirements for training, accreditation or registration of those carrying out the procedure, and no rules on record keeping, infection control or aftercare."

The language deployed is interesting. The counterpart procedure in females is regarded as mutilation and outlawed.

Perhaps part of the reason is that there can be medical reasons for circumcision which would, I assume, fall outside most people's definitive of mutilation, but I take your point. There's a big difference between surgery and stabbing.

[M1AGM]

How is it not treated like any other wounding offence if not medically required?

Is there an exemption because of religion?

[DeadShed]

Derek Smith said:

oddman said:

GadgeS3C said:

"The coroner said there are no national safeguards governing non-therapeutic male circumcision, with no requirements for training, accreditation or registration of those carrying out the procedure, and no rules on record keeping, infection control or aftercare."

The language deployed is interesting. The counterpart procedure in females is regarded as mutilation and outlawed.

Perhaps part of the reason is that there can be medical reasons for circumcision which would, I assume, fall outside most people's definitive of mutilation, but I take your point. There's a big difference between surgery and stabbing.

I assume the poster was getting at the fact that on girls when it is non medical it is called FMG.

[DeadShed]

M1AGM said:

How is it not treated like any other wounding offence if not medically required?

Is there an exemption because of religion?

Yes

[oddman]

DeadShed said:

Derek Smith said:

oddman said:

GadgeS3C said:

"The coroner said there are no national safeguards governing non-therapeutic male circumcision, with no requirements for training, accreditation or registration of those carrying out the procedure, and no rules on record keeping, infection control or aftercare."

The language deployed is interesting. The counterpart procedure in females is regarded as mutilation and outlawed.

Perhaps part of the reason is that there can be medical reasons for circumcision which would, I assume, fall outside most people's definitive of mutilation, but I take your point. There's a big difference between surgery and stabbing.

I assume the poster was getting at the fact that on girls when it is non medical it is called FMG.

Quite. I was trying to make that point without bringing down a lock. FGM rightly outlawed. MGM exempted on religious grounds.

Deaths are rare enough to make the news. Horror stories requiring surgical reconstruction more common. I've had a colleague who, whilst working in A&E, had parents came in with their poor boy's glans wrapped up in a tissue after a botched circumcision.

[abzmike]

Well as a chap who had it done at the age of 3 for purely medical reasons, that brings tears to the eyes.
That it is performed for ritual purposes is barbaric, and I cannot see a reason for it to be permitted in 2026.

[dai1983]

I was done in 2023 so did a lot of homework about who was gonna do it to me. I also couldn't believe that there were no controls in place for this and some of the clinics treated it like a regular cosmetic procedure.

There are well known non NHS places around the UK but I imagine for religious reasons anyone can do it including the local unregulated rabbi etc.

Similarly there's likely other procedures that are unregulated too. I remember Brazilian butt lifts being one that you could die from quite easily and women were so there became regulated.

[Tone.]

with no regulation corners will be cut.

[paralla]

Tone. said:

with no regulation corners will be cut.

It’s just the end that gets cut.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

oddman said:

GadgeS3C said:

"The coroner said there are no national safeguards governing non-therapeutic male circumcision, with no requirements for training, accreditation or registration of those carrying out the procedure, and no rules on record keeping, infection control or aftercare."

The language deployed is interesting. The counterpart procedure in females is regarded as mutilation and outlawed.

FGM is not the female counterpart of circumcision. It's the female counterpart of castration. Whatever your views on circumcision, let's stop this ludicrous comparison to FGM.

[Gary C]

DeadShed said:

M1AGM said:

How is it not treated like any other wounding offence if not medically required?

Is there an exemption because of religion?

Yes

Which once again shows how abhorrent religion really is...

[Gary C]

oddman said:

Quite. I was trying to make that point without bringing down a lock. FGM rightly outlawed. MGM exempted on religious grounds.
.

Religious FGM rightly outlawed MGM wrongly not outlawed.

[Mastodon2]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

FGM is not the female counterpart of circumcision. It's the female counterpart of castration. Whatever your views on circumcision, let's stop this ludicrous comparison to FGM.

Absolutely untrue and incorrect. Castration is the removal of the testes, rendering the victim sterile. The equivalent female procedure would be forced hysterectomy or tying of the fallopian tubes.

FGM is the removal of some or all of all the external female genitalia for cultural or religious reasons and. Non-medical circumcision is the removal of the foreskin for cultural or religious reasons, so really not that different at all.

Edited by Mastodon2 on Friday 2nd January 22:17

[Gary C]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

FGM is not the female counterpart of circumcision. It's the female counterpart of castration. Whatever your views on circumcision, let's stop this ludicrous comparison to FGM.

Utter tripe.

[bobbo89]

Chopping bits off people without their consent for non-medical reasons is deplorable, even doing it with their consent comes with some questions about their mental health.

I find it bizarre that in the USA it's the norm because people think it's more hygienic rather than realising it's just another way for the hospital to get $ out of them.

If I cut my hands off I'd never have to wash them again....

[languagetimothy]

its like the many religious groups ran out of ideas early on with their various takes on foods, Hair, beards, hats, shoes, clothing, shoes etc., and started cutting bits off their bodies. Must have been a hell of a party to come up with that one.

.. they say it doesn't have any drawbacks...