Circumcision procedure has been an issue during the past few years among certain Christian families in culturally diverse United States of America. Parents often take this issue to the court so they could panelize doctors or pediatricians who perform the circumcision without informing the parents. Most of the young immigrants who come to the united sates do not speak or understand the English language properly. When they go to the hospital they are forced to sign documents without understanding the content. Nurses and doctors are always in a hurry and there is no one else to explain or translate for them. They sign those papers and later on they get into trouble, or they get services that they never intended to have done.
Lately, a lady came to our church and started telling us a story that made us think about taking an action towards this matter. This lady explained that while she was in labor, she was forced to sign a paper which apparently later on she found out that was a consent form to circumcise her son. A few days later another lady called the church and told us another story. While in the hospital after her delivery four different nurses came in to take the baby out for the same reason. Well, luckily she was able to prevent them before going on through the procedure.
Now, there are different questions to ask. Has God created the man perfectly? If yes, then why do the doctors insist upon having to cut away a body part? Is this a matter of making more money? Or what? It is interesting to know, what does the Christianity says about this issue. Is this a cultural, religious, health or human right preference? Does the person have the right to know or make decisions about his own body?
In my opinion God created everything and everyone perfectly. There is not a single thing that should be considered unnecessary in human body. What ever we have in and or on our bodies are needed. According to Genesis, God told Abraham to circumcise himself, his house hold members, children, family members and his slaves as an everlasting agreement with their flesh. Those who were not circumcised were to be cut off from their tribes. (Genesis 17:10-14) On the other hand we read in Paul’s letter to the Galatians in New Testament “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor un-circumcision means anything, but faith working through love”. (Gal 5:6)
If we consider the health issues, 99.8% of men living in my hometown have not been circumcised and they do not complain from their health in relation to that. Culturally, circumcision is not acceptable among certain people. From a medical point of view we live in twenty first century. There are lots of possibilities to prevent from venereal diseases and keep ourselves in a better hygienic level than two thousand years ago. When it comes to religion we can refer to Paul’s letter (as I mentioned).
Now the biggest question lies in human rights. When a new born baby’s body part is taken away without his knowledge, what are the possibilities that after growing up he will disagree? And if circumcision is not a necessity, and done for any other reason. Isn’t true that the person has to decide what should happen to his body? After all it’s a human right issue to decide what someone should do with their body.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Thank you, Hovnan, for this blog. I had no idea this was an issue and bet many others didn’t either. I especially appreciated more information on Armenian culture/Orthodox beliefs, here particularly in regard to the human body; God’s creation of us. I also appreciated that, while explaining the view that God made each of us perfectly, you dealt with the potential question regarding why God instituted circumcision for Abraham and his descendents.
ReplyDeleteI was unpleasantly surprised that, in this culturally diverse region, medical professionals would dare to perform any procedure, or have anyone sign anything, without needed translation and informed consent. I wonder if this is happening (with regard to all medical procedures in general) to members of other groups in our area whose first language is not English. I believe it is clearly a violation of human rights. It is good that you are spreading the word about this to heighten public awareness.
With regard to personal decision regarding circumcision being a human right, I am uncertain. If, as in the case of those born into the Jewish tradition, it is the difference between that person being included in or excluded from his community or family, I would say the decision should be that of the parents. Beyond that, my first thought is that the individual ought to decide what is to be done to his own body, especially if the procedure is not necessary to preserve the person’s life or health, and can wait until the person is of age to give consent. I think this point is even more valid if the procedure is performed without anesthetic which, if I recall correctly, is the case with circumcision. I have heard doctors and nurses say, “Oh, they don’t really feel it.” How do we know for sure, though? I am curious to hear other classmates’ views on these issues.
Perhaps this comment may provide too much information, so I will try to keep it clear but not graphic.
ReplyDeleteAs an uncircumcised American I grew up apart from the norm. Now generally this has not been a problem but in certain situations, i.e. locker room and doctor's office, it has caused a certain amount of ridicule and confrontation.
I have been told by doctors to have a circumcision for health reasons. This is utter nonsense, I am 28 years old and have had no health issues related to this topic. Naturally, I ignored the doctor and went on my way fully intact.
I agree this does raise a human rights issue. In my opinion, circumcision both male and female should be stopped. It is an unnecessary practice that causes irreparable damage. In the case of circumcision for religious reasons alternatives should be pursued. In circumstances where the individual faces being ostracized from the community is it possible to maintain the ritual in a more symbolic way that does not harm the person?
The United States practice of circumcision, in my view, should be stopped. It is practiced as custom rather than necessity or as health benefit. I question what other unnecessary medical practices are perpetuated because "that's the way we've always done it."
It's appalling that they would perform any kind of elective medical procedure on an infant without making sure the parents approved. The only medical reason I've ever heard for male circumcision is reducing the spread of STDs, and there is plenty of time between infancy and adolescence for the boy to make his own decision. There is also the small but nonzero chance that the surgeon will botch the operation. Custom is a very weak reason to perform any sort of operation on an infant, no matter how minor.
ReplyDeleteWell when we talk culturally we need to be aware that there are cultures and religions which require this procedure. But it is apalling to know Doctor's would take it upon themseleves to make this decision. Thanks for this article it opened my eyes. I was completely unaware of this. I had an experience on the other end where I had to find a doctor to get my son circumsized.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Debbie in regards to the Jewish and Islamic faith whereby the decision should lie with the parents. If the parents wait for the children to make the decision and then they decide to do it, it is an agonizing procedure for that child to endure.
According to their website, the American Academy of Pediatrics has not recommended routine circumcision of newborn males since 1971. A recent study on increased incidence of STDs among uncircumcised males has given them pause, but they have not yet changed their position. However, the site also notes that the incidence of circumcision varies by geography, social class and race – so obviously there are multiple factors at work here. (And by the way, they do recommend the use of analgesics.)
ReplyDeleteThere are several issues here that need to be considered. 1. Is the issue a policy issue or economic issue centering in one particular hospital or medical practice? 2. Is this a communications issue, where needed translators are not available? 3. Is this an education issue, where moms-to-be are not informed ahead of time that they will be required to make a decision about circumcision for their newborn baby boys?
I think this would be a great service project for a local church, particularly one with a parish nurse program. It could involve an educational component for parents-to-be and a data-gathering approach for policy information on local hospitals and medical practices (particularly focusing on the ones people are complaining about). A better-informed populace and community awareness would likely discourage a practice which is not supported by the professional organization of the doctors who perform it.
But medical decisions for children, as noted above, lie with the parents. For religious or other reasons, some parents want circumcision performed. Since this practice isn't likely to disappear, it's better for parents to be informed and prepared with their choices ahead of time.
You are correct, Sande, the Academy of Pediatrics has not recommended circumcision for decades. It is not a medically necessary procedure and there are circumstances when it is contraindicated. Unless a family wants it for religious or cultural reasons, as has been noted, for many years most families have made the decision based on the desire for all of the males in the family to "look the same."
ReplyDeleteTo address your three issues, I see no need for it to be a "policy issue or economic issue" of a hospital or medical practice, as it should usually be just a family decision.
Having worked in more than one inner-city medical facility, I can tell you that your "communication issue" is a whole different story. This is probably the crux of the matter.
The "education issue" makes sense and actually I think that most moms really do know ahead of time what they want to do. The problem comes with the communication issue when things breakdown, and they unknowingly sign the consent form. Then, as we have heard, there's a problem.
Personally, I think that this is a painful procedure and cannot believe that there are those who can say that it is not. Anesthesia is an option for newborns, however, some argue that by the time you give it -- it is painful, too -- that you could have finished the procedure and saved them that time and trouble.
I also agree with Chaplain's observation of circumcision being "agonizing" for older children and adults (they do always get anesthesia) plus, the risks of complications with the surgery increase with age.
I agree with Patti and other's perspectives on circumcision (e.g. American Academy of Pediatrics, etc). Actually what really caught my attention with your post, Hovnan, was your writing about the report as to how the hospital personnel secured the consent for the procedure. Patti's right that the crux of the matter may be a communication issue.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I have encountered all too many times in the mental health arena where someone rushes the consent process for services. I could potentially be reprimanded by my licensing board if I did not take the time to review the consent and make sure the person understands what she/he is signing. The importance of securing valid consents for procedures, especially invasive medical procedures, cannot be understated. It is NOT a formality. The consent process really is a time for pause. It is call "informed" consent for a reason. I understand that times exist when life threatening conditions require quick action--well, most facilities have protocols in place to assure that the potential life saving intervention is not delayed because of lack of consent.
A circumcision does not fall in that category. Further, I find it frustrating that a consent be put before a soon to deliver mother during a time of physiological stress (and yes, psychological stress). I wonder the results of a study of the consent process in the facility would look like if one were to observe or video the process overtime, seek parent feedback on the consent process, and then analyze the info by age, race, ethnicity, income, insurance, primary language, first time parent, if family went through classes during pregnancy, had prenatal care, went through a tour of the hospital and so on . . .
When working with folks who had another language than English as primary language, I needed to make sure that the consent got presented in the language of the person's choice. I also needed to assess for literacy when engaging in the consent process. I received training for this and required the same of the personnel who worked in our mental health clinic.
I know I've drifted far afield from the questions you posted, Hovnan. However, I could not let the issue of the consent process to go by without comment.
This is a great initial post with many insightful comments.
ReplyDeleteTo add a bit to the discussion, the issue of male circumcision falls in with many other issues regarding "choices" a pregnant woman (and partner?) should have the absolute right to make regarding the birthing process and both her body and the body of the newborn.
Our culture has many "standard operating procedures" connected with pregnancy and delivery and assumes that people will follow these SOP's (which currently still include circumcision despite the above mentioned recommendations from the Ac. of Pediatrics).
I hate to sound like a broken record but again it comes down to an issue of knowledge and power. Those in society with knowledge (and access to knowledge) and power to stand up for their rights and the rights of their newborns, can generally get around the system. I speak from experience that it took a LOT of pressure and a written "birthplan" signed by the head of labor/delivery dept. of our hospital to stand up for our rights and go against the SOP of the hospital. Those who for whatever reason (language, social class, wealth, ethnicity, etc.) do not have such access are again at the mercy of those with power (in this case the hospitals.)
Tamara-you're not a broken record at all!
ReplyDeleteI remember when my son was born (and yes, he would be appalled that I'm writing about him, even at age 24!) in a medium-sized hospital in Central California. There was a nursing shortage at the time…the only reason I know this is that one of my nurses on the OB floor was a man, which was quite unusual in the mid-80s. But I remember explicitly being asked by the hospital staff if I wanted my son circumcised, and I also remember being rather naïve and thinking “don’t they always do that?” It wasn’t until much later that I learned it was an option. My son survived the experience with no undue damage to his body or his psyche. But I do wish I had been more informed about circumcision as an option rather than an “automatic” procedure.
ReplyDeleteI think that in many ways those of you who have responded to this blog hit the proverbial nail on the head. In a multicultural society like ours, it is imperative that everyone, especially health care professionals, abide by the wishes of the patients (or in this case, the parents) BEFORE administering any kind of treatment, especially something like this that is considered elective, and irreversible. However, having worked on the insurance side of the health care industry for the last 17 or so years, I know all too well that often this doesn’t happen…and unfortunately, the patients and/or family members don’t find out until it is too late. Too often health care professionals are on autopilot, getting consent forms signed for procedures that they believe everyone will want, without taking into consideration the wishes of the family. I would imagine there were many new moms who, like myself, didn’t know any better. But there are many who do, and who have specific wishes, whether they are based in their religions, their cultures, or their ethics. The problem, at least in the health care industry, is that there are two few people taking care of the many. They are overworked, and they make assumptions. Or they don’t take the time to make sure the patients and family members involved completely understand the decisions they are making. Now, no doubt this is not always the case, but I remember when both my mother and father were hospitalized shortly before their deaths (which occurred 3 years and 6 months apart from each other) that sometimes things just got done, whether we knew about them or not. As adults, My parents were considered to be able to make their own decisions. But as people who were dying from cancer, they were not in a position to make good decisions (perhaps like those moms who are about to give birth). As a society, we need to do a better job in demanding informed consent…and if that means getting someone in the hospital room to translate a document or a conversation, then so be it.
With the exception of medical reasons, the removal of any kind of the foreskin is torturous and inhumane. I don't understand how purposefully inflicting pain on a baby for religious or aesthetic purposes is okay.
ReplyDeleteI've always thought circumcision was for the health of the baby. If circumcision has no medical benefits, and if religious purpose is the only reason behind this procedure, I would say this may not be appropriate for all babies. This type of issue also goes to show what a thin line there is between what may seem as rightful behavior and an inhumane and torturous act. There is a movie coming out (after a book) about a couple who's daughter is sick. The couple conceives another baby to be the bone marrow match for her older sister. This second child, after years of medical procedure, decides to sue her own parents for the right to decide how her body is used. This problem of circumcision and the issue seen in the movie are similar in that it asks the question of who has the right to the body of young children? We might say that every decision and its 'humaneness' or 'morality' is really dependent upon the specific situation and reasoning behind the action.
ReplyDeleteHovnan, thank you so much for your posting. I never thought that circumcision related to human right. But after read your posting, I am more aware with this issue. I totally agree with chrystal, Jen, and other that if not because of the medical reasons, circumcision is inhumane.
ReplyDeleteI agree with other’s perspectives on this issue. If circumcision is not religious reason or health reason, there is no reason to be circumcised. Also, one has the right to make a decision by oneself. I think, however, we need to think about cultural aspect. In Korea, almost all mans had circumcision when they were young- the rate of circumcised male is 70 % in whole male, and over 90% in high school students- by their parents’ decision, even though parents know that circumcision is not necessary religiously or medically. Circumcision has become culture in Korea. The wrong convention should be broken, but I can understand parents’ feelings. Lots of Korean men enjoy going to the pubic bath with their friends. Any parents would not want their children to be timid because of circumcision.
ReplyDeleteThe question of circumcision, I believe, belongs to another time. It is not necessary and isn't humane. The part of this dilemma that really stings is the needless demand on the part of the medical establishment that such forms be signed. We really need an overhaul of the way the business of medicine is run. Too much of it is anti-patient, and this question of mandatory circumcision is a really outrageous example.
ReplyDeleteI tend to disagree with Seth’s position that circumcision should no longer be practiced in the US. The practice has its roots in religious tradition. The parents who choose the procedure do so on behalf of the child and in honor their religious precepts. Even if the child is chosen to receive this procedure without religious influence, I sense there would be a kind of social pressure to make the child like everyone else. This seems to be a difficult position to take, however. Aside from religious and social reasons for having the procedure, I cannot think of any reason to perform it. Health reasons have been rightly refuted and hence the religious and social aspects are left. Social influence to have the child look like everyone else in order to avoid shame seems to be a weak reason to have the procedure. Barring childish locker room bantering, there doesn’t seem to be any groups that advocate violence against uncircumcised Americans. The religious argument for circumcision would have to follow the arguments for parental sovereignty which, coupled with complimentary legislation, should be very convincing. A good response to the religious argument supporting the procedure might come from the female circumcision camp. There have been many arguments against the outright practice of female circumcision since it seems that more and more people find female circumcision a human rights issue. I believe equating male and female circumcision was the route Seth was following. In this sense, the argument against religious convictions for circumcision would be greatly weakened. On the other hand, the legal sovereignty of the child’s parents may prove to have the final word.
ReplyDeleteThanks for this post and information. I'd always assumed circumcision was a standard procedure for health and hygiene. Never really thought of it as a human rights issue either, but I'm guessing few men would opt for the procedure unless it was a religious requirement.
ReplyDeleteI didn't know circumcision was a choice until last year when my grandson was born in a local Phoenix hospital. When his mother asked about circumcision, she got quite a lection from the on-call doctor about it being unnecessary and uncalled for. Then she was informed that if she wanted the procedure done, she would have to find a doctor that would do it within 30 days or her insurance would not cover it!
Yeah, like everyone else, I think the example given is pretty horrendous and totally irresponsible of the doctor.
ReplyDeleteThat said, contra Seth, I'm skeptical of Seth's blanket claim. Sure, in my ideal world, ritual genital mutilation would not occur. This fairy-tale land, though, is totally ethnocentric and far removed from reality. The cultural value of male circumcision and female circumcision CANNOT be overlooked responsibly. I would go so far as to say that those minimizing it work with intellectualist & imperialist assumptions. The fact is, most of us live in a society where we place a strong value on the variety of options available and that many of these options are not always there for others. I believe that it is imperative that we are sensitive not only to the availability of specific options, but also the desires of those within a given society. I'm doubtful that everyone in the world feels the way I do about it and it is wrong for me to impose this on others.
I respect Seth’s comments about being clear but not graphic and I will try and do the same. I found this discussion quite strange. According to the popular opinion, as a circumcised male I am a victim. I find that strange since it is difficult for me to even consider myself a victim. I don’t feel victimized or deprived of my freedom of choice in this matter. So I think I agree more with Chris. I don’t think we can make such a strong prohibition against what seems to be a parental preference with debatable benefits and risks. Some might say that that I have been violated and I just don’t know what I am missing (no pun intended, OK maybe a little). For me at least, that seems to be blowing the situation a little out of proportion. But I have been known to be wrong.
ReplyDeleteI do think this is an elected procedure that should not be recommended by medical professionals. And I don’t really know if I will have my son circumcised, I am leaning towards no.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAddressing Chris's comment: you say that "The cultural value of male circumcision and female circumcision CANNOT be overlooked responsibly." Agreed but is that what is being done when we criticize circumcision? Just because something is religiously or culturally practiced does that mean we can't critique it? You claim that it is intellectually elite to do so. Would it be correct to say that you are critiquing a form of colonialism by imposing our values on other religions/cultures? You may have a point but then do we do nothing? Can there be a way to critique a cultural/religious practice without being imperialistic? I think a possible way could be establish through mutuality. Feminists have had this discussion. White feminists have been critiqued by latin feminist for trying to impose their values on latin culture. And latin feminists have been critiqued for putting up with patriarchal norms within their society. But some have concluded that mutual critique can be a viable option; where they mutually listen to each other and learn from each other. This sounds nice but in reality is takes a lot of work and relationship building but I feel like it is necessary. I don't think that we should just impose our values on others but I do think that we shouldn't withhold a critique just because we don't belong to that culture/religion. There can be a middle ground where we actually encounter the other, open up ourselves to being challenged but also offer what who we are to them. In essence we actually enter into relationship with each other.
ReplyDelete