American Academy of Pediatrics: Benefits of Circumcision Outweigh Risks

[Malthus]

Are you saying that in Germany it was irrelevant whether the procedure was beneficial or not?

No, what I am saying is that the decision was not about whether it was medically beneficial or not.

The doctor that was indicted himself acknowledged that there was no medical indication for the procedure so that was never contested. It was clear from the start that the only reason this circumcision was done was the religion of the parents. 

The defence was about him being mistaken about the wrongful nature of the act. It was granted by the way as the question whether parents do or do not have the right to ask for a circumcision of their sons is controversial in German legal literature.

Here is the decision, if you are interested: http://www.justiz.nrw.de/nrwe/lgs/koeln/lg_koeln/j2012/151_Ns_169_11_Urteil_20120507.html

My German isn't as good as it could be, so I'm afraid the link isn't going to do me any good. 

To my mind, a cost/benefit analysis of the procedure always ought to be significant in determining the legality of a medical procedure, whatever motivated it.

Obviously, circumcision is only "indicated" in a tiny minority of cases.

[Zanza]

The default position where someone is attempting to lay down a law as to what others can or cannot do is always that the onus is on them to justify it. In what universe is this not true?

In short, to demonstrate that the "involuntary body modifications" in issue are a big deal, worthy of condemnation by the state. Worthy of generating moral outrage at those who dare to commit them. Presumably, clipping an infant's toenails ought not to result in police action, while removing an eyeball should, if it cannot be justified. Circumcision is simply not a big enough deal to support moral outrage.

The way our law works in this case is not to prohibit stuff explicitely, it just generally bans bodily harm, but makes not mention of circumcision. Rather the child has certain rights from our constitution, among them "every person shall have the right to life and physical integrity", so the default position was that the physical integrity has to be untouched. You need to find a good reason why that right can be overruled. As far as I can tell our medical associations do not consider circumcision a major risk, but also not particularly beneficial - i.e. the position that the American Academy of Pediatrics apparently had before this announcement - so there is no medical indication to do it. That leaves the religious considerations which were - by the Cologne court - deemed insufficient to overrule the right of the child to physical integrity.

EDIT: Our parliament now wants to allow it for religious reasons too, not because they consider it a medically beneficial procedure. So as I said, the question that is currently discussed in Germany is not about whether it is beneficial or not - which is what the American Academy of Pediatrics talks about - but about whether religious considerations should overrule the general right to physical integrity. So Tim's laughing at Germany due to this article shows he didn't understand the argument here.

[Maximus]

Um ok what people actually do is not relevent to formation of public policy in your mind?  Care to explain that one because that sounds counter to common-sense.

Oh I have no doubt that appeal to tradition is alive and well in determining public policy.

[MadImmortalMan]

In the US, the default is to be circumsized. And because of that, most chicks in the US do prefer circumsized men.

There's also the thing about having a foreskin reducing the friction during sex. Personally, I don't know why anyone would want to reduce the friction, but that's just me. Friction is fun.

But then again I don't know it any other way. I guess if I wanted to reduce the sensation I could just wear a rubber. Maybe that's what sex feels like for uncircumcised guys.

[merithyn]

Um ok what people actually do is not relevent to formation of public policy in your mind?  Care to explain that one because that sounds counter to common-sense.

Oh I have no doubt that appeal to tradition is alive and well in determining public policy.

For a lot of people, tradition is a good reason to continue doing something.

[Valmy]

Oh I have no doubt that appeal to tradition is alive and well in determining public policy.

Hey maybe someday we can set up your revolutionary tribunal to reshape popular actions in accordance to cold rationality.  Actually that would be awesome

But until then the coercive power of the state to change people's behaviors, particularly when they might be seen to come into conflict with the gaurantees of the Constitution, will usually be taken with careful consideration.

[Valmy]

For a lot of people, tradition is a good reason to continue doing something.

Indeed.  So using a threat of prison or fines or some other sort of coercion to force them to do something else might not be looked at very favorably.  The cause of reversing the tradition better be a very good one.

[Barrister]

Um ok what people actually do is not relevent to formation of public policy in your mind?  Care to explain that one because that sounds counter to common-sense.

Oh I have no doubt that appeal to tradition is alive and well in determining public policy.

For a lot of people, tradition is a good reason to continue doing something.

I could go all Burkean and tell you why tradition is an excellent reason to do something...

[MadImmortalMan]

Hey maybe someday we can set up your revolutionary tribunal to reshape popular actions in accordance to cold rationality.

We don't need a tribunal. Foreskin Man will save the day.

[merithyn]

I could go all Burkean and tell you why tradition is an excellent reason to do something...

Max believes exactly the opposite.

We often disagree on this. 

[Valmy]

Well if Max felt otherwise he would never have become your husband so we should be thankful he has the fiery heart of a Jacobin.

[merithyn]

Well if Max felt otherwise he would never have become your husband so we should be thankful he has the fiery heart of a Jacobin.

I am. 

[garbon]

Um ok what people actually do is not relevent to formation of public policy in your mind?  Care to explain that one because that sounds counter to common-sense.

Oh I have no doubt that appeal to tradition is alive and well in determining public policy.

The only reason to be wary of appeals to tradition as they can lead to public policy that it harmful for individuals and society (re: slavery, discrimination towards minorities, smoking). However, all of those can be framed in ways where one can clearly show that tradition was a harmful influence and needed to be overturned.  I'm not really sure one can make the same claim for circumcision except for minority cases of infected children and botched circumcisions which more have to do with skill/quality of practitioner.

[Maximus]

I'm also rather wary of making irreversible and unnecessary choices on behalf of children.

[Valmy]

I'm also rather wary of making irreversible and unnecessary choices on behalf of children.

Actually it can grow back if you do not roll back the foreskin and make sure it never re-adheres.