 | A woman is taking a GP to court after he circumcised her baby son without her consent in the first case of its kind.
Campaigners against circumcision on young bo.ys believe this could open the floodgates for waves of complaints about “male genital mutilation” from men who say they were too young to consent to the procedure. Dr Balvinder Mehat of the Bakersfield Medical Centre in Nottingham carried out the procedure on the b@by b0y while he was in the care of his father, who is separated from the mother. The 26-year-old woman said in legal documents that the chi1d was in obvious pain when he was returned to her. “He was screaming and crying, but trying to comfort him just disturbed the wound and made it worse," she said. "I could not believe what they had done to him. He has been mutilated and suffered permanent damage.” Although she complained to Nottinghamshire Police, the f0rce concluded there was insufficient evidence to bring a criminal prosecution. The mother also complained to doctors’ watchdog, the General Medical Council (GMC), which is carrying out an investigation. Supported by l3gal aid, the mother is now bringing a private prosecution against Dr Mehat for damages. She is being represented by human rights lawyer Saimo Chahal QC, who defended Michael Sandford, the Autistic Briton who was recently released from jail after he tried to grab a policeman’s gun at a Donald Trump rally. Ms Chahal said: “This mother did not consent to her s0n undergoing the circumcision procedure, which could constitute a criminal offence. While some people with religious beliefs see circumcision as normal, there are others who see it as an unnecessary assault which can be physically and psychologically harmful.” The religion of the b0y and the family is unknown in this case, but circumcision is widely practised in both the Jewish and Muslim faiths. The British Medical Association is revising its ethical guidelines on circumcision, which currently state: "It is for society to decide what limits should be imposed on parental choice." A new document is expected to be published sometime in the next year, with a growing clamour from campaigners for stricter controls or a ban on the procedure altogether. The woman’s case is supported by the pressure group, Men Do Complain. Spokesman Tim Alford said there is growing awareness that the procedure amounts to “male genital mutilation”. David Smith of pressure group Genital Autonomy said: “We’re hoping the case will open the floodgates for other complaints and a clarification that circumcision of non-consenting childr3n is a human right’s abus3.” In the US, a group of 104 middle-aged men launched an ongoing $50m (£38m) class-action lawsuit against their parents and the American Medical Association over their circumcisions. (Independent) Why is circumcision for men not considered a genital mutilation ?,when if you remove labia and the clitoris it's considered barbaric? If you're an adult,you can make a choice,if you are a minor,those around you make that choice.. This doctor made that choice that could cause trauma for years to come for someone who couldn't make a decision for themselves. Imagine a doctor who did a procedure on you or a f@mily member without your consent,how would you feel ? I just feel that circumcision is an adult choice to make..not a doctor or a parent's (unless it's medically necessary) And I'm not even gonna bother with religious crap...I don't see a god who is so perfect making a body part just to chop it off... Btw if you are circumcised I'm not hating on you...I just think it's a decision to make if you are an adult.. |
New Comment Rating: 0
Similar topics: 1.circumcision? 2.So why is it that straight guys... 3.circumcision 4.Considering Circumcision 5.Circumcision in the UK press
Comments:
As adults we get to choose how we live our lives, where we reside, our careers, whether to marry, get a pet, the list goes on. The choice to remove a piece of our body should also be our decision, no one else.
I do not accept for any reason whatsoever that parents have a right to decide on behalf of their **** to mutilate them 'just because'.
Although , obviously at a later stage in life he could restor his forskin. It s only a loose piece of skin. I ve partialy restored mine.
I laugh at the bit above, that states, "Why is circumcision for men not considered a genital mutilation ?,when if you remove labia and the clitoris it's considered barbaric?"..I m sure this is more the equivalent of remoing a Glans from a penis. The cock head. That would definately be mutilation. The clit and labia are what I d call more crucial.
As for the case in mention, above. I feel we need to know if the farther was circumscised. If he was, then I feel it s natural for the farther to also want his $0n to be circumscised.
Does the wife , for example get the farther to agree when she wants to cut the b 0 y s hear from his head. This is effecting his visible appearance obviously.
I restored my forskin (partially) , a few years ago. Just to see what it was like to have a forskin. My circumscision was always very loose, also. But I ve been wanting to get it re circumscised, as it sometimes irritates me when I need to retract it. It sprays everywhere when I pee through it. I d like a tighter circumscision, with out it being so tight that it restricts my erection (if that can happen).
But honestly I ve liked and enjoyed the thrill of other lads stairing and often in and admiring way, it s seemed. Like in showers and skinny dipping etc. I think a lot of guys simply think that I ve simply retracted the forskin I don t have anyway.
One of the isues that facinates me in showers with others is to keep an eye for wich guys actually retract their s (to expose their glans to wash it). I would. I also like to check out of interest who are also circumscised. Like me. Obviously I like to spend more time in the shower s, when I haave the chance
Obviously these are just my thoughts on the above matter. I dont think a penis looks better with it done or not. Although some people may prefer the look.
The doctor did a procedure without consent of either parent..
So it's natural to inflict your personal beliefs onto a ch1ld just cuz you had a procedure done to you?...
And trying to compare getting a hair cut to circumcision is a bit silly don't you think,considering hair can grow back by itself..
Apart from any other considerations, why is it assumed that actually removing the sensual parts from human genitalia, both male and female, could possibly help or improve the adult lives of the victims?
Men and women, not to forget bi and transgender, actully need all the help they can get to be sensual and stimulating for their partners. This means understanding and using the full range of their sensualities, so cutting off of most of that sensuality is massively counter productive.
This goes hand in hand with sex and relationship education which is badly minimal even in societies that thnk they are progressive. Once boys and girls are taught about foreskin and labia and how they can be stimulated, both together and separately during sex and love-making, the world will come to see how dreadful it really is to deprive and mutilate young people.
New Comment Go to top