Home
About us
Humanism
Ceremonies
Membership
Publications
News
Links
Contact us
|
Home
|
|
HAI Submission on Circumcision | |
|
In 2004 the Government appointed an expert group headed by paediatrician Professor Denis Gill of the Royal College of Surgeons to explore the ethical implications of, and drew up recommendations on how to cater for, the demand for cultural male circumcisions. The group was under the auspices of the Department of Health and Children. In pursuance of its work the group consulted with religious and other bodies. Among the submissions received by the expert group was that of the Humanist Association of Ireland. In January 2006 the report of the expert group was presented to Minister for Health Mary Harney. Among its recommendations was that regional services be established by health authorities in order that cultural male circumcision procedures be available. It strongly recommended that such procedures only ever be performed under medical conditions and supervision i.e. by surgeons and anaesthetists in adequately equipped units. Further, it warned that a person performing a circumcision in the absence of these conditions and which resulted in injury to the child, could be subject to the criminal law dealing with child protection. The report estimated that provisions need be made for up to 2,000 circumcisions per year. Also recommended was that medical staff who have ethical objections to the procedure should be allowed to opt out of the service. The HAI submissionThe Association of Irish Humanists (AIH) is mindful of the fact that the Committee's deliberations are prompted by the disappearance of the traditional mono-cultural Irish society. As Humanists we welcome this change in Irish society as something positive. Humanism promotes a view of humanity that is rich in ethnic, religious and cultural diversity. Our understanding of the issue of child circumcision is that a piece (or pieces) of a child's body is removed for no positive practical or medical purpose. It is done in the name of religion and/or culture - often it is difficult to distinguish the dividing line between these two. The AIH maintains that under Irish law parents should not have the right to mutilate children. In stating this we appreciate that the motivation for such acts may spring from often deeply held religious/cultural beliefs. Nevertheless, we hold to this principle. Thus the AIH urges that in this State a child's right to bodily integrity take precedence over other considerations such as the religious or cultural belief of parents or community. In urging this we seek compliance with articles within the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.1 This stance is not without its difficulties. For example, Irish medical opinion appears divided on the issue of child circumcision. Some obstetricians have expressed the belief that such medically unnecessary procedures (involving inherent risk, such as, among many others, administration of a general anaesthetic) should not be permitted.2 Others however have disagreed.3 This difference in opinion reflects an international debate (see Appendix) Two main arguments run through the general debate on child circumcision. The first is the possibility that any outright ban on circumcision might drive the practice 'underground'; the second is that opposition to different cultural/religious practice is a product of racist ideology and 'Western' arrogance. The AIH in formulating its position recognises the complexities of the first argument while rejecting the second. Culture is malleable. In the late 19th century Bridget Cleary, living in rural Tipperary, became ill. Her husband, Michael, and a number of neighbours and relatives became convinced that she was a fairy changeling and tortured her to death.4 The reasons for Bridget's death are difficult to comprehend from the perspective of present day Ireland. However, what is certain is that the cultural forces that drove those who killed her were strong and inimical to human welfare and happiness. Happily they have faded. We place the death of Callis Osaghae on August 18th 2003 in Waterford general hospital in the same category as the death of Bridget Cleary. Four week-old Callis died after undergoing circumcision in his parent's home. No culture is immune to emergence of harmful beliefs and practices. Another, happily benign example from more recent Irish history is the hysteria in the 1980s surrounding so-called 'moving statues'. Far less benign was the irrational belief that the practice whereby women controlled their fertility was a threat to society and needed to be proscribed by law. The AIH holds to the view that the State, while being sympathetic to strongly held cultural and religious beliefs, should nevertheless use all means at its disposal to prevent those pernicious cultural or religious practices that manifestly result in harm to others. In our view the mutilation of children by parents is such a practice, and the duty of the State is particularly acute in this case where vulnerable children are the victims. The AIH is mindful that parents are free to take their children to other jurisdictions in order to have the circumcision performed, perhaps under proper medical supervision. It follows that parents of a like mind who cannot afford the cost of travel are likely to resort to a 'kitchen table' procedure such as that that killed Callis Osaghae in 2003. The AIH sympathises with the regulatory authorities in this dilemma. However, we find that the need parents have to cut off parts of their infant children to be a fundamentally irrational one. We predict that it will not be long before future governments, doctors and taxpayers are appalled at our society's acquiescence. Additionally, the State may face huge individual and class actions for damages (see Appendix - 'medical doctors must respect the human rights of their patients'). Our understanding is that, given the right social, cultural context, people will behave rationally, particularly in wanting health and happiness for their children. The State should, as part of its duty to human welfare, work to free such rational aspirations from those cultural and religious beliefs that would seek to smother them. Therefore it is our view that it is not an option to 'give in' in order to comply with a principle of cultural relativism whereby only those within a particular culture are free to criticise it. The AIH does criticise and condemn the cultural/religious practice of child circumcision and urges the State to do so also, and further, to work nationally and internationally to eradicate this affront to humanity. References
|