Danish Circumcision Ban to Go to Parliament

A petition calling for a ban on male circumcision in Denmark will now go to parliament after organizers said last week that it had attracted more than the 50,000 signatures required.

After securing necessary 50,000 signatures, proposal to outlaw child circumcision goes to parliament

A petition calling for a ban on male circumcision in Denmark will now go to parliament after organizers said last week that it had attracted more than the 50,000 signatures required.

“We’re really happy, but now the real work begins. It’s an important but small step,” said Lena Nyhus of the Intact Denmark group told Danish news agency Ritzau.

The petition however faces little chance of success because it has not attracted support from any of the main political parties.

In Denmark, citizens can require parliament to debate an issue by gathering a minimum of 50,000 signatures.

The petition, which cites the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, calls for a six-year prison sentence for those carrying out circumcisions on boys under the age of 18, unless there is a medical reason.

The same penalty has existed since 2003 for the internationally condemned practice of excision, or female genital mutilation.

“Society has a special obligation to protect the fundamental rights of the child until they’ve reached an age and maturity where they can take on this responsibility themselves,” the petition reads.

Between 1,000 and 2,000 circumcisions are carried out in Denmark per year, according to health officials.

The Jewish community has protested against the petition, saying the ritual has been practiced in Denmark without any problems for more than 400 years.

Back in October of 2014, JTA reported that a poll among the Danes indicated that 74 percent of them believe circumcision should be fully or partially banned.

The 2014 survey was released the day before a parliamentary hearing in implementing a circumcision ban. At the time, two Danish parties favored a ban, while others were divided on the issue. Only 10 percent of the 1,000 people surveyed believed the decision should be left to parents.

“As I see it, [circumcision] goes against the [United Nations] Convention on the Rights of the Child to circumcise children. I’m leaning toward a ban until the person is of legal age,” Hans Christian Schmidt, a former health minister and a Venstre member of parliament, told Metroxpress in 2014, (the newspaper that conducted the poll), according to Denmark’s The Local.

In 2013, the Danish Health and Medicines Authority determined that there was not enough evidence to merit either banning or encouraging the practice. The authority made its determination following a study on the health risks and benefits of circumcision.

According to Danish health officials, between 1,000 and 2,000 circumcisions are performed in Denmark annually, primarily on Jewish and Muslim boys. Both faiths require the circumcision of boys.

Edited by: JV Staff
(INN)

LEAVE A REPLY

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *

COMMENTS
  1. “The same penalty has existed since 2003 for the internationally condemned practice of excision, or female genital mutilation.”

    The sentence makes it look as if excision is the same as FGM, but the WHO knows different types of FGM. Type 1, the removal of clitoral prepuce and/or the tip of the clitoris is medically comparable to male circumcision. Excision is type 2.

    “the ritual has been practiced in Denmark without any problems for more than 400 years”

    Everywhere else there were medical complications like e.g. blooding, infections, amputations of the whole penis or even death of the child but not in Denmark for 400 years?

    “In 2013, the Danish Health and Medicines Authority determined that there was not enough evidence to merit either banning or encouraging the practice.”

    At the end of 2016 the important Danish Medical Association recommended to end circumcision of young boys because it would be ethically unacceptable without informed consent (which needs a certain age). They didn’t recommend a ban though but mainly because they feared illegal circumcisions.

  2. An expert evaluation of legal, ethical and medical evidence (including the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and other international treaties) by Professors of Law, Bioethics, Medicine, Urology and Medical Sciences published in the International Journal of Children’s Rights concluded that it would be **unethical not to** recommend early infant male circumcision because failing to recommend the procedure would endanger the health of the boy and increase his lifetime risk of a wide array of adverse medical conditions that include potentially fatal infections and cancers: http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/15718182/24/2

    A subsequent expert evaluation also concluded that the ethical course is to recommend infant male circumcision. See article in 2017 in the Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics:
    http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1073110517750603

    Also see risk-benefit analysis in Mayo Clinic Proceedings article that found benefits exceed risks by over 100 to 1:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24702735

    And review + risk-benefit analysis in World J Clin Pediatrics that found the same:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28224100

    Both also found that over their lifetime, 1 in 2 uncircumcised males will suffer an adverse medical condition attributable to their foreskin.

    Thus attempts to ban the circumcision of boys are based on serious flaws and are akin to attempts by anti-vaccination lobby groups to discourage childhood vaccination. Very Unethical!

    Brian Morris, DSc PhD, Professor Emeritus in Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE

INTERNATIONAL NEWS