The Mirror (London)

November 17, 2009 Ritual [actually, non-therapeutic] circumcisions 'illegal' Exclusive by Stephen Moyes (stephen.moyes@mirror.co.uk) DOCTORS performing ritual circumcisions on children face financial ruin, disciplinary action and even jail. A test-case being brought by a 20-year-old man circumcised as a baby could, if successful, open the floodgates to claimants. The unnamed man is to sue a GP still practising in Greater London for physical and psychological damage. He will argue that circumcision on a child without a medical requirement is mutilation. His father took him to be circumcised shortly after birth in accordance with his own religious beliefs. Now the father is mortified at the mental and physical state of his adult son, and is supporting the case. The father has documents that prove which GP carried out the circumcision. Performing surgery on a person without adequate consent constitutes battery in law, which can be prosecuted in the civil courts. But given the lack of consent the surgery also constitutes an assault which can be prosecuted under criminal law - meaning a guilty verdict could lead to a prison term. The test-case is being supported by a legal firm, leading urologist, child protection agency and circumcision awareness body The National Organisation of Restoring Men (Norm). [actually NORM-UK] Norm spokesman David Smith said: "Surgery is defined as 'manual or instrumental treatment of injuries or disorders of the body'. If no injury or disorder is present, then it can't be surgery. "Circumcision is a mutilation, which is defined as 'to injure, to make imperfect by the removal of a part'. It is shocking that the NHS is responsible for mutilating children. "We support a man's right to choose a ritual circumcision for himself, but not for anyone else. "Adult circumcision is a straight-foward operation which can be undertaken in under 30 minutes under local anaesthetic. There is no excuse for forcing it on children. "There is growing belief by many people that the only way to make doctors put their scalpels down is to take legal action. This is not about money, it's about protecting the next generation." Some doctors privately charge up to s350 [sic £350?] for 'forced circumcision' of a baby brought to them by their parents. Legal action can only be brought when the child reaches 18. There is then a three-year legal window in which they can take action against the GP. Circumcision is a surgical procedure that can be performed on men and women and is done for a variety of reasons, some of them cultural or religious. The General Medical Council does not have a public position on the issue of ritual male circumcision on children who cannot give informed consent. A spokeswoman said: "We do not have general authority to determine public policy on issues that arise within medical practice - these are matters for society as a whole to determine, through the parliamentary process." Katy Swaine, legal director of Child Rights Alliance for England, told the Mirror: "The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has made clear that female genital mutilation violates childrens rights and this position has been reflected in the banning of such procedures under UK legislation. "The carrying out of circumcision procedures on young male children must also be examined in the context of childrens rights under the treaty - not least given the requirement for non-discrimination in the application of treaty rights. "A body of medical opinion has for some time supported the view that most male circumcision procedures do not have a medical basis. As such, given the invasiveness of the procedure and the negative consequences suffered by some individuals, there is a strong argument that it should not be carried out without informed consent from the individual who is to undergo the procedure. "It is only a matter of time before these issues are raised in the courts by those who have undergone the procedure as children and have suffered negative consequences. In the meantime it behoves the NHS, Department of Health, professional medical bodies and communities to examine this issue seriously, acknowledging and addressing its implications for childrens rights. " The individual bringing the test-case is collating evidence and financial and legal support and will launch it next year. A solicitor close to the case said: "The action being brought against the doctor is more likely to lead to financial damage rather than prosecution, but it is complicated and nothing can be ruled out. "Doctors performing 'forced circumcision' on a small minority of children are acting in defiance of general medical council and are effectively medical rebels. "Most urologists will only perform a circumcision on someone who needs it, just like any form of amputation. "This is not a straightforward case. Parents have the right to give consent but only when in the best interests of a child. I don't think any act involving cutting off half of a child's penis is in their best interests ." The litigant gave up, reportedly because he could not afford the case; it would have cost £10,000 [$US 15,600] just to do the research and the lawyer held out little hope of success. A urologist also discouraged him, pointing out that "anything goes with circumcision", so it's hard to prove negligence or botching.