German doctors seek urgent action on circumcision row

German doctors are seeking an urgent clarification from the government over religious circumcision after a court ruling calling it a criminal act prompted an international outcry.

The German government had on Friday pledged quick action to protect the right of Jews and Muslims to circumcise baby boys on religious grounds, and voiced concern about the June ruling by the in the city of Cologne.

The court said the removal of the foreskin for religious reasons amounted to assault and battery and was therefore illegal.

German Medical Association president Frank Ulrich Montgomery told the Tagesspiegel newspaper on Sunday that the decision "created considerable legal uncertainty".

"From the beginning we warned that his culturally sensitive ruling was erroneous," he said.

The College of Physicians called on the government to act to prevent clandestine circumcisions and to ensure that "children do not fall into the hands of any butcher or any old ".

The Cologne ruling concerned a case brought against a doctor who had circumcised a four-year-old Muslim boy in line with his parents' wishes.

When the boy later suffered heavy bleeding, prosecutors charged the doctor.

Although the doctor was acquitted, the court judged that "the right of a child to keep his physical integrity trumps the rights of parents" to observe their religion, potentially setting a legal precedent.

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Judge orders circumcision ban off SF ballot

Jul 29, 2011

(AP) -- A judge on Thursday struck a measure from the city's November ballot that called for a ban on most circumcisions of male children, saying the proposed law violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee ...

Canada to appeal ruling on assisted suicide

Jul 13, 2012

(AP) — Canada's justice minister says the federal government will appeal a British Columbia Supreme Court ruling that said federal laws banning doctor-assisted suicide are unconstitutional.

German rules against YouTube in rights case

Apr 20, 2012

(AP) -- A German court has ruled that online video platform YouTube must install filters to prevent users from uploading some music videos whose rights are held by a music-royalties collecting body.

Religion puts some docs in quandary

Aug 03, 2007

More U.S. doctors are refusing to treat patients for religious reasons, causing a collision between religious freedom and discrimination laws.

Recommended for you

The state of euthanasia in Europe

Dec 12, 2014

French legislation introduced Friday to ease restrictions on doctor-assisted death risks further diversifying the range of clashing national laws on euthenasia across Europe.

User comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

freethinking
2 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2012
Even though I'm against circumcision, this isn't a religious issue this is just another example of Progressivism removing rights of parents.

A progressive government will remove your right to do what you think is right because progressives thinks they are smarter than the average person. For every Christian, Jew, or freedom loving person, a vote for a progressive is a vote against common sense and freedom.

Funny thing is, UN progressives are encouraging almost forcing circumcision in Africa. So progressives in Germany will arrest parents for circumising, while progressives in Africa will force parents to circumcise.
sirchick
3 / 5 (2) Jul 15, 2012
If the baby can't say no then it should default to no until the child is old enough to say yes and be educated enough to understand why they might want it (this even assumes the child grows up be religious, some kids rebel and do not follow their parents belief)

A baby is completely clueless about religion until they are old enough to understand, so until they do understand - no circumcision should occur unless there is a health risk which is a different situation.
freethinking
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2012
Sirchick, I agree. However there is evidence that circumsision might reduce the chance of disease. What of a baby who gets a disease because of that. Are you willing to bear the responsiblity and blame? I'm not, so I'm not going to force my belief on someone else. Progressives force their beliefs on others.
freethinking
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2012
Interesting sidenote, JW's are against blood transfusions and have prevented their children from getting it. Courts have stepped in at times and forced blood transfusions. Yet now there is medical evidence showing that blood transfusions may make accident victims outcomes worse than without.

Again, I always default to the parents when it comes to children. If parents have the best interests of their child at heart, let the parents make the decision. You don't want me to raise your children, I definitely don't want you to raise mine.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (18) Jul 15, 2012
Even though I'm against circumcision, this isn't a religious issue this is just another example of Progressivism removing rights of parents.
Uh huh. The rights of parents to torture their children in the name of god. You ok with female circumcision and clitorectomy as well? How about hobbling females by binding their feet as children? OK with you?
However there is evidence that circumsision might reduce the chance of disease.
No there isnt. Typical religionist lies. The foreskin is natural is it not?
Again, I always default to the parents when it comes to children.
How the xian scientists who think prayer can replace surgery? The state rightfully knows better. http://www.nytime...p;src=pm

Or these parents?
http://www.examin...ble-says
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.8 / 5 (17) Jul 15, 2012
Yet now there is medical evidence showing that blood transfusions may make accident victims outcomes worse than without.
-Which is also outrageous bullshit. Did god tell you this in a dream?
Pressure2
1 / 5 (1) Jul 15, 2012
Sirchick, I agree. However there is evidence that circumsision might reduce the chance of disease. What of a baby who gets a disease because of that. Are you willing to bear the responsiblity and blame? I'm not, so I'm not going to force my belief on someone else. Progressives force their beliefs on others.

But it increases the chances of infection.
What a joke, you constantly try to force your beliefs on others. Just take the issue of abortion, so it is okay to force your beliefs on women? You are anything but a freethinker, you have more in common with the Taliban.
freethinking
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2012
Otto, your hate and ignornace is betraying you again. If you don't know the difference between female mutilation and circumsion, you shouldn't be on this board.

Pressure, so you believe its ok to kill a baby, just not cut off a bit of skin, which may or may not have an advantage, depending on which group of experts you listen to?

Progressives are people who use lies, emotion, and ignorance to gain power over others.

Again, if both parents agree on what is best for their kids, then what right does the state have force parents to do or not to do things against their will. When a parent abuses their kids its easy to see, if you don't know the difference you must be a progressive.
freethinking
1 / 5 (3) Jul 15, 2012
I believe that if you give your child Ritalin, you are harming your child.

I believe is you allow your child to watch MTV and many other TV shows, you are harming your child.

I believe if you get divorced, you are harming your child.

I believe if you dont bring them up in the Christian faith, you are harming your child.

I believe if you dont discipline your child, you are harming your child.

I believe if you let your children play most video games, you are harming you child.

Since I dont particularly like cats and since they have been shown to carry diseases, you are harming your child if you have them in your house.

Arent you lucky Im not a progressive and have control of the government? If I was a progressive, and I controlled government, I would force you to raise your children the way I think they should be raised.

Pressure2
1 / 5 (3) Jul 15, 2012
Freethinking, a fetus is NOT a baby, it is not an individual or even a human being yet. It is TOTALLY dependent on one person, the woman carring it. Can you replace this woman and bring the fetus to term? If not you have no business placing controls on her actions. That is what the Taliban are doing in Afghanistan.

You are the control Freak! The progressives are very tolerant compared to you.
sirchick
1 / 5 (2) Jul 15, 2012
Freethinking you're being quite a troll with your post there...

Back on topic:

There is little evidence that being circumcised reduces the chance of disease, how can they unless they were some how poorly cared for when they were toddlers for bathing etc. Its different if we are talking about teenagers with poor hygienic level or poor precautions taken during sex.

I don't see the issue in waiting for the kid to be older and educated to decide for himself, how badly can this possibly violate their religious ways that it can't be a more rational solution ?
Pressure2
1 / 5 (1) Jul 15, 2012
Sirchick: Very well put, that is freedom of choice.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.8 / 5 (16) Jul 15, 2012
Otto, your hate and ignornace is betraying you again.
Blah?
If you don't know the difference between female mutilation and circumsion, you shouldn't be on this board.
Female circumcision
http://en.wikiped...tilation

-So describe in your own words and in great detail, the difference between circumcision and mutilation. Take your time. Also, explain why one or the other is ok for a boy but is an abomination for a girl.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.8 / 5 (16) Jul 15, 2012
I believe if you dont discipline your child, you are harming your child
Uh huh. Please describe in adequate detail your understanding of 'discipline'. Does it involve a rod perchance?
Anything you say can and will be held against you.

Here is a group that has their own very well-defined ideas of what constitutes 'discipline'-
http://www.fbi.gov/
I believe if you dont bring them up in the Christian faith, you are harming your child.
Hopefully one day this will be considered a form of abuse. As it already is in most any other superstitionist culture.
PussyCat_Eyes
3 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2012
Shall we consider the pros and cons from a medical point of view, rather than religious or political? Infection does sometimes occur when the foreskin is left intact and precautions are not made as to cleanliness and regular washing and thorough drying. Dead skin cells and a whitish material can build up, causing infection if not cleaned out. The parents may be conscientious about keeping the foreskin clean and dry, but ultimately, the boy must learn to keep his foreskin clean as he matures.
There is another issue of the foreskin not loosening enough as the boy's penis also grows as he goes into puberty and thereafter. If the foreskin doesn't stretch and loosen enough and becomes constricted and painful during natural erection, surgery may have to be performed. However, reconstruction of the foreskin can usually be done later if the patient wants it.
PussyCat_Eyes
3.3 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2012
The importance of cleanliness can't be overemphasized.
Here is a link about reconstruction (graphic images)
http://www.foresk...nges.php
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.6 / 5 (17) Jul 15, 2012
Infection does sometimes occur when the foreskin is left intact and precautions are not made as to cleanliness and regular washing and thorough drying
No I guess you missed the part where this is a myth? Any real nurse would know this. Hacking a baby's foreskin off CAN lead to infection.
Dead skin cells and a whitish material
This is called smegma or in your vernacular, head cheese.
The importance of cleanliness can't be overemphasized.
Yes this is why wipes were invented early in the Pleistocene. You dimwit.
Here is a link about reconstruction (graphic images)
http://www.foresk...nges.php
Who freaking CARES you imbecile?
PussyCat_Eyes
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2012
LOL....you say wipes were invented early in the Pleistocene?
Nobody ever said that "hacking" off a foreskin couldn't lead to infection. I never said that. You're imagining things, blotto.
PussyCat_Eyes
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 15, 2012
Actually, keeping a circumcision wound clean is not so different from keeping an umbilical cord clean while waiting for it to fall off the baby's navel. If either one isn't kept sterile as possible, then the chances of infection could occur. Most parents are very careful with both, but some are sloppy, and it is their babies who get sick. It isn't the doctors' fault since explicit instructions are given to the parents regarding how to keep the wound clean.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.6 / 5 (17) Jul 15, 2012
Actually, keeping a circumcision wound clean is not so different from keeping an umbilical cord clean while waiting for it to fall off the baby's navel. If either one isn't kept sterile as possible, then the chances of infection could occur.
Of course. This is why apes first began to fashion wipes out of bark and fermented berries. Because without antiseptic, things like their umbilical cords and foreskins would tend to get infected.

No really you dimwit. Look it up.
PussyCat_Eyes
2 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2012
YOU look it up, dimwit. You are equating human boys with apes now. Have you done a search on newborn ape mortality rates?

Here, try these on for size, lamebrain.

http://www.seawor...care.htm
There is a 40% mortality rate for newborns which means that an adult female usually only has one surviving offspring produced every six to eight years. Therefore many females will only have two to six offspring in a lifetime.

http://www.ncbi.n...19034065

Like I said already: Actually, keeping a circumcision wound clean is not so different from keeping an umbilical cord clean while waiting for it to fall off the baby's navel. If either one isn't kept sterile as possible, then the chances of infection could occur.

PussyCat_Eyes
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 16, 2012
The arteries and vein in the umbilical cord will, on their own, clamp down in a process that takes several minutes after birth. At the time of birth, the cord pulsates visibly due to the flow of blood through it, but this pulsation gradually slows down and stops after five or more minutes. Once the cord has stopped pulsating, it can be cut with a sharp instrument and will not bleed much if at all, even without clamping. The normal physiological process of the artery and veins going into spasm is promoted by mechanical trauma to the cord: so chewing through the cord or smashing it with a rock or tearing it apart in some other way produces more and faster spasm than sharp cutting.
PussyCat_Eyes
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 16, 2012
(contd)
However, there is still a window of several minutes immediately following the birth, during which the cord is still pulsatile, when sharp division of the cord without first clamping it on the 'baby' side of the cut will result in significant blood loss from the baby; certainly enough to require transfusion. Furthermore, if the cord is cut a second time closer to the baby the bleeding can start again. It's certainly possible that in the absence of medical intervention the blood loss could be fatal, especially if one was trying to use this as a form of infanticide.

Tying the umbilical cord is not necessary in the absence of other intervention. Tying the cord is not necessary if you wait to cut it until it has stopped pulsating. Tying of the cord, at least on the baby side is necessary if you cut the cord with something sharp before it has stopped pulsating.

Just like with the umbilical cord, keeping the circumcision wound clean prevents infections.
PussyCat_Eyes
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 16, 2012
I do hope that you enjoyed the foreskin reconstruction images, Blotto. I know I did.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (14) Jul 17, 2012
The phony nurse says:
There is a 40% mortality rate for newborns which means that an adult female usually only has one surviving offspring produced every six to eight years. Therefore many females will only have two to six offspring in a lifetime.
-Because he/she/it thinks this 40% rate is a result of unclean umbilical cords. Meanwhile midwifery is making a comeback with humans because it is universally realized that the natural process of child bearing does not normally require the clean conditions present in hospitals.

Elsewhere in the world and throughout the animal kingdom, millions of creatures are born every day without sterilizing umbilical cords.

Since any nurse and veterinarian will tell you these things, we have further proof that the lying flooding chatroom dimwit pussy/pirouette/ritchie/russkiye is only pretending to be a nurse. And doing it VERY badly.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (15) Jul 17, 2012
during which the cord is still pulsatile, when sharp division of the cord without first clamping it on the 'baby' side of the cut will result in significant blood loss from the baby
Pussy thinks he/she/it can persuade people that they are a nurse by copy/pasting from around the net.
http://boards.str...417.html

-Is this what is called continuing ed? haahaaa
If either one isn't kept sterile as possible, then the chances of infection could occur.
-Is what you first said...
Just like with the umbilical cord, keeping the circumcision wound clean prevents infections.
-Is what you then said after doing some research and realizing you had carelessly misused the word 'sterile'.

As no competent nurse would ever make this idiot mistake we can thus add it to the pile of idiot mistakes you have already made and conclude that you are not only NOT a nurse, but not smart enough to realize what a BAD pretender you are.

How Pathetic.
PussyCat_Eyes
1 / 5 (1) Jul 17, 2012
The phony nurse says:
There is a 40% mortality rate for newborns which means that an adult female usually only has one surviving offspring produced every six to eight years. Therefore many females will only have two to six offspring in a lifetime.
-Because he/she/it thinks this 40% rate is a result of unclean umbilical cords. Meanwhile midwifery is making a comeback with humans because it is universally realized that the natural process of child bearing does not normally require the clean conditions present in hospitals.

Elsewhere in the world and throughout the animal kingdom, millions of creatures are born every day without sterilizing umbilical cords.

Since any nurse and veterinarian will tell you these things, we have further proof that the lying flooding chatroom dimwit pussy/pirouette/ritchie/russkiye is only pretending to be a nurse. And doing it VERY badly.
theghostofdesperation1923

The 40% newborn mortality rate that I quoted was in reference to APES, idiot.
PussyCat_Eyes
1 / 5 (2) Jul 17, 2012
Blotto's Dissociative Identity Disorder seems to be getting worse. One of the symptoms of it is that he displays his unwillingness to accept my status as a Registered Nurse. I've had 11 years as an R.N., and yet, Blotto follows me into threads, including Medical Xpress threads to tell people that I am not a nurse and that I am Russkiy, Ritchie and Parrot.
OK, I will humor Blotto and say that I am Ritchieparrot.
NOW WHAT, BLOTTO ??
LOL
freethinking
1 / 5 (1) Jul 19, 2012
How about we give information to parents and let them decide what is best for their children? Why do progressives have such low regard for parents? Why do they want to constantly take away parents rights?
When I hear Progressives say that they care for children, women or minorities, I know that Progressives are not speaking the truth. When Progressives care more for those they say they care about than power, then the world would be a better place.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (14) Jul 19, 2012
How about we give information to parents and let them decide what is best for their children? Why do progressives have such low regard for parents?
Why do religionists tend to have such a blatant disregard for the sanity and well-being of their children, that they need to teach them lies and torture them with medieval rites of passage and initiation?
I've had 11 years as an R.N., and yet, Blotto follows me into threads, including Medical Xpress threads to tell people that I am not a nurse
Well it is obvious that if you are a nurse you are an incompetent one because you think umbilical cords need to be sterilized, and you dont know the proper term for 'that white stuff' that most people know to be smegma.

And as you also seem to be a compulsive liar under multiple sockpuppets, most people would naturally assume you were lying about the RN thing, even before you began posting your typical ignorant nonsense and confirmed it.
freethinking
1 / 5 (1) Jul 19, 2012
LOL Otto, so your saying a Progressive Government should step in to ensure the sanity and well-being of children.

How did Romanian orphanages work out? How about China, North Korea, the old Soviet Union, Nazi Germany. Can't get more progressive and anti religionist than Communist countries or a National Socialist country can we? Seems to me, the more progressive and anti religionist a country is, the worse are the outcomes for children, the weak, women, the elderly, and any minority group within the boarders.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (14) Jul 21, 2012
How about China, North Korea, the old Soviet Union, Nazi Germany.
You only think this way because you assume you know things you obviously dont. How about orphans in catholic ireland?
http://www.guardi...e-claims

-But it was always this way in the british isles. Being sent to an orphanage was usually a death sentence. Ever read oliver twist?

-How about australia?
"children of Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent who were removed from their families by the Australian Federal and State government agencies and church missions"
http://en.wikiped...erations

-Or canada?
"the schools were run by churches of various denominations about 60 per cent by Roman Catholics, and 30 per cent by the Anglican Church of Canada and the United Church of Canada...Presbyterian, Congregationalist and Methodist churches."
http://en.wikiped...l_system
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (14) Jul 21, 2012
This is not to mention all the horror perpetrated by xian slavers like king leopold and the brits throughout africa during the great land grab, and before throughout the mediterranean by the likes of the knights of malta/hospitaller, who did a healthy business in moslem slaves.

And of course the xian Joseph kony, who conscripts children as soldiers.
http://www.kony2012.com/

The religionist nazis were actually very good to war orphans. Hitler was a catholic you know. 'Gott mit Uns' on das Heer belt buckles. There was Lebensborn, which sought to mass-produce them.
the more progressive and anti religionist a country is, the worse are the outcomes for children
No, the faster the population grows relative to the carrying capacity of the region, the worse it is for children. And the fastest-growing pops are the religionist ones as they are DESIGNED to maximize growth.

One need only consider the strife throughout the middle east and africa to understand this.
freethinking
1 / 5 (1) Jul 23, 2012
Otto the ignorant you prove my point. Who took the children away from the natives, the Government? It was Progressives who thought they knew better how to raise children than native parents. These Progressives then they put them with Homosexuals and other perverts who molested and abused them.
PussyCat_Eyes
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 25, 2012
Otto the ignorant you prove my point. Who took the children away from the natives, the Government? It was Progressives who thought they knew better how to raise children than native parents. These Progressives then they put them with Homosexuals and other perverts who molested and abused them.
- freethinking

This is true. Progressives, as Social Workers would come to the child's home to gather information that would mostly condemn the way the parents were raising the child and the condition of the home, which of course was always according to government guidelines of nutrition, privacy, etc. After the kid was hauled off to "child protective services" or the equivalent, the child was most often abused by other children or someone hired as caretakers in the institution to which the child was placed.
Sometimes, the child would be removed from the parents for even a small infraction as cockroaches or bedbugs without first offering the parents help with pest control.
freethinking
1 / 5 (1) Jul 25, 2012
When progressives get involved in parenting trouble always follows. I may not agree with they way you raise your child, but if you have the best intentions for them, who am I to force you to do things my way?

TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (13) Jul 25, 2012
Otto the ignorant you prove my point. Who took the children away from the natives, the Government? It was Progressives who thought they knew better
Jeez I dont know ft but why do you uprate someone who would post gay porn links here on physorg where children might click on them? Arent you being a little 2-faced?
http://phys.org/n...rth.html

-You should stand up for what you believe in and denounce this scum. And complain to the moderators to have it expunged from the website.

Unless you agree that this behavior is acceptable.

Oh and by the way I posted those links to show you that it was religionists who were the perps. And as we know, any and all religions have done these sorts of things, and are fully capable of doing these things, because they are well within the scope of what their gods say is MORAL. Liberating innocents from unbelievers is a GOOD thing dont you know.

freethinking
1 / 5 (1) Jul 25, 2012
Agreed, porn should not be linked and I'm sure you forwarded this to the moderators. I didn't click on the link, but you must have. So if it is child porn and you know that for a fact, then it is you who is being two faced.

Progressives destroy families and the best way to stop them is to keep them out of family decisions, I don't care if they are religious progressives or athiest progressives. Are you a hypocrite and only object to religious progressives? I'm against both.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.