Children's Ombudsman calls for circumcision ban in Sweden

The Ombudsman for Children in Sweden called Saturday for the country to ban circumcision, a practice he said contravened the basic rights of boys.

"Circumcising a child without medical justification nor his consent contravenes this child's human rights," wrote Fredrik Malmberg in a text co-signed with and published in the daily newspaper Dagens Nyheter.

"The operation is painful, irreversible and can lead to dangerous complications," Malmberg said.

In 2001 Sweden passed a law authorising circumcision, which allows a religious authority to perform the operation if the child is under two months old. If the child is older than this, only a physician can carry it out.

The law also requires the consent of the parents and demands they are fully informed about the operation and its implications.

The law has widespread support in Sweden and a proposal last October to ban circumcision from the far right party Sweden Democrats was rejected.

According to Malmberg the law contravenes the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The government estimates that some 3,000 boys are circumcised every year in Sweden.

In 2012, a court in Cologne, Germany said the rite amounted to grievous bodily harm in a ruling that caused international uproar.

The German parliament later decided to pass a law authorising the practice for religious reasons.

Studies have shown there is compelling evidence that reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60 percent.

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Germany approves bill to protect male circumcision

Dec 12, 2012

(AP)—German lawmakers approved a bill Wednesday that explicitly permits male infant circumcision, ending months of legal uncertainty after a court ruling that the practice amounts to bodily harm led to ...

German ethics committee tackles circumcision row

Aug 23, 2012

A senior member of Germany's ethics committee Thursday called for a compromise in a heated debate over religious circumcision after a court ruled the practice was tantamount to grievous bodily harm.

Recommended for you

Can YouTube save your life?

4 hours ago

Only a handful of CPR and basic life support (BLS) videos available on YouTube provide instructions which are consistent with recent health guidelines, according to a new study published in Emergency Medicine Australasia, the jo ...

Doctors frequently experience ethical dilemmas

5 hours ago

(HealthDay)—For physicians trying to balance various financial and time pressures, ethical dilemmas are common, according to an article published Aug. 7 in Medical Economics.

AMGA: Physician turnover still high in 2013

5 hours ago

(HealthDay)—For the second year running, physician turnover remains at the highest rate since 2005, according to a report published by the American Medical Group Association (AMGA).

Obese or overweight teens more likely to become smokers

6 hours ago

A study examining whether overweight or obese teens are at higher risk for substance abuse finds both good and bad news: weight status has no correlation with alcohol or marijuana use but is linked to regular ...

Taking preventive health care into community spaces

7 hours ago

A church. A city park. An office. These are not the typical settings for a medical checkup. But a new nationwide study by the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research shows that providing health services in ...

User comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

jsdarkdestruction
1 / 5 (7) Sep 28, 2013
pffff, im a boy and im glad im circumcised and am not jewish. pretty much 90% of American boys are circumcised.
freethinking
1.3 / 5 (10) Sep 28, 2013
I disagree with circumcision, HOWEVER, the government should stay out of this. If a parent wants to circumcise their boy it's their choice.

There are pro's and con's to circumcision, this is one area Progressives should keep their noses out of.
JessicaH
5 / 5 (1) Sep 29, 2013
Sewing up a vagina and cutting off the clitoris dramatically reduces STDs as well. It is mutilation and should never be done without unless it is a medical necessity, which is rare.
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (8) Sep 29, 2013
"Sewing up a vagina and cutting off the clitoris dramatically reduces STDs as well. It is mutilation and should never be done without unless it is a medical necessity, which is rare. "


Removing the clitorial hood is analogous to male circumcision in women.
freethinking
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 30, 2013
Remember I'm against circumcision, however stating that Removing the clitorial hood is analogous to male circumcision in women, is plain stupid.

Simple way of finding this out is asking the majority of men who have been circumcised if they feel violated or demeaned by being circumcised.

Many/most men who are circumcised feel their sons should be (and I would agree and say incorrectly) circumcised as well. If you think men would allow their boys to be circumcised if they felt violated by circumcision, you don't know men very well.
Egleton
2 / 5 (8) Oct 03, 2013
Whose penis is it anyway?
If you are happy to give permission to other people to cut off someone elses foreskin, then I would be happy to give myself permission to cut off yours.
freethinking
1 / 5 (9) Oct 03, 2013
Egleton, problem is there is pro's and con's to the medical procedure. In Africa the UN's medical community is encouraging men/boys to get circumcised.

When it comes to medical procedures like this, it falls on parents doing what they think is best for their child. If you don't want to circumcise yourself or your boys is your choice and one which I'll agree with. If you want to circumcise your boys, I'll disagree with you but give you the right.