Facebook Twitter Linkedin Google Plus Tell a Friend
Home| Columns| Features| International| In Dutch| Dictionary| What's On| Jobs| Housing| Expats| Blogs| Books
 
 
««« previousnext »»»

Doctors campaign against 'risky and painful' circumcision of boys

Wednesday 14 September 2011

The Dutch doctors federation KNMG has again called on ministers, MPs and human rights organisations to speak out against the practice of circumcising young boys.

Between 10,000 and 15,000 boys are circumcised in the Netherlands every year, often on religious grounds and without anaesthetics, the organisation says. This is against human rights.

The intervention is not without risk and is increasingly being seen as 'not normal', the organisation says.

It is not calling for an outright ban because of fears this would drive the practice underground and lead to more complications.

In particular, the KNMG says insurance companies should ask if they should be using public funds to pay for an unnecessary operation.

© DutchNews.nl



 

Readers' Comments

"not normal"? tell it to the millions of American men who are circumsized.
And that "often without anaesthetics" to what really corresponds to? 10-100-100000 cases per year?
Why Dutch doctors waste time thinking about circumcision and they do not care about helping their patients?
Dutch health system is so low, that before thinking about circumcision as a problem, there are more critical issues to solve.

By joanna | 14 September 2011 10:00 AM

This is great news. I was happy when the KNMG came out with their original statement a few months ago opposing circumcision. I am glad they are continuing the effort to end needless circumcisions. Cutting healthy tissue off of unconsenting boys is no better than cutting girls. These inhumane rituals must be stopped.

By Kelev | 14 September 2011 5:18 PM

I am circumcised and very happy about it. It makes a more desirable appearance in my opinion.

By Rplenty | 14 September 2011 5:53 PM

Thank you, doctors, for doing the right thing and not caving to religious pressure.

By Marc A. | 14 September 2011 5:56 PM

Circumcision decreases the risk of cervical cancer in women. Studies have proven that cervical cancer is greatly reduced in countries that practice circumcision. Not allowing this practice is discrimination against Jews. See it for what it is -- anti-semitism.

By Judith | 14 September 2011 6:24 PM

Are the doctors in the U.S. willing to pay attention to the doctors of the developed world?

By Alfred Schram | 14 September 2011 8:05 PM

There are many well-documented health
benefits of circumcision.

Parents should be allowed to convey
these benefits to their sons.

By john | 14 September 2011 9:08 PM

Infant circumcision is not simply unnecessary - it is destructive and anti-ethical. It ought to be banned.

By Stormwatch | 15 September 2011 1:05 AM

I find the differing views about circumcision very interesting. I haven't looked into it a whole lot myself so I don't feel like I can make an educated opinion, but I'm really curious as to what the truth is.

By Jitterboogie | 15 September 2011 7:57 AM

Why don,t we go all the way and make sure everyones appendix is removed(Of course during circumcision,not to waste the anasthetic)..Circumcision=Religious nonsense!!!

By Cliff Sullivan | 15 September 2011 8:59 AM

It's unfortunate that KNMG have taken this ill-informed stance against circumcision. Over recent years, other medical organisations have increasingly taken a position supportive of parental choice, partly as a result of the growing evidence of benefits.

By Jake | 15 September 2011 9:16 AM

I'm circumcised and I'm not Jewish, but Mexican catholic. In Mexico not every boy is circumcised, but those who are are so at birth, before leaving the hospital. I don't think I had any adverse effects from circumcision, and now I have a son who we had promptly circumcised at birth. Of course I cannot tell if it would be different or better not to be. That would have to be asked to someone circumcised as an adult.

When I had my son circumcised, I justified myself on medical grounds. Really, there are advantages, like a lower risk of catching and spreading aids (google it). I'm not against a ban though.

By Claudio | 15 September 2011 9:25 AM

This is another blow to the freedom of religion in the Netherlands. Jewish couples who do not want to circumsize their sons are already free not to do so. In the Muslim communities there is probably more collective pressure to circumsize. But calling on all Dutch doctors and insurance companies to no longer assist in circumsicions.... the Dutch are growing more and more intolerant regarding Jewish and Islamic rituals. The secular majority in the Netherlands knows what is best for everybody - it is so paternalistic and intolerant. Religious minories are forced to assimilate completely. Goodbye, tolerant Holland!

By Eva | 15 September 2011 10:51 AM

joanna; Infant circumcision is always done without anesthetic. If you don't believe me, go ask a medical professional.

Rplenty: Then you're welcome to get one, as an adult.

John: Then you're welcome to explain that to adults. Performing unnecessary amputations on infants is unconscionable and abusive.

Judith: Correlation does not equal causation. By that alone, I can just as easily claim that cervical cancer causes foreskins to grow. The HPV vaccine (Gardisil) is a much better solution and does not require amputation without anesthetic on infants.

By robkinyon | 15 September 2011 1:12 PM

Joanna:

I don't know where you live but we have an excellent health system in The Netherlands.

By Michael | 15 September 2011 1:55 PM

For all the women: if you dont value men's opinions on abortion, we dont need your opinion on male circumcision.

I am circumcised and have never suffered all ill effects from it. I am glad it was done and wouldnt change. I have no memory of the pain or 'inhumane torture' that was the procedure. Its not forced on children by the state, parents choose. If you dont like it, dont choose it for your kid.

By Jason | 15 September 2011 2:12 PM

@Joanna

In fact, a lot of circumcisions are done without anesthesia at all, as it's way slower, as a rule of thumb, if it's done under 30 minutes you can be sure it wasn't used at all, as it can't be effective in that time.

It's also impossible for the baby to "sleep right through it" as many people have said, the only reason as to why the baby stays still is that it has entered in shock from the pain

It turns out, mutilating a completely functional part of your body isn't a good idea

By Levitz | 15 September 2011 2:16 PM

Contrary to these comments, there are no "well known" medical benefits to it that are published in scientific journals that I'm aware of. Please cite sources if you're going to make claims that mutilating babies is beneficial.

As for it being anti-Semitic, if it was Islam that condoned it, would you still support it I wonder?

News like this makes me happy to live in a progressive country.

By Dave Clayton | 15 September 2011 2:36 PM

Joanna, the Dutch healthcare system has been proven the best of all European countries + Canada. You can look this up Euro-Canada Health Consumer Index 2010. They rank first since their healthcare reforms in 2006. The fact that there are countries where religious rituals are normal doesn't mean they are. The same counts for female circumcision.

By Markus | 15 September 2011 2:37 PM

If you want to be circumcised then do it. Don't do it to kids without them having a choice. They could choose to do it later in life.

Cliff , I agree with you religious nonsense !!!
If god ( for the believers ) created that piece of skin, Shouldn't we keep it ??

By Giovanni | 15 September 2011 2:59 PM

circumcision is not necessary at all. the only extra thing an uncircumcised person needs to do is wash their penis, which they should be doing regardless. someone claimed protesting circumcision is anti-Semitic, that made me laugh.

Go Dutch doctors!

By colman | 15 September 2011 3:04 PM

Joanna, just because something is popular in the United States, does not mean it is normal in the rest of the world. (Metric system?!?) 85% of men in this world are NOT circumcised and the rate of circumcision in the U.S. is dropping. It's very unpopular in Europe, and many people believe their health care is much better than American.

By PolarIce | 15 September 2011 3:25 PM

It *may* be true that there are health benefits to circumcision, but that does not change the fact that it is mutilation.

And those benefits studies have for the most part been discarded as rubbish.

Let the teenage child decide for himself if he wants this sort of operation, rather than doing it to him as an infant.

By chris gill | 15 September 2011 3:37 PM

Excellent news, hopefully this will reduce the prevalence of this barbaric and immoral practice.

Why someone would choose to irreversibility mutilate their own child is beyond me, clearly there are some mental issues.

By Steve | 15 September 2011 3:54 PM

neither i nor my family are in any way religious. i have a 22 y/o son who i had circumcised at birth not for any religious reason but for aesthetics. i find an uncircumcised penis to be ugly and highly off putting. it's no different then when i got my daughter's ears pierced.

@alfred schram, are you serious? really? the "doctors in the developed world"? which "developed world" are you referring to? it's a generally held belief, worldwide, that most specialists are American. not to mention the US is not subject to the opinions of the like of KNMG as there is no public healthcare.

By shan | 15 September 2011 4:08 PM

Maybe, religious humbug, but as previous comments, circumcision on men in Africa, showed that it reduced HIV with upto 60%, and it sooooo much cleaner and looks better, and you become a sexual stallion (less sensitive)... Happily circumcised man!

By Chocolate boy | 15 September 2011 4:10 PM

Circumcision is a form of genital mutilation. As such, it should not be legal to impose it to young children.

By Marc | 15 September 2011 4:16 PM

I applaud this. A lot people in favor of circumcision are 1. circumcised or 2. like the aesthetics 3. talk about cleanliness or some reported health benefits. That's all good and fine, but tell that to the many botched circumcisions which cause many problems into adulthood. The practice was started due to antiquated religious nonsense, and it pains me to see many peoples uneducated and culturally influenced opinions in favor of it. Are you a doctor? Didn’t think so.

By Frank | 15 September 2011 4:28 PM

Parents should not be allowed to mutilate their children. This barbaric act must be stopped.

By Kevin | 15 September 2011 4:31 PM

Circumcision is not a natural process, it can be dangerous and carries a risk of infections and these can be passes on to the femail. What is normal about cutting off a protective layer of skin that is there for a specific purpose? Our ears get dirty but we dont cut them off do we!

By PhysicsMan | 15 September 2011 4:32 PM

I have seen reports from reputable sources suggesting that circumcision can prevent sexually communicable diseases and reports from equally reputable sources that claim the opposite is true. Seeing as there is no real difference in STD infection rates between Europe and the US I would say the former were biased reports and given the hazards and taxpayers costs of surgery all superficial reasons should be rejected.

By Dave T | 15 September 2011 5:10 PM

This has nothing to do with a 'painful' practice, and no religion I've heard of says you can't use a local anesthetic. This is nothing more than the targeting of muslims under another guise. A very tolerant society indeed.

By Anon | 15 September 2011 5:20 PM

In the last sentence I read "pubic funds" LOL

By lol | 15 September 2011 5:28 PM

I'm an uncircumsized male living in the US. I have ZERO issues and it takes a whopping 1 minute to make sure I follow proper hygiene. I think circumcision is stupid and cruel. Let me whack off a part of your penis and see how you like it. Infants are in pain for a while after that....I don't care what anyone says.

By Uncirced Dude | 15 September 2011 5:30 PM

Readers might be interested in the following article I wrote on circumcision as an abuse of human rights: http://www.quickswood.com/my_weblog/2007/02/circumcision.html#more

By Joseph Froncioni | 15 September 2011 5:34 PM

Not doctor should ever mutilate the genitals of a child, male or female.

If adults want to consent to being mutilated then that's their right but lets not butcher babiesn in this way.

It's good to see doctors taking a stand against child abuse.

By Dave B | 15 September 2011 5:34 PM

How about actually giving the kid a choice and asking them when they turn 18? I doubt there was be any circumcisions if the circumcizi was consulted when he was more than a few hours old. "You want to what now? no thx, get away from me"

By George Costanza | 15 September 2011 5:58 PM

There are no medical benefits to circumcision just propaganda put forth by the pro-mutilation side.

By Colin Jensen | 15 September 2011 6:13 PM

Any quirurgical operation done outside a medical center is a hit against live. Not against circumcision but against ilegal operations.

By Jost | 15 September 2011 6:13 PM

I am a Latin American man who has been circumcised. I did not have a choice in the matter being an infant at the time. I can wholeheartedly state that I wish I had my foreskin. Secondly, while I acknowledge that women have a right to their opinions, I think they are being extremely narrow minded and shallow when the argument is "it looks ugly". Furthermore we are talking about male circumcision here, not female. I bet most women would scoff at the idea of having their clitoris removed. The real issue here is choice and the fact that there is no, NO scientific proof that circumcision is beneficial in any way and all it does is desensitize the penis. Males lose about 35 to 40% of sensitivity when circumcised, all based on religious mumbo jumbo and a perpetuated lie that circumcision makes the penis more hygienic and safer.

By Robert | 15 September 2011 6:40 PM

"tell it to the millions of American men who are circumsized."

What makes you think we're going to side with you? It is a disgusting practice. You wouldn't know because you were never mutilated.

By ThinkAboutIt | 15 September 2011 6:51 PM

There is NO medical benefit to circumcision. The American Academy of Pediatrics has cleared this up many times, but many people (including people responding to this article) fail to realize it. It's senseless and without warrant.

By Shannon Romano | 15 September 2011 6:52 PM

Waste of time. There is barely a problem.
I am circumcised, it was never a problem, why complain?

By Andrew | 15 September 2011 7:05 PM

It is interesting to see that most of the responses to this article are the 2 polar opposites. If you read this article in a more objective way, it isn't banning circumcision: "It is not calling for an outright ban because of fears this would drive the practice underground and lead to more complications." It is saying it is unnecessary & risky. This means that if you still want it, you can CHOOSE (look at that word closely, it giving the parents the freedom to practice their religious beliefs or general aesthetic preference) it. They are suggesting that payment not be covered from general funds, since there are no conclusive studies that suggest circumcision is beneficial or not.

By Balanced View | 15 September 2011 7:22 PM

I find this discussion very interesting, and don't have much personal opinion on the matter. I did a little exploring and found this article well researched and with good citations. Some of you may find it interesting: http://www.pediatricsdigest.mobi/content/118/1/385.full

By PhD Student | 15 September 2011 8:17 PM

well....when I was just 4 years old, my mother took me to hospital for a tonsillectomy. When I woke-up, I had more than just a pain in my throat!
Many years later looking on the positive side: 'touch wood' never any infection from STD. - Thanks mum, or I was just damn lucky?)

(I did have the anesthetic!)

By The visitor | 15 September 2011 8:19 PM

Why is mutilating a baby boy acceptable, yet doing the same to a baby girl is an outrage? BOTH are an outrage.

I doubt your brand of god will take a peep under their shroud, looking for a tip, before deciding if they are good enough to get into your brand of heaven.

Let your sons decide when they 'come of age' if they want a circumcision, zonder anaesthetic. If your religions, or your reasoning, or the factual information you provide them with are strong enough, then they will go through with it. But at least then, they will be using their free will.

By osita | 15 September 2011 8:34 PM

About time. The sooner this barbaric mutilation practice is stopped, the better.

By Zed | 15 September 2011 9:23 PM

Why do we circumcise babies and young children? Because they can't run away or fight back. Everyone has a RIGHT to an intact body. When they are old enough to chose whether or not to follow their parents religion, they can also decide if they would like to amputate healthy functional tissue as an expression of religious faith (or for alleged health benefits). Banning the practice on non-consenting minors is NOT an act of discrimination against religion. HIS BODY, HIS CHOICE.

By Sarah Robinson | 16 September 2011 12:01 AM

I didn't read all the comments however i am uncircumcised and i can only imagine how much sensation a circumcised man loses during sex as a result of no longer having this protective sheath of skin which was given to us by nature.

By Tim | 16 September 2011 12:52 AM

Ask any girl who lives in a culture where they practice female genital mutilation what she thinks of it and she'll tell you the same things people like Andrew say. They'll say it looks better, it's cleaner, no problems, and all the other BS pro-circ people like to go on about. FGM is considered important by some cultures too. Why shouldn't they have the right to practice it without human rights groups getting on their case?

By Alnaksar | 16 September 2011 1:39 AM

Let's ban circumcision of infants but keep it legal for adults. I bet you would see the practice quickly die off.

By Pat | 16 September 2011 2:08 AM

I applaud these doctors, it's about time that a national medical organization stood up for what is right and are speaking out against non-therapeutic, non consensual circumcision.

By Joe | 16 September 2011 3:25 AM

Not one person has left a comment about circumcision of a child >5years of age required for serious medical reasons. This happens rarely but if required is performed without the minor's consent as the parents consent is required.

By Rob | 16 September 2011 5:07 AM

As an uncircumcised (Thank God!) man with four kids, I find it VERY difficult to believe that circumcised men don't suffer a considerable reduction in sensation at the head of their penis. I can assure you that if I tried to walk around all day with my foreskin rolled back I would suffer considerable discomfort. OUCH! Circumcised men must overcome this by developing hardened, less sensitive glans, preferably in infancy, before they know what they're missing. It seems obvious to me that the REAL reason for male circumcision is exactly the same as for female circumcision - to reduce feeling and consequent sexual desire. It's all about control.

By McD | 16 September 2011 6:51 AM

@ Eva,

its not a blow to religious freedoms, a lot of dutch are getting fed up with religious people getting special benefits or exemptions or special laws. Female and male circumcision are still practiced now in the netherlands by certain religious groups. Most dutch consider these specific practices backwards, stupid and sadistic.

By obi | 16 September 2011 7:22 AM

My dad isn't.

My asdult son isn't.

My husband isn't.

None has had physical problems. I don't see the point and never have.

By CW | 16 September 2011 8:12 AM

Yes this old 'my religious rights' is getting as old as 'my human rights', just please all give it a rest, we are fed up hearing about it like. Thank you for your cooperation.

By Simon Taylor | 16 September 2011 9:34 AM

@Rob If a child needs a circumcision for a legitimate medical reason (which is rare anyway) then they would be able to get it like any other medical procedure. It is routine, non-therapeutic, circumcision which the doctors are opposing.

By Joe | 16 September 2011 12:52 PM

Apparently, human rights only belong to females. Just a bit of advice for those of you advocated male genital cutting for 'any' reason, that argument alone makes female genital cutting permissible. For those of you who relate this imposition to a 'violation of your religious beliefs', take a number. I'm sorry that constitutional rights of an individual trump your religious hysteria. You don't 'own' another human beings person. Freedom of religion belongs to EVERYONE, which is why I can't tattoo or maim my child into one of my preference... oh... that is unless I'm Jewish (which I am) or Muslim. Stop being hypocrites and elevating yourselves over society. You are the same rotting organic matter as everything and everyone else. Thank goodness for the Dutch!

By Rachel | 16 September 2011 10:46 PM

Circumcision at birth is another name for mutilation of genitals. Boys have been growing up whole for millennia, and now that we have soap and running water at home, suddenly there is a body part that must be amputated at birth for hygiene purposes. It's bunk. Normal body parts are required for normal function. Cut it off, and it's not normal anymore.
It's stealing a body part by force. How can this be ethical or moral? Let him decide.
stopthecutdotorg

By Stopthecut | 17 September 2011 12:04 AM

As Executive Director of Attorneys for the Rights of the Child (www.arclaw.org), I want to heartily congratulate the Royal Dutch Medical Association for starting a campaign against circumcision of boys. This is a badly needed action and an important step forward for human rights.

By J. Steven Svoboda | 17 September 2011 1:09 AM

This move to protect infants from forced non-therapeutic genital cutting should be welcomed by all who respect basic human rights.

By TLCTugger | 17 September 2011 1:46 AM

@PhD Student: The author of the article you cite, Edgar Schoen, is an outlier of circumcision advocacy, and as Chair of the AAP's taskforce on circumcision, the main reason it ever leant towards recommending circumcising. He thinks it is "the American thing to do". Medical students who hear him speak laugh at him.

By Hugh7 | 17 September 2011 4:43 AM

Go Dutch GO! It takes courage to stand for what is ethical in face of religious zealots and well-funded circumcision enthusiasts! Routine Infant and child circumcisions should all be illegal. It adversely affects males and their female partners. The trauma is immediate and alters brain and sexual function for life. There are no worthwhile benefits to violation of one's bodily integrity. It prevents nothing but a normal sex life. When a procedure evolves, it is necessary for the medical practice to look at what the NEGATIVE impacts are, and circumcision is almost totally negative. I circumcised babies during training (not since) and was profoundly appalled by this obviously sadistic American custom. My kids are all intact and loving it.

By Marcella | 17 September 2011 3:49 PM

The KNMG position is admirable. The Global Survey of Circumcision Harm [www.circumcisionharm.org], launched in June 2011, already has over 600 responses from men who know they were harmed by this genital cutting they did not choose. The KNMG stand is a positive movement toward the growing recognition that "choice" is a good thing, but that choice is currently usurped by parents. Human rights and medical ethics demand that the choice be properly reserved for the person to whom the genitals belong and who ultimately must live with the consequences.

By Survey Programmer | 18 September 2011 4:23 PM

Thank you for your courageous stand against this unnecessary, dangerous, and mutilating practice. We in the U. S. are blind when it comes to the obvious harm of circumcision. The comments here so far show how blind the circumcised can be, whether they be Americans, Africans, Mexicans, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or otherwise. Who has a right to remove normal, protective, sexually responsive tissue from the penis of an un-consenting minor for "aesthetic reasons," or in the hope of lessening venereal disease,which, after all is acquired by voluntary sexual activity with an infected partner (unless one is raped)? The ethical answer is "no one." It is high time that other medical societies stood behind KNMG and declare "enough!"

By Dave2Ga | 18 September 2011 5:47 PM

I am so proud that a medical organization is finally standing up and exposing ritual circumcision for what it really is--a pointless, harmful, unethical procedure.
The only reason we accept circumcision is that it is a "tradition", even though it violates legal and human rights.
However, I think it is important to full ban the procedure, or at least ban it from being done in hospitals or other government-run health facilities. It is hypocritical to say it is unethical but then still have doctors performing it in these contexts.

By MrBBQ | 18 September 2011 9:28 PM

It is hypocritical for doctors to say this is unethical but then not ban it in hospitals or government-run facilities.

By MrBBQ_ | 18 September 2011 9:30 PM

I am an American from the US and I think this beastly practice is an affront to all men. If you are happy with the parts someone else decided you could keep; good. But for me and thousands like me, we simply would have preferred to have been asked. Is that too much to ask for from a profession that takes an oath to do not harm. A profession that values earlobes more than the foreskin? I say it is about time the "civilized world" said NO, men have the same rights to an intact body as girls.

What adult men choose to enhance or diminish themselves is up to them. But doing this to a child diminishes us all.

By Hanabi | 19 September 2011 2:45 AM

Jason is a moron. If you don't want it don't do it??? Are you serious? Who's asking the newborn babies if they wanted it?? that is the point. It's no one's right to make this decision for someone else. children are not PROPERTY. They are human beings and they have a right to bodily integrity. I'm getting pretty tired of all the ridiculous cries of "anti-semitism." Wanting to protect children from barbarism is normal--having genital mutilation as the most sacred cornerstone of your religion might bear looking at... And I certainly hope you people who think circumcision is so terribly sacred are practicing ALL the tenets of your stupid religion.
Circumcised does not look better. They are scarred.

By Valkyrie | 7 October 2011 9:18 PM

The amputation of a male child's nerve enriched prepuce is a penile reduction surgical procedure that unfortunately still infects several cultures including the USA’s so-called “equal rights” society. Not only is the circumcision of male infants and young boys considered a human rights violation by many, it's a men's health issue and perpetuates an irrational belief that all little boys are somehow born imperfect or faulty requiring surgical correction of their penises upon birth !
BOTTOM LINE: HIS PENIS, ONLY HIS CHOICE!
Men (and women) who are allowed as children to keep their whole, intact, normal genitalia, DON’T choose to amputate parts as adults! Thank you KNMG for protecting ALL children’s genitals from unnecessary amputations.

By Devin | 12 October 2011 5:13 AM

The best comment is the one claiming to be a sexual stallion because he is less sensitive thanks to circumcision. LOL. Maybe if you were uncircumcised you would enjoy it as much as others do.

By Pacs | 12 October 2011 1:33 PM

The California Medical Association, recently wrote the following statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee: ”From political to religious, there are many differing views on the practice of male circumcision. However, in the medical world, the CMA has long endorsed the concept of newborn circumcision as an effective public health measure.” And a 201o statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics declares that while it does not necessarily recommend routine neonatal circumcision, various trials since 2005 show that “circumcision decreases human immunodeficiency virus acquisition by 53% to 60%, herpes simplex virus type 2 acquisition by 28% to 34%, and human papillomavirus prevalence by 32% to 35 % in men. Among female partners of circumcised men, bacterial vaginosis was reduced by 40%, and trichomonas vaginalis infection was reduced by 48%.” The policy of the AAP therefore indicates a strong awareness of “evidence of long-term health benefits of male circumcision.”

By MXB | 13 October 2011 3:02 PM

Furthermore: Meantime, Holland’s wise doctors have yet to issue any formal statement about the far more serious problem of the country’s enormous infant mortality rate (among the worst in Western Europe) and high breast cancer fatality rate (the fourth highest in Europe, and rising).

By MXB | 13 October 2011 3:03 PM

@ PhysicsMan ... I believe Vincent Van Gogh cut his own ear off. That is about the extent to which I follow your thoughts from 15.Sep.2011.

By BizaaroNL | 13 October 2011 6:54 PM

It is good to hear that KNMG is speaking out against this horrible practice. Parents have no right amputating a healthy and functional part of their child's body. After all it is not their penis. The procedure is just to risky and there is no benefit. Additionally circumcision results in a reduction in sexual pleasure. Parents have no right to decide how their children will preform sexually. While the KNMG does not recommend a ban of male circumcision, a ban is most certainly warranted. Moments like this makes me proud to be Dutch!

By Mike | 14 October 2011 12:23 AM

Future generations will judge us in moments like these on how well we protect the most fragile people (in this case boys, especially infants) of society. All humans have the right to their body. Our body is the only thing that we are guaranteed to have throughout our lifetime. Practices such as circumcision put the security of our body at risk. When security of the body is at risk, none of our rights are safe. Kudos to KNMG for taking a stand!

By Mark | 14 October 2011 12:34 AM

"enormous infant mortality rate"? Aren't you a little bit exxagerating, MXB? The infant mortality rate is about the same here as in Belgium, Luxemburg, Portugal, the UK and Ireland.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_inf_mor_rat-health-infant-mortality-rate

http://www.indexmundi.com/map/?v=29&r=eu&l=en

By pepe | 14 October 2011 10:00 AM

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Newsletter| RSS| Advertising| Business services| Mobile| Friends| Privacy| Contact| About us| Tell a Friend
Apartments for rent Rondvaart - Amsterdam