Circumcision kills 2 YO, injures twin

[Maxbreak]

I've never been too sure why boys et cut. I've found this recent story where a 2 YO blead to death during the op, and his twin injured

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46671457

This was as much done illegally as the story says that about 1 in 3 of them are. To me it seems that it's almost done for cosmetic reasons. And like plastic surgery in general, should only be done if really needed.

Is it really needed? For those done young does it bother you. If you are thinking of it for cosmetic reasons, does this put you off?

[JQL---]

I'm not sure this is puberty related

[ska8er]

Tho there r exceptions I don't think many
circumcisions r done illegally to new babies
and not for cosmetic reasons. Unless there
r medical reasons later on circumcisions may
have to b done. I don't agree it being done for
cosmetic reasons cause of the chance of trauma.

[ATX1]

At some point Europe will have to come to a realization regarding male circumcision. Among ethnic Europeans circumcision is uncommon but among the immigrant groups arriving in Europe, circumcision is very common. Seeing as almost all migrants coming to Europe are from places where circumcision is very common( Africa and the Middle East) Europe will have to understand that circumcision rates will increase drastically in the decades to come. Since the healthcare systems in Europe don't provide circumcision unless it is medically necessary, many immigrants have to use people who are not medically certified in order to get the procedure done. The only viable solution is for European healthcare systems to provide circumcision for cultural and religious reasons.
If Europe does not allow these circumcisions to take place parents will continue to use unsafe options and children will continue to be injured or die.

[Hermes]

At some point Europe will have to come to a realization regarding male circumcision. Among ethnic Europeans circumcision is uncommon but among the immigrant groups arriving in Europe, circumcision is very common. Seeing as almost all migrants coming to Europe are from places where circumcision is very common( Africa and the Middle East) Europe will have to understand that circumcision rates will increase drastically in the decades to come. Since the healthcare systems in Europe don't provide circumcision unless it is medically necessary, many immigrants have to use people who are not medically certified in order to get the procedure done. The only viable solution is for European healthcare systems to provide circumcision for cultural and religious reasons.
If Europe does not allow these circumcisions to take place parents will continue to use unsafe options and children will continue to be injured or die.

It is absurd to try to shift the blame for a parent choosing to use a back-street practicioner onto the healthcare system. The blame for such a poor choice remains firmly with the parent.

Speaking of the UK, which is the system I know, it is right that the NHS which provides routine and emergency healthcare does not provide routine circumcision but only performs it when it is medically necessary. This is also how it should be because, even before considering if neonatal circumcision is ethical, the NHS is funded by taxpayers. It would be wrong to demand that taxpayers pay for other people to have cosmetic surgery.

Circumcision is not banned, though, and the NHS is supplemented by private practice. This is how women are able to get boob jobs because the NHS, generally, doesn't pay for those either.

So an immigrant to the UK who has a child, and for whom circumcision is a usual ritual, has a choice. He or she can chose:

1. To make a break with tradition and not circumcise.
2. To pay a private but qualified surgeon to carry out the operation in a proper hospital with the usual backup.
3. To have someone unqualified carry out the operation.

If they should choose number three that is their choice and theirs alone.

[Diable rouge]

It is absurd to try to shift the blame for a parent choosing to use a back-street practicioner onto the healthcare system. The blame for such a poor choice remains firmly with the parent.

Speaking of the UK, which is the system I know, it is right that the NHS which provides routine and emergency healthcare does not provide routine circumcision but only performs it when it is medically necessary. This is also how it should be because, even before considering if neonatal circumcision is ethical, the NHS is funded by taxpayers. It would be wrong to demand that taxpayers pay for other people to have cosmetic surgery.

Circumcision is not banned, though, and the NHS is supplemented by private practice. This is how women are able to get boob jobs because the NHS, generally, doesn't pay for those either.

So an immigrant to the UK who has a child, and for whom circumcision is a usual ritual, has a choice. He or she can chose:

1. To make a break with tradition and not circumcise.
2. To pay a private but qualified surgeon to carry out the operation in a proper hospital with the usual backup.
3. To have someone unqualified carry out the operation.

If they should choose number three that is their choice and theirs alone.

I agree.

Choosing 3"number three" should be severely punished, if it came to be known.

Circumcision should also be banished on children if it is not made for medical reasons. Only adults should get circumsised if, and only if, they want to (unless medical reason, again).