Fellow Traveler
01-05-2010, 10:41
Ok, so it seems I have time to start a new thread based on some interesting news out of Scandinavia a sane part of the globe where circumcision is concerned.
From Finland we have (http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Legislation+on+circumcision+stalled/1135256085478) in the medical community:
"None of Finland’s university hospitals perform circumcisions for non-medical reasons, and the willingness of private doctors to do the procedure has declined."
"The Finnish Medical Association feels that no law authorising circumcisions should be passed, and that public health care should not be obliged to perform the procedures."
and
"This view is echoed by Harry Lindahl (http://www.hs.fi/haku/?haku=Harry+Lindahl), thinks that non-medical circumcisions for underage boys should be illegal."
It should also be noted that the Supreme court recently ruled (unfortunately) that a mother that circumcised her son (for subjective reasons) couldn't be arrested. This opinion probably went against the opinion of their local doctors but the government doesn't want to rock the religious boat. I know the law as written in Finland is vague on gender, why shouldn't it be?
And from Sweden we have this (http://www.thelocal.se/26350/20100429/). Where the Sweedish government officials believe they should accommodate subjective circumcision but there are no doctors willing to participate. Paediatric surgeon John Westfelt said, "[I] can see no possibility for doctors within the public healthcare system to perform the operations."
So should there be public accommodation for a procedure that doctors are not willing to perform due to its lack of necessity?
Don't you find it interesting how clear the issue is when circumcision wasn't ever a part of the culture?
It really demonstrates what a pernicious practice it is.
From Finland we have (http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Legislation+on+circumcision+stalled/1135256085478) in the medical community:
"None of Finland’s university hospitals perform circumcisions for non-medical reasons, and the willingness of private doctors to do the procedure has declined."
"The Finnish Medical Association feels that no law authorising circumcisions should be passed, and that public health care should not be obliged to perform the procedures."
and
"This view is echoed by Harry Lindahl (http://www.hs.fi/haku/?haku=Harry+Lindahl), thinks that non-medical circumcisions for underage boys should be illegal."
It should also be noted that the Supreme court recently ruled (unfortunately) that a mother that circumcised her son (for subjective reasons) couldn't be arrested. This opinion probably went against the opinion of their local doctors but the government doesn't want to rock the religious boat. I know the law as written in Finland is vague on gender, why shouldn't it be?
And from Sweden we have this (http://www.thelocal.se/26350/20100429/). Where the Sweedish government officials believe they should accommodate subjective circumcision but there are no doctors willing to participate. Paediatric surgeon John Westfelt said, "[I] can see no possibility for doctors within the public healthcare system to perform the operations."
So should there be public accommodation for a procedure that doctors are not willing to perform due to its lack of necessity?
Don't you find it interesting how clear the issue is when circumcision wasn't ever a part of the culture?
It really demonstrates what a pernicious practice it is.