Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

Male Infant circumcision

Re: Male Infant circumcision

Postby shootist » Sun Mar 04, 2018 6:20 pm

Rick Ape wrote:Medical intervention aside, one cannot consent to ABH or worse but the courts have resisted defining ABH in any great detail so whether this is a viable tack is open to debate.


Given that boxers, especially professionals, can legally beat the crap out of each other, risking brain damage or even death, without any great problems with the law, male circumcision seems slight by comparison. Same goes for any hard contact sport, although from what I saw of Olympic Taekwondo events, they could leave aside any protective gear and use special lightweight Gucci handbags without fear of any greater injury that a broken fingernail. As for other sports. I watched a mass fight on TV one time and saw an ice hockey game break out.
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." MLK.
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3828
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Male Infant circumcision

Postby megaman » Sun Mar 04, 2018 6:41 pm

diy wrote:ear rings on babies? very similar


Exactly the same principal and illegal for the exact same reason.
megaman
 
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:55 pm

Re: Male Infant circumcision

Postby diy » Mon Mar 05, 2018 1:55 pm

shootist wrote:
Rick Ape wrote:Medical intervention aside, one cannot consent to ABH or worse but the courts have resisted defining ABH in any great detail so whether this is a viable tack is open to debate.


Given that boxers, especially professionals, can legally beat the crap out of each other, risking brain damage or even death, without any great problems with the law, male circumcision seems slight by comparison. Same goes for any hard contact sport, although from what I saw of Olympic Taekwondo events, they could leave aside any protective gear and use special lightweight Gucci handbags without fear of any greater injury that a broken fingernail. As for other sports. I watched a mass fight on TV one time and saw an ice hockey game break out.


- Volenti non fit iniuria (or injuria) (Latin: "to a willing person, injury is not done") Applies to contact sports..

Note that Taekwondo, Karate etc in their normal form are semi contact sports. The blows are intended to be sufficient to win a point, not obtain a KO.

If hitting the opponent is not the intention, then it cannot be assumed that there is consent. e.g. the Natheniel Kerr case https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... nal-tackle
My suggestions are not legal advice
User avatar
diy
 
Posts: 2726
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:06 pm

Re: Male Infant circumcision

Postby atticus » Mon Mar 05, 2018 3:42 pm

In boxing, duties of care are owed to participants by referees and event organisers. See eg the Michael Watson case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watson_v_ ... of_Control

Similarly for other sports: have you noticed the rugby 'head injury assessments' in the 6 Nations?
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 20679
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Male Infant circumcision

Postby shootist » Mon Mar 05, 2018 5:46 pm

diy wrote:- Volenti non fit iniuria (or injuria) (Latin: "to a willing person, injury is not done") Applies to contact sports..


That is what the sports representatives and the courts seem to accept in the case of boxing and the like. From what I have been told there are cases where sadists have been convicted of assault upon a willing masochist. Whether that is regarded as sport or not is perhaps for another discussion, but to me it smacks of hypocrisy in the worst possible way.

diy wrote:If hitting the opponent is not the intention, then it cannot be assumed that there is consent. e.g. the Natheniel Kerr case https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... nal-tackle


Fine, but it is clear in boxing matches that the intention to knock your opponent unconscious is an acceptable goal. That almost inevitably involves inflicting a degree of brain damage, which in most cases would be regarded as at least a S.47. Games such as football and rugby do not have such intentions, although one rugby match between Ireland and France gave an entirely different impression.

I believe that this debate has been going on for nearly as long as boxing has and I doubt that it will be settled here. I do think the situation shows that the law is as capable of financially expedient hypocrisy as politics.
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." MLK.
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3828
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Male Infant circumcision

Postby shootist » Mon Mar 05, 2018 6:01 pm

atticus wrote:In boxing, duties of care are owed to participants by referees and event organisers.


When a boxer lands a perfect punch on the head of his opponent, causing a displaced retina, concussion, and brain damage, where lies the duty of care then? Somewhere in the past I would suggest.

On a slightly separate track I dislike the protective gear some matches are required to use. I would see such gear prohibited, including boxing gloves. That padding allows the boxers to punch that much harder and to continue to do so for longer. The inevitable effect is deeper damage to the brain, for the sake of keeping the face in better order. More hypocrisy.

Don't misunderstand me. If boxers want to box I will watch and appreciate their skill and bravery, but a bare knuckle fight would be more honest, and probably safer for all concerned, by far.
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." MLK.
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3828
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Male Infant circumcision

Postby megaman » Mon Mar 05, 2018 6:26 pm

dls wrote:I think, Megaman that you proceed on poorly founded assumptions - paricularly: "Clearly this does not apply to circumcision for non medical grounds, evidence of circumcision having benefits is inconsistent and there is no clear evidence that it gives sufficient benefit to justify doing it, no medical organisation in the world recommends it."

Does not seem to be anything like as clear as you suggest. You appear to dismiss non-medical grounds by refereance to those lookig at medical grounds.

As you nearly say, if anyone thought your argument had legs, a case would have been brought.


How can you suggest that my argument does "not have legs"
It seams very clear cut to me.

Multiple laws (mostly statutory so typically more clearly defnined and certain than common laws) which would certainly be breached.
No valid defence
megaman
 
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:55 pm

Re: Male Infant circumcision

Postby dls » Thu Mar 08, 2018 6:42 am

When one of the foundations of your argument ('ever medically recommended) is contradicted, you simply close your eyes and keep going.

There can be medical reasons for circumcision, and the NHS accepts at least that there is evidence of health benefits in the prevention of HIV.

I have very little experience of the topic, but to the very limited extent that it has arisen, those subjected to it welcome it. I have a son and grandsons, and would never consider it, but I can see that the religious significance can, for many people, be adequate justification, socially and in law.

It is minor surgery falling well within the range of matters over which a parent has a right of control.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12529
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: Male Infant circumcision

Postby megaman » Fri Mar 09, 2018 10:14 pm

dls wrote:When one of the foundations of your argument ('ever medically recommended) is contradicted, you simply close your eyes and keep going.

There can be medical reasons for circumcision, and the NHS accepts at least that there is evidence of health benefits in the prevention of HIV.

I have very little experience of the topic, but to the very limited extent that it has arisen, those subjected to it welcome it. I have a son and grandsons, and would never consider it, but I can see that the religious significance can, for many people, be adequate justification, socially and in law.

It is minor surgery falling well within the range of matters over which a parent has a right of control.


My original post was supposed to mean that my comment only applies to cases which are not medically necessary. (ie cases where it is done for religious or culture reasons or even no reason at all)

I recognize that there are cases where it would be medically necessary and therefore lawful.
However even in cases where there is some medical justification for it it would not usually be lawful because there is usually a less invasive means of treating the issue therefore it cannot be said to be "in their best interests"

There are legal academics who agree with my conclusion regarding male circumcision which that what i have said is not without foundation.
http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/price-uklc/#n141

Also a parent does not have a right of control over matters of minor surgery.
You can only perform procedures which are in the child's best interest. I cannot give an exact definition of what this means but it certainly mean a parent cannot insist that an unnecessary procedure is performed merely because it is only "minor surgery"
megaman
 
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:55 pm

Re: Male Infant circumcision

Postby Jinxer » Sat Mar 10, 2018 1:45 am

metzitzah b'peh google that. I think it should be illegal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DdknKq915g
It's ok your children are safe, they're locked away behind barbed wire gates. If you don't comply sir they'll send you another fine sir.
User avatar
Jinxer
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2018 1:52 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Other Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron