To cut, or not to cut.

[nerdanel]

Yes, agreed. I really am having a hard time understanding what this decision means without seeing the original text *and* understanding the German constitutional context. BUT, FWIW, the US and UK media have both reported it as having precedential effect and placing German doctors on notice that circumcision of minors is forbidden generally. Of course, as CNN (and to a lesser extent, Fox) showed us spectacularly with the healthcare bill, our media at least is capable of misreading and misreporting our own American decisions, so their interpretation of German decisions may be even less accurate.

[Túrin Turambar]

Here's a longer article on the BBC

It states that doctors in Germany have been advised to stop performing circumcisions without medical necessity for fear of being prosecuted. It also states that the German media and public, on the whole, favour the ban.

The judgement is apparently that circumcision without necessity is a) assault (which has some precedence - operating on someone without their consent without the defence of medical necessity is an assault in my home State of Queensland) and b) conflicts with the child's right to freedom of religion. I'm kind of on the fence on this issue, but I do have to say that I find both those arguments persuasive.

At any rate, the law is currently awaiting further clarity.

[nerdanel]

One thing the article made me wonder about: I wonder if they have declaratory judgment lawsuits in Germany, such that a physician who would be disposed to perform circumcisions were it not for this ruling could bring suit to clarify the status of the law before a higher court. The current legal limbo, in which a lower court has delivered an effectively non-appealable ruling, seems to help no one and leaves the state of the law unsettled.

[axordil]

conflicts with the child's right to freedom of religion

This isn't going anywhere good.

[nerdanel]

This week in circumcision:

- The American Academy of Pediatrics has shifted its stance on infant male circumcision to reflect Africa-based studies that suggest that circumcision may protect heterosexual men against HIV, reducing the rate of infection from a female partner from 60 percent to 40 percent (the evidence is that it does not protect homosexual men against HIV). One of the doctors involved with the study notes that the rate of infection reduction should be lower in the US because F-->M transmission is not responsible for new cases of HIV to the same extent as it is in Africa. The academy states that the decision to circumcise remains a family matter and is not recommending routine circumcision for all boys, but recommends that insurers cover circumcision (some Medicaid coverage currently excludes circumcision). The CDC declined to comment.

- The academy noted, but apparently discounted in its recommendation, the two studies which found that circumcision could increase the risk of HIV transmission in sexually active men and women. Other studies link male circumcision to lower rates of HPV, Type 2 herpes, early stage UTIs, and penile cancer, but it does not seem to protect against gonorrhea, chlamydia, and syphilis.

- Over the opposition of the German Professional Association of Pediatricians, a German government ethics committee overruled the lower court decision that found that circumcision was illegal "grievous bodily harm." This procedure makes me wonder about separation of powers issues in Germany; I had expected that a higher court would be the one to review the lower court decision.

- An Austrian provincial official has directed state-run hospitals in his or her region to stop performing circumcision.

- Denmark has commissioned a report to investigate whether medical doctors are present during religious circumcision rituals, as required.

[Alatar]

Interesting article on this subject!

http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/02/ ... -foreskin/