Circumcision is grievous bodily harm, German judges rule

[reorg]

191. sorry if I didn't make myself clear enough

You were claiming in an earlier post that First Amendment rights ensure that parents have the right to decide on circumcising their children.

I tried to picture myself, as a non-religious person, in a comparable situation, taking matters of opinion and conviction into the realm of the physical.


So you agree that a bleeding wound, cutting through and irreversibly removing considerable amounts of skin, with permanently visible consequences, may constitute grievous bodily harm? Would you agree that inflicting such wounds on somebody else, no matter how righteous your intentions may be which you expressed by inflicting these wounds, is surely illegal?

And if I did something like that to my son in order to displine him, wouldn't that be a bit over the top, even in the US?

I have learned that many states in the US still allow corporal punishment in schools and at home, but cutting through skin, causing irreversable and clearly visible disfigurement? Surely, there must be a law against parental abuse of this kind?

As I mentioned in another post, in Germany it is expressly forbidden and against the law to use violence of any kind against your children (BGB § 1631). It is a recent change, from 2000, when the legislative implemented the Convention on the Rights of the Child into the German civil code (BGB), namely

Art. 19, Paragraph 1:

States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse ...

In the current discussion, another article of the Convention on the Rights of the Child is frequently mentioned:

Art. 24, Paragraph 3:

States Parties shall take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children.


You can find more on the legal argument around this case in this article, which started the discussion in German professional journals a few years ago. It was written by a young law professor and two pediatricians (apparently it is only available in German).

Liability to penalty for circumcision in boys. Medico-legal aspects of a controversial medical intervention
H. Putzke · M. Stehr · H.-G. Dietz
Abstract

Surgeons and urologists (usually pediatric) are often confronted with the request to perform circumcision on a boy from parents or guardians in the absence of a medical indication. This review highlights the importance of refraining from such procedures to avoid being the possible addressee of a civil law claim or even being accused in a lawsuit a some later point. The attending physician who performs a circumcision without medical indication on a minor male incurs a penalty according to § 223 para. 1 of the German Criminal Code, even in the case where the parent or guardian of the child has signed the informed consent to that procedure. In the absence of power of approval over the compromised legally protected interest of the child (physical inviolacy), the consent is invalid. The present article discusses not only the current German legal status, but also examines in depth the arguments often put forward to support the legitimacy of male circumcision (treatment of phimosis, disease prevention, religion).

http://www.holm-putzke.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&layout=blog&id=3&Itemid=10