Since then there has been a growing movement against the practice of circumcision. New academic research and increased advocacy for tougher regulations have only added fuel to the controversial fire. It’s understandable that key figures in the health and religious communities are now raising serious concerns about the safety and necessity of this age-old procedure.
Professor Faye Ruddock, of the Caribbean and African Health Network, has called for a greater awareness of circumcision practises. It’s crucial to understand the risks that come with them. She stated, “We need measures to ensure people are educated on the risks when they have their baby, but currently this information isn’t readily available in perinatal and neonatal spaces, or community spaces like churches.” This call for education stems from increasing alarm over the dearth of regulatory scrutiny regarding circumcision practices. The response to the unfortunate 2023 death of six-month-old Mohamed Abdisamad from a streptococcus infection has dramatically escalated these concerns.
Gordon Muir, after recently publishing his own important review on circumcision, found there to be no high-quality evidence in favor of its benefits. He argued that circumcision is “unnecessary and will not do any physical good,” expressing that it could lead to avoidable harm and even fatalities in rare cases. Muir’s position is in concert with like-minded activists and advocates who feel that circumcision ought to be seen as a barbaric practice. He stated, “I think it is a form of child abuse and the correct thing to do would be to wait until the child is 16 or more and is able to make a rational decision about it.”
The conviction of Mohammed Alazawi also caused a great amount of alarm to shed light on this issue. He had falsely posed as a doctor and had been convicted of six counts of wounding with intent while performing circumcisions. This case has caused a national outcry over what qualifications are needed to conduct these types of operations.
Jonathan Arkush, then-president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, held his ground, defending the British Jewish community’s circumcision practices. He is the co-chair of Milah UK, a new umbrella organization to promote this vital tradition. He knew that failed circumcision might qualify as abusive. On the flip side, he strongly asserted that the rigorous standards of the Jewish community do protect against any damage. He stated, “The incidence of complications in circumcision performed in the Jewish community is vanishingly rare.” Arkush described circumcision as an “enormously powerful symbolic act of identity,” asserting that he has never met a Jewish man who believed he had been harmed by the procedure.
Rabbi Jonathan Romain doubled down on Arkush’s arguments, explaining that circumcision is deeply cultural and important in the Jewish religion.
Not everyone agrees with this perspective. Alejandro Sanchez, a former NHS doctor, criticized reliance on the criminal justice system to address harm after it has occurred. He stated, “Relying on the criminal justice system only deals with harm after it has happened. The priority now must be to prevent that harm from occurring in the first place.”
The case has led to demands for tighter rules regulating circumcision procedures. A coroner also issued alarming warnings about the lack of oversight following Mohamed Abdisamad’s death. They have called for greater enforcement of stricter guidelines regarding who is truly qualified to conduct these procedures.
Muir’s research and advocacy for regulation resonate deeply with Prof. Ruddock’s calls for safer practices. She noted, “Safeguarding and culturally competent regulation is something that would go a long way. Nobody wants their child to die, but not everyone has the same access to people who are credible.”
The Muslim Council of Britain weighed in on the discussion, declaring that male circumcision is a legal custom in the UK. In it, they emphasized its established medical, religious, and cultural roots. They called for it not to be labeled as child abuse without appropriate context.
As discussions continue, stakeholders from various backgrounds must navigate the complex interplay between cultural beliefs, health risks, and the rights of children.