German Court Ruling Roils Muslims and Jews

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright July 12, 2012
All Rights Reserved.                                         

                Throwing the Jewish and Muslim communities for a loop, the regional court in Cologne banned June 27 circumcision until children were legally able to give consent.  Cologne’s magistrate ruled that the “fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity outweighed the fundamental rights of the parents,” sending Jews and Muslims back to court for injunctive relief.  While the regional court ruling only applies to the Cologne area, the court’s logic violates parental rights with respect to medical-decision-making before a child turns legal age.  Ruling that circumcision “irreparably and permanently” changes a boy’s anatomy, the court protected children’s rights over religious groups that have practiced circumcision for centuries, if not millennia   Evidence of circumcision dates back to ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics and was well-documented in ancient Mesopotamia.

            Performed routinely in the Jewish and Muslim communities, circumcision has been the subject of considerable medical debate.  Sponsored by the World Health Organization, a Cochrane Foundation meta-analysis of 28,000 subjects in sub-Saharan Africa showed that circumcision reduced HIV transmission by 38%-66%.  Whatever the alleged medical benefits, the German Court ruled to protect innocent children.  “The religious freedom of the parents and their right to educate their child would not be unacceptably compromised, if they were obliged to wait until the child could himself decide to be circumcised,” read the Court ruling.  Whether the Court purports to defend children’s rights or not, the logic reflects egregious bias, suggesting that children of any age could eventually give consent.  Apart from aesthetic reasons, few children—or adults—would consent to circumcision.

            Jewish and Muslim groups reacted with outrage to the Court’s ruling, citing long-term traditions for the ancient practice.  Calling the ruling “unprecedented and dramatic interference in the right of religious communities to self-determination,” Germany’s Head of the Central Council of Jews Dr. Dieter Graumann blasted the Court’s decision as an “inappropriate and insensitive act,” raising real questions about the role of Church and state.  Like other medical procedures for newborns and children, parental rights are always at the heart of medical consent.  When parents consent to routine childhood vaccinations, they sign off liability on any adverse side effects, including any childhood mishaps.  While it’s true that vaccines don’t alter the human anatomy, they could have lasting developmental consequences, regardless of medical or drug company objections or disputes.

            Parents are often called on to make medical decisions for innocent children incapable of medical decision-making.  Parents and doctors must consent to tonsillectomies that forever change the child’s anatomy.  While different from circumcision, any type of surgery gives physicians the right to operate on underage children.  Suggesting that children can at some future time make more informed medical decisions fails to heed the voluntary nature of cosmetic procedures like circumcision.  WHO estimates that about 76%-92% of male newborns get circumcised in the United States, reflecting a popular trend.  Suggesting the circumcision reduces the incidence of urinary tract infections, penile cancer and sexually transmitted diseases, the National Institutes of Health sees more positives than negatives.  Germany’s court ruling stemmed from a botched circumcision case.

            When a four-year-old Muslim boy was rushed to the emergency room with copious bleeding following a botched circumcision, the Court acquitted the doctor of any criminal negligence.  When the doctor’s acquittal was appealed, the Cologne court decided to protect future children against possible bodily injury.  While the Court appeared sincere, the circumcision controversy has zealots, much like the abortion issue.  “What should be given more weight—religious freedom or the right of children not to have their genitals mutilated,” said Holm Putzke, professor of criminal law at Germany’s University of Passau.  Putzke’s incendiary rhetoric exposes the anti-circumcision fever that influenced the judge’s decision.  Whether Putzke admits it or not, circumcision doesn’t mutilate the penis, it enhances its appearance, at least by contemporary standards mirrored in today’s media.

            Germany’s regional court has every right to protect children from incompetent medical or non-medical practitioners.  Medical malpractice must be dealt with responsibility by assigning appropriate blame, assessing damages and preventing future incidents. What Cologne’s court did was “throw the baby out with the bathwater.”  Parents, not preverbal children, have a right to decide safe medical procedures with the consent of qualified medical practitioners.  If the court wishes to ban non-medical practitioners from performing circumcision, they’d have a more coherent argument.  “After the knee-jerk outrage has faded away, hopefully a discussion will begin about how much religiously motivated violence against children a society is ready to tolerate,” said Putzke, exposing the political nature of the Court’s decision.  No court should allow political zealotry to influence its rulings.

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news.  He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com.and author of Dodging the Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2012 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.