IMPORTANT: EUROPEAN SCIENTIFIC STUDIES THAT ARE CRITICAL OF CIRCUMCISION

(000228.79-:E-000157.73:N-:R-SU:C-30:V)   

[Europeans have looked into this matter and they find very little actual reason for circumcision. Jan]

There are many scientific and ethical studies in Europe that are critical of routine or non-medical infant circumcision, especially when performed without the individual’s consent. These critiques tend to focus on medical necessity, human rights, and bodily autonomy, rather than religious practices.

Here are some of the most notable European-based studies, reviews, and institutional positions against or critical of circumcision:

1. The Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) – Netherlands (2010)
   Issued a formal position stating that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children’s rights.

They argue that it carries risks of complications and lacks compelling medical benefits when done preventively.

Quote: “Circumcision of male minors without a medical indication is an infringement of the child’s physical integrity.”

1. The Nordic Ombudsmen for Children and Pediatric Associations (2013 Joint Statement)
   Representatives from Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland, and Denmark recommended postponing non-medical circumcision until the child is old enough to give informed consent.

The statement emphasized human rights and bodily integrity.

It did not call for a ban, but highlighted that the practice “conflicts with the rights of the child.”

1. German Ethics Council (Deutscher Ethikrat)
   After a 2012 court ruling in Cologne declared circumcision a form of bodily harm, a national debate ensued.

The Ethics Council ultimately supported a regulated allowance for religious circumcision but emphasized parental responsibility, medical standards, and child welfare.

However, some German bioethicists and medical experts strongly opposed non-consensual circumcision.

1. British Medical Journal (BMJ) and BMA Publications
   Numerous articles and letters have appeared in the BMJ, expressing skepticism about the medical benefits of infant circumcision.

The British Medical Association (BMA) has said it is “rarely clinically indicated” and emphasized that doctors must consider the child’s best interests.

1. European Academics and Bioethicists
   Scholars like Brian D. Earp (Oxford and Yale) and Anders Sandberg have published extensively on the ethical and psychological aspects of circumcision.

Earp argues that non-therapeutic circumcision violates bodily autonomy, and any irreversible procedure on a child should require a clear, urgent medical need.

1. European Court of Human Rights
   Although no ruling has directly banned circumcision, the Court has historically upheld strong protections for bodily integrity and child rights, which scholars say could be extended to challenge non-medical circumcision if brought before it.

Summary of Core Concerns:
Lack of medical necessity for healthy infants.

Complications: bleeding, infection, and in rare cases, permanent damage.

Informed consent cannot be given by infants.

The procedure is seen by some as a human rights issue, not just a medical one.