. Both supporters and critics of non - medical practice long discussion on television and the editorial page , offered medical and ethical arguments . The main question remains : how to reconcile freedom of religion and the right of parents to choose how to raise a child on the one hand , with the welfare of the children on the other side .
A law intended to answer that question . 1631d paragraphs from the book of civil law states that circumcision is legal and the boy should be done as per the rules of the medical profession ' - as safe as possible and with effective pain relievers . Parents should be informed of the risk of the procedure , should not jeopardize the well-being of the child , and request that the child is old enough to be considered . Representatives from the Muslim and Jewish communities in Germany said he was satisfied with the terms specified .
How well it is ' normal ' ?
Minister of Justice at that time , Sabine Leutheusser - Schnarrenberger , who filed the legislation , said the new rules replace what is referred to as the status quo before the court ruling Köln .
But a year after effect, this law failed miserably - at least according to the critics , who say circumcision is a violation of the physical integrity of the child . They added , boys do not often pass through a safe procedure .
" Rules legalize child foreskin amputation way questionable , " said Christian Bahls , chairman of the association Mogis , who campaigned for the physical integrity of the child .
Unhygienic procedures
Bahls refers to a case in Berlin that launched the Jewish method , Metzitzah B'Peh - where pengkhitan suck circumcision wound using a mouth , and not a small dropper or tube . Because the risk of infection , the Association of Children's Outpatient Israel ( IAPA ) , as well as other associations , have banned the practice.
Mogis demanded the baby boy 's father , a rabbi , as well as his grandfather, who was holding the baby while the circumcision . But the case can not be canceled because there is evidence of a crime, and the pengkhitan living outside Germany that are outside the jurisdiction .
Bahls assess this incident as evidence that the new rules do not protect the welfare of children . He claimed prosecutors dismiss the case on the grounds that the use of anti-pain after circumcision bandage is enough medical terms . "It is clear that amputating foreskin of a child without adequate anesthesia was permitted , " said Bahls . " It is permitted by law . "
Wolfgang Gahr , secretary general medical academy for children and adolescents ( DAKJ ) , also heard reports of circumcision launched in less hygienic conditions and without anesthetic . "These individual cases , " he said . " We do not have the exact figure . " DAKJ against non - medical circumcision in general , but if it is inevitable , " at least should take place under medical supervision and free of pain . "
However, both these conditions are not clearly defined by law , which states that children under the age of 6 months can be circumcised by a person appointed by the religious community - in other words , a pengkhitan , which is often not a doctor . This means he is not eligible to give anesthesia , says Gahr .
obligations ignored
Ministry of Justice , on the other hand , citing what it claimed as evidence that laws protecting the welfare of children - for example, the decision by the German Supreme Court in September of 2013, which prohibits a Kenyan woman to circumcise his son who was 6 years old because neither the parents nor the doctors have not been consulted with the children , and because the parents do not understand well the procedure will be skipped .
German Constitutional Court must also enforce the rules , when a man demands after circumcision cast by someone who has never passed his medical training , in 1991 , when he was 6 years old . The judge dissolved the case because when the new rule is not applicable . In other words , the court avoids the application of the new rule itself.
0 komentar:
Post a Comment