German Court: Religious Circumcision of Kids is a Crime

The decision sets a precedent, which may affect medical practice across the country.

(MOSCOW RTV) - A German court has ruled that parents can’t have their sons circumcised on religious grounds in a move which has angered Muslim and Jewish groups in the country.

The court in Cologne decided that a legal guardian’s authority over a child does not allow them to subject them to the procedure, which the court called minor bodily harm, reports The Financial Times Deutschland.

Neither does religious freedom, which is protected by law in Germany, give grounds for such decisions to be taken for the children, the ruling says.

The court was considering a case against a Muslim doctor, who performed circumcision on a four-year-old boy at his parents’ request. Two days after the procedure bleeding started, after which the boy had to be taken to hospital.

German authorities learned about the incident and launched a criminal investigation against the doctor. The initial court trial ruled that there was no violation of the law, but the prosecutor’s office took the case to the Cologne district court.

The decision sets a precedent, which may affect medical practice across the country.

The possible ban on circumcision provoked outrage among Jewish and Muslim organizations in Germany, where every year thousands of boys are circumcised in their early years at the request of parents. They regard the ban as a "serious interference in the right to freedom of religion." But none of the organizations so far has commented on the verdict, explaining they first need to study thoroughly the reasoning of the judges.

Some experts however don’t rule out that the right for religiously motivated circumcision will be considered by the Federal Constitutional Court.

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Isaiah July 18, 2012 11:34 am (Pacific time)

What do you say in response to these medacil organizations statements against infant male circumcision? 2004 College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, Infant Male Circumcision: “Current understanding of the benefits, risks and potential harm of this procedure no longer supports this practice for prophylactic health benefit. Routine infant male circumcision performed on a healthy infant is now considered a non-therapeutic and medacilly unnecessary intervention.”2003 British Medical Association, The Law and Ethics of Male Circumcision: Guidance for Doctors: “The medacil benefits previously claimed have not been convincingly proven… The British Medical Association considers that the evidence concerning health benefits from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it.”2002 Royal Australian College of Physicians, Policy Statement on Circumcision:“There is no medacil indication for routine male circumcision.”2002 American Academy of Family Physicians, Position Paper on Neonatal Circumcision: “Evidence from the literature is often conflicting or inconclusive… A physician performing a procedure for other than medacil reasons on a nonconsenting patient raises ethical concerns.”2000 American Medical Association (AMA), Report 10 of the Council on Scientific Affairs: “Virtually all current policy statements from specialty societies and medacil organizations do not recommend routine infant circumcision…The AMA supports the general principles of the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics.” 1999 American Academy of Pediatrics, Circumcision Policy Statement: “Existing scientific evidence … [is] not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.”1996 Canadian Paediatric Society, Neonatal Circumcision Revisited: “Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed.”1996 Australian Medical Association, Circumcision Deterred: “The Australian College of Paediatrics should continue to discourage the practice of circumcision in newborns.”1996 British Medical Association, Circumcision of Male Infants: Guidance for Doctors: “To circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medacil research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate.”1996 Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons, Guidelines for Circumcision: “The Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons does not support the routine circumcision of male neonates, infants, or children in Australia. It is considered to be inappropriate and unnecessary as a routine to remove the prepuce [foreskin], based on the current evidence available… We do not support the removal of a normal part of the body, unless there are definite indications to justify the complications and risks which may arise. In particular, we are opposed to male children being subjected to a procedure, which had they been old enough to consider the advantages and disadvantages, may well have opted to reject the operation and retain their prepuce.”

gp June 27, 2012 1:20 pm (Pacific time)

"but his father is circumcised"...give me strength!

Sue June 26, 2012 11:38 pm (Pacific time)

A small blow for a very basic human right.... not to have parts of your body amputated without your consent. What right is more OBVIOUS than that ?

[Return to Top]