My role


Nurse charged as baby dies after circumcision

As a nurse is put on trial in Manchester, the debate about circumcision rages once again.

A trial date has been set for Grace Adeleye, 66, of Salford who has been charged with manslaughter after a baby boy died following a circumcision. At a Manchester Crown Court hearing on 18 April, her trial date was set for November 26. She is alleged to have caused the death of Goodluck Caubergs, from Oldham, by gross negligence two years ago.

The tragedy has inevitably shone the spotlight once again on circumcision with organisations such as NORM-UK and The Men's Network in Brighton condemning the practice.

The network's strategic director Glen Poole said: 'in the UK we are still subjecting an estimated 100 boys a day to non-consensual, medically unnecessary circumcision  – with two-thirds of these procedures being carried out for non-religious reasons. While it is illegal to tattoo a boy either with or without his consent, parents do not need their son’s consent to have his foreskin painfully and unnecessarily removed without anaesthetic by non-medical practitioners.'

Circular argument

David Smith of NORM-UK, a charity offering support for men unhappy with circumcision, said: 'This is not the first case of a death following a circumcision.' He believes 'the true rate of deaths from this procedure is masked because of a circular argument.

'The circular argument goes: boys don't die because of circumcision, therefore in the case of a boy dying immediately after being circumcised there must be another cause, probably sudden infant death syndrome, and the preceding circumcision is coincidental.   Thus the possibility of a causal relationship between the circumcision and the death is never recorded, and so this goes on being repeated and the connection is never made.'

What do you think about circumcision?

Page created on April 19th, 2012

Page updated on April 20th, 2012


Infant and child circumcision

Infant and child circumcision is never medically necessary and is a barbaric violation of the child's rights and of the doctor's oath to "first do no harm". There is no reason why circumcision should be the parent's choice-they have no right to authorize medically un-necessary surgery on any other human being, including their child. Religious circumcision carried out on infants and children is also morally wrong and a violation of the child's human and religious rights.

"Circular Argument?"

More like, apriorism.

There is more to the circumcision debate than meets the eye. Remember the history of circumcision, why people perform it, who are its defenders, and who are its opposers.

Circumcision is believed by Jews to be a divine commandment, and they've historically fought to preserve this tradition since Greco-Romanian rule.

Since the Holocaust, any attack on anything even remotely Jewish is always construed as "anti-Semitism." The definition of things that are "Jewish" has, in recent days, become extended to include any action performed by Jews, good or bad, helpful or abusive. We can talk about a number of things that Jews have recently been allowed to get way with under the "anti-Semite" card blackmail, but we will focus on circumcision for the time being.

I speculate that perhaps the biggest reason why governments look the other way when it comes to circumcision and its harms is because they don't want to be labeled "anti-Semite." There is already a history of anti-Semitism in Europe especially, and the UK, doesn't want to go anywhere near the issue. I suspect this is probably the biggest reason why circumcision persists in the US today; there is a loud outspoken group of Jews who are ready to call "anti-Semitism" at any scrutiny of circumcision.

The solution? The "circular argument," or rather, apriorism that we see here.

Circumcision is never to blame.

The child suffered a coincidental heart attack. He was struck by lightning.

Whatever it takes to draw attention away from the fact that the child was alive and well just moments before.

As an example, let's recall the case of Amitai Moshe. According to witnesses, he started turning blue and bleeding at the mouth within 30 minutes of his bris. After a long and painful deliberation, the inquest into the matter determined, after "authorities" stepped in, determined that the child DIDN'T die from his circumcision, but rather of coincidental "natural causes."

Slicing off parts of the genitals of newborns.

So "natural," yes.

It's time to stand up to the anti-Semite card libel and call out male infant circumcision for the forced genital mutilation that it is.

This isn't about anti-Semitism, it's about basic human rights and the safety of children.


nurse charged after fatal male circumcision

if this was a girl there would be a national outcry