BRITAIN”S CHIEF Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, delivered a swingeing attack on a German court that demanded the banning of ritual circumcision – just weeks after it was reported that another infant in the UK had died after he was mutilated by a rabbi.
Sacks, on his blog, wrote:
It [the Cologne court] has declared that circumcision is an assault on the rights of the child since it is performed without his consent. It ignored the fact that if this is true, teaching children to speak German, sending them to school and vaccinating...............
The German court has ruled, but male circumcision should be addressed, in my view, from two perspective. The first concerns whether the procedure has any health benefit. It's been reported recently that male circumcision could reduce the transmission rated of the HIV virus, since it is believed the removal of the sac eliminates the source of habitation for the virus. If the research is deemed conclusive, then it could be continued. It should be pointed out that such surgery should be done by qualified medical officers and not religious leaders who do not have the requisite experience. On the other hand, if it is done for purely religious reasons, with no health benefit, then it should be discouraged and discontinued, since infants have no capacity to consent to the surgery. I would end by saying that such a potentially life threatening procedure should not be handled by religious leaders or officials whose motivation is purely emotional and not scientific.