Search

Copyright of Die Urologie is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper considers Habermas' model of a post‐secular political order in the light of the debate on male circumcision that arose in Germany after a court ruled that male circumcision was an unjustifiable act of bodily harm. Central to this model is the idea that religious reasons can only become effective in central legal institutions when they are translated into secular reasons. My paper demonstrates that there are two distinguishable readings of this proviso. On the one hand, there is a broad reading according to which it is only necessary to reach a conclusion that is in line with the democratic principle stating that all citizens can be regarded as co‐legislators even if non‐generalizable value orientations might then shape the interpretation of fundamental rights (in the case of circumcision, the right to bodily integrity). On the other hand, a truly secular (narrow) reading would avoid the inclusion of non‐generalizable value orientations. The debate on circumcision demonstrates that these two interpretations lead to different and conflicting modes of justification. The broad reading allows for a justification of male circumcision, whereas the narrow reading makes such a justification unlikely. In addition, the filtering function of the proviso is weakened in a broad reading. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article aims to illuminate the recent debate in Germany about the legitimacy of circumcision for religious reasons. The aim is both to evaluate the new German law allowing religious circumcision, and to outline the resulting conflict between the surrounding ethical and legal issues. We first elucidate the diversity of legal and medical views on religious circumcision in Germany. Next we examine to what extent invasive and irreversible physical interventions on infant boys unable to given their consent should be carried out for non-medical reasons. To this end, the potential benefits and harms of circumcision for non-medical reasons are compared. We argue that circumcision does not provide any benefits for the 'child as a child' and poses only risks to boys. We then set out to clarify and analyse political (rather than ethical) justifications of the new circumcision law. We demonstrate through this analysis how the circumcision debate in Germany has been transformed from a legal and ethical problem into a political issue, due at least in part to Germany's unique historical context. Although such a particular political sensibility is entirely comprehensible, it raises particular problems when it comes to framing and responding to medical ethical issues - as in the case of religious circumcision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author discusses ritual male circumcision within the context of the criminal law in light of historical developments including recent judgments and subsequent legislation in Sweden and Germany. While currently legal, he argues that circumcision should be criminalized in order to protect the physical integrity of the child. He is, however, not optimistic in regard to the chances of passing such a measure in the Danish parliament. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses proposed legislation to amend the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (Civil Code, BGB) of Germany concerning parental rights and parental consent for male circumcision in infants and young boys for religious reasons. The author outlines the legal uncertainties that surrounded such procedures if they were not medically necessary until a decision by the Landgericht (District Court) of Cologne, Germany, on May 7, 2012, which effectively outlawed male circumcision for religious reasons and caused protest particularly from Jewish and Muslim communities in the country. The relationship between the proposed changes in civil law and extant criminal law is considered, as are the consequences of the amendment for child welfare legislation.

The article reports that Conservative Member of Parliament (MP) Peter Bottomley called for the health select committee to conduct an inquiry of safety concerns; the Department of Transport reported a 3 percent increase in the number of people killed in road accidents in 2011; and a court in Cologne, Germany, outlawed circumcision of minors for religious reasons.