Print
See related documents
A. Draft
resolution
(open)
B. Draft
recommendation
(open)
Report | Doc. 13297 | 06 September 2013
Children’s right to physical integrity
Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development
Summary
Despite the committed legislative and policy measures which have been taken by Council of Europe member States to protect children from physical, sexual and mental violence, they continue to be harmed in many different contexts. One category is particularly worrisome, namely violations of the physical integrity of children which supporters tend to present as beneficial to the children themselves despite evidently negative life-long consequences in many cases: female genital mutilation, the circumcision of young boys for religious reasons, medical interventions during the early childhood of intersex children as well as the submission to or coercion of children into piercings, tattoos or plastic surgery.
The Parliamentary Assembly should urge member States to promote further awareness in their societies of the potential risks for children's physical and mental health of the above-mentioned procedures. Member States should take legislative and policy measures that help reinforce child protection in this context by giving primary consideration to the best interest of the child.
A. Draft
resolution 
(open)1. Many legislative and policy measures have been taken
by Council of Europe member States in recent decades to improve
the well-being of children and their protection against any form
of violence. Nevertheless, children continue to be harmed in many
different contexts.
2. The Parliamentary Assembly is particularly worried about a
category of violation of the physical integrity of children, which
supporters of the procedures tend to present as beneficial to the
children themselves despite clear evidence to the contrary. This
includes, amongst others, female genital mutilation, the circumcision
of young boys for religious reasons, early childhood medical interventions
in the case of intersexual children and the submission to or coercion
of children into piercings, tattoos or plastic surgery.
3. According to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of
the Child (UNCRC), in all actions concerning children, comprising
every person under 18, whether undertaken by public or private social
welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities
or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a
primary consideration and States are required to take “all appropriate
... measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or
mental violence, injury or abuse ... while in the care of parent(s),
legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child”
(Article 3).
4. The Council of Europe has been actively promoting children's
rights and child protection since 2006 through its Strategy for
the Rights of the Child, and in which “Eliminating all forms of
violence against children” can be found as one of four strategic
objectives.
5. The Assembly itself has adopted numerous texts drawing attention
to various forms of violence inflicted upon children in bad faith
(sexual violence in different contexts, violence in schools, domestic
violence, etc.). It continues to fight against different forms of
violence inflicted upon children via different promotional activities and
campaigns (domestic violence, sexual violence). However, it has
never looked into the category of non- medically justified violations
of children’s physical integrity which may have a long-lasting impact
on their lives.
6. The Assembly strongly recommends that member States promote
further awareness in their societies of the potential risks that
some of the above mentioned procedures may have on children's physical
and mental health, and take legislative and policy measures that
help reinforce child protection in this context.
7. The Assembly therefore calls on member States to:
7.1. examine the prevalence of different
categories of non-medically justified operations and interventions
impacting on the physical integrity of children in their respective
countries, as well as the specific practices related to them, and
to carefully consider them in light of the best interests of the
child in order to define specific lines of action for each of them;
7.2. initiate focused awareness-raising measures for each of
these categories of violation of the physical integrity of children,
to be carried out in the specific contexts where information may
best be conveyed to families, such as the medical sector (hospitals
and individual practitioners), schools, religious communities or
service providers;
7.3. provide specific training, including on risks of and alternatives
to certain procedures, as well as the medical reasons and minimum
sanitary conditions that should be fulfilled when performing them,
to various professionals involved, in particular medical and educational
staff, but also, on a voluntary basis, religious representatives;
7.4. initiate a public debate, including intercultural and
interreligious dialogue, aimed at reaching a large consensus on
where the limits with regard to violations of the physical integrity
of children are to be drawn according to human rights standards,
and at striking a balance between the rights and the best interest
of the child and the rights and religious freedoms of parents and
families;
7.5. take the following measures with regard to specific categories
of violation of children’s physical integrity:
7.5.1. publicly condemn the most harmful
practices, such as female genital mutilation, and pass legislation
banning these, thus providing public authorities with the mechanisms
to prevent and effectively fight these practices, including through
the application of extraterritorial “legislation or other measures
to establish jurisdiction” for cases where nationals are submitted
to female genital mutilation abroad, as specified in Article 44
of the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating
Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (CETS No. 210);
7.5.2. clearly define the medical, sanitary and other conditions
to be ensured for practices which are today widely carried out in
certain religious communities, such as the non-medically justified
circumcision of young boys;
7.5.3. undertake further research into rare phenomena such as
intersexuality or DSD (differences of sexual development) to ensure
that all children concerned may benefit from operations according
to the highest medical and ethical standards and the current state
of the medical art, and be submitted to them at an age appropriate
for their specific DSD symptoms;
7.6. promote an interdisciplinary dialogue between representatives
of various professional backgrounds, including medical doctors and
religious representatives, so as to overcome some of the prevailing
traditional methods which do not take into consideration the best
interest of the child and the latest state of medical art;
7.7. raise awareness about the need to ensure the participation
of children in decisions concerning their physical integrity wherever
appropriate and possible, and to adopt specific legal provisions
to ensure that certain operations and practices will not be carried
out before a child is old enough to be consulted.
B. Draft
recommendation
(open)1. The Parliamentary Assembly welcomes the ambitious
work undertaken by the Council of Europe in favour of children’s
human rights, which has always followed a comprehensive approach
including child protection, the promotion of children’s development
and child participation as the main pillars of effective child rights
strategies.
2. The Assembly welcomes, in particular, the fact that the Council
of Europe’s Strategy for the Rights of the Child already focuses
on eliminating all forms of violence against children amongst its
strategic objectives, and strongly encourages the Committee of Ministers
to allow this work to continue along the same lines beyond 2015.
3. The Assembly points out, however, that a certain category
of human rights violations against children is not yet explicitly
covered by any international or European policy or legal instrument:
the medically unjustified violations of children’s physical integrity
as specified in Assembly Resolution … (2013) on “Children’s right
to physical integrity”.
4. With the purpose of reinforcing the protection of children’s
rights and well-being at the European level, the Assembly invites
the Committee of Ministers to:
4.1. fully
take into account the issue of children’s right to physical integrity
when preparing and adopting its new Strategy for the Rights of the
Child as of 2015, in particular as regards the fight against all
forms of violence against children and the promotion of child participation
in decisions concerning them;
4.2. consider the explicit inclusion of children's right to
physical integrity, as well as their right to participate in any
decision concerning them, into relevant Council of Europe standards
and, to this end, to examine in a comprehensive manner in which
Council of Europe instruments such rights should be included.
C. Explanatory memorandum by Ms Rupprecht, rapporteur
(open)1. Introduction
“Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.”
Khalil Gibran, “On Children”
1. The background and yardstick for the issue covered
by the present report is, amongst others, a far-reaching international
human rights framework relating both to children’s right to special
protection and the more specific human right to health as specified,
respectively, by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of
the Child (UNCRC) of 1989 and the Constitution of the World Health
Organization (WHO) as amended in 2005.
2. The Convention on the Rights of the Child provides that, in
all actions concerning children, comprising every person under the
age of 18, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare
institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative
bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration
and requires States to take “all appropriate … measures to protect
the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury
or abuse, … while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or
any other person who has the care of the child” (Article 3). It
also provides that “States Parties shall take all effective and appropriate
measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial
to the health of children” (Article 24, paragraph 3).
3. As far as the right to health is concerned, the World Health
Organization declares in the preamble of its Constitution that it
is one of the fundamental rights of every human being to enjoy “the
highest attainable standard of health”.
4. Despite this very clear framework, which has been translated
into national legislation in many countries, the physical integrity
of children continues to be threatened in many ways in Europe. This
may happen in practically all settings where children spend time
in their everyday lives, such as families, schools, leisure associations,
religious communities, social services or others.
5. Harm to their physical integrity is inflicted upon children
on the basis of various intentions: in some cases, physical harm
is done in bad faith, for example when abusing, mistreating or neglecting
a child. In other cases, such as in the context of corporal punishment
in families or schools, it is meant to be to the benefit of children, but
is often practiced without sufficient awareness or knowledge of
the dramatic short-term and long-term consequences it may have on
a child’s mental and physical health and development. In yet another
category of cases, physical harm may be inflicted upon children
with entirely positive intentions, sometimes motivated by cultural
or religious traditions, but often against the best interest of
the child as protected by the above-mentioned international standards
and according to more objective criteria.
6. As rapporteur, I am particularly concerned about the last
category of specific, (well‑)intended, socially accepted, but very
often medically unjustified interferences with children’s physical
integrity. Children themselves cannot be or are not consulted on
these interventions because they are too young to fully understand
the intervention or its consequences, or to give their full and
informed consent. I am particularly worried about those cases where
these interventions are undertaken without associating qualified
medical staff and based on the consent given or explicit wish expressed
by parents who are not fully aware of the risks of such interventions.
7. In this respect, I would in particular like to examine the
following situations which may have an impact on children’s physical
integrity: the circumcision of young boys in certain religions,
medical interventions in the case of intersexual children, female
genital mutilation (in certain cultures), the submission to or coercion
of children into piercings, tattoos or plastic surgery, and the
non-treatment of children facing certain medical pathologies (in
certain religious communities).
8. Recent political debates, such as the one on male circumcision
in my own country Germany, have made it very clear that any work
on this issue needs to take into consideration children’s rights,
parental rights as well as cultural and religious freedoms. In particular
the rights of parents (and their possible limits) need to be examined
closely, as they are generally the ones giving their consent to
the interventions in question. Some of the central questions to
be examined in this respect are: under which circumstances can it
be justified to interfere with the physical integrity of children
and under which conditions? Through which means (political or legal)
shall these conditions be guaranteed, in other words should parents’
possibilities to decide on behalf of their children be limited by
law and how could they be made aware of risks and alternatives through
other means?
9. Several experts have already been heard, to complete the
review of specific literature and press articles: Dr Ilhan Ilkilic
(Associate professor at the Department of History of Medicine and
Ethics, Istanbul University, Faculty of Medicine, Turkey), Mr Victor
Schonfeld (Producer of documentary films, London, United Kingdom) and
Dr Matthias Schreiber (Paediatric surgeon, Department of paediatric
surgery, Clinic of Esslingen, Germany) gave presentations to the
Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development
on the widespread practice of male circumcision. Ms
Irmingard Schewe-Gerigk (President of the Executive Council of Terre des Femmes, Germany) was heard
at a subsequent committee meeting focusing on female genital mutilation. I
would like to thank all experts for their availability and most
useful contributions that are reflected in the present report.
Ms
Irmingard Schewe-Gerigk (President of the Executive Council of Terre des Femmes, Germany) was heard
at a subsequent committee meeting focusing on female genital mutilation. I
would like to thank all experts for their availability and most
useful contributions that are reflected in the present report.10. I am convinced that the Parliamentary Assembly should call
upon member States to take committed political action through awareness-raising
campaigns in favour of the utmost protection of children’s physical integrity
in all circumstances, and to examine further legal and political
action required. As a general principle, any future action at national
level should be taken without criminalising families or professionals
acting in good faith for minor injuries and include criminalisation
for major injuries.
11. The present report intends to draw up some of the lines along
which children could be better protected in our modern world, and
their best interest guaranteed while balancing their rights with
parental rights and cultural and religious freedoms.
2. Threats to the physical integrity of children in Europe today
12. Several categories of procedures fall under the proposed
notion of “specific, (well-)intended, socially accepted, but often
medically unjustified interventions”, though they certainly vary
with regard to their irreversibility, gravity and actual consequences
for the child. Below different types of interventions and their consequences
on the physical and mental health, well-being and development of
children are described, discussed and qualified in the most differentiated
manner possible, in particular set against the specific cultural context
in which they are taking place.
2.1. Circumcision of young boys
13. Male circumcision is the surgical removal of some
or all of the foreskin (or prepuce) from the penis. It is probably the oldest identified
and the most frequently performed optional surgical procedure for
males throughout the world. Neonatal circumcision or circumcision
on young boys may be performed for medical, cultural or religious
reasons. It is a widely observed religious practice performed almost
universally in Jewish and Muslim communities.
It is probably the oldest identified
and the most frequently performed optional surgical procedure for
males throughout the world. Neonatal circumcision or circumcision
on young boys may be performed for medical, cultural or religious
reasons. It is a widely observed religious practice performed almost
universally in Jewish and Muslim communities. 14. However, the procedure is increasingly questioned and its
perception is changing in the light of growing awareness for children’s
human rights. Even within religious communities, an increasing number
of people have started questioning traditional but harmful practices
and looking for alternatives. Having explored this issue in detail
during the recent legislative debate in my own country, Germany,
I would like to show why circumcision applied to young boys clearly
is a human rights violation against children, although it is so
widely performed both in the medical and in the religious context.
2.1.1. History and prevalence of male circumcision
15. Ritualistic circumcision has been carried out in
West Africa for over 5 000 years and in the Middle East for at least
3 000 years. The transformation of this ancient ritual into a routine
medical operation began late in the 19th century where it was recommended
for a growing list of (pseudo-)medical indications, in particular
as a means against masturbation, headache, strabismus, rectal prolapse,
asthma, enuresis, and gout. Rates of circumcision began to drop
in the 20th century when increasingly nationalised health care systems
analysed costs versus benefit.
16. In 2006, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that
about 30% of males worldwide, representing approximately 665 million
men, were circumcised. These are largely concentrated in
the United States, Canada, countries in the Middle East and Asia
with Muslim populations, and large proportions of Africa. Also according
to WHO, circumcision prevalence has continued to decline in Europe
to be found at less than 20% in most countries today. In Europe,
neonatal circumcision is therefore predominantly related to Muslim
or Jewish religious communities, medical reasons or immigration
from circumcising countries.
These are largely concentrated in
the United States, Canada, countries in the Middle East and Asia
with Muslim populations, and large proportions of Africa. Also according
to WHO, circumcision prevalence has continued to decline in Europe
to be found at less than 20% in most countries today. In Europe,
neonatal circumcision is therefore predominantly related to Muslim
or Jewish religious communities, medical reasons or immigration
from circumcising countries. 17. Today, Muslims continue to consider ritualistic circumcision
as a pubertal rite of passage into manhood among older boys. The
Jewish community usually circumcises male infants on their 8th day
after birth in a ceremony called the “Brit Milah”, which is understood
as an initiation rite for babies and a covenant with God. Circumcision applied for medical
reasons varies from one country to another. Whilst circumcision
of boys is being critically viewed and increasingly replaced by
alternatives in European countries, it continues to be promoted
in the United States.
Circumcision applied for medical
reasons varies from one country to another. Whilst circumcision
of boys is being critically viewed and increasingly replaced by
alternatives in European countries, it continues to be promoted
in the United States. 2.1.2. Arguments regularly presented in favour of male circumcision and its legal authorisation
18. According to the evaluation by the American Academy
of Pediatrics (AAP) Task Force on Circumcision in 2012, the health
benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks. To be
found amongst the specific benefits were the prevention of urinary
tract infections, acquisition of HIV, transmission of some sexually transmitted
infections, and penile cancer. Accordingly, the United States remain
amongst those countries where most newborn circumcisions are carried
out in the western world (around the end of the 20th century, up
to 80% of boys according to geographic, ethnic and socio-economic
determinants, though this percentage has strongly declined in recent
years).
19. A similarly positive evaluation, although for other reasons,
is made by WHO, which sees compelling evidence for the fact that
male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV
infection in men by approximately 60% and therefore promotes circumcision
as one element of comprehensive HIV prevention packages (amongst
other measures, such as the correct and consistent use of condoms
by sex workers). WHO also sees an indirect health
benefit for women in male circumcision, in particular a reduced
risk of exposure to HIV and other sexually transmitted infections,
as well as reduced rates of cervical cancer. However, increasingly, medical
experts are starting to question positive evaluations of male circumcision
as a factor reducing the risk of HIV infections.
WHO also sees an indirect health
benefit for women in male circumcision, in particular a reduced
risk of exposure to HIV and other sexually transmitted infections,
as well as reduced rates of cervical cancer. However, increasingly, medical
experts are starting to question positive evaluations of male circumcision
as a factor reducing the risk of HIV infections. 20. In the religious context, male circumcision of young boys
is considered an integral and indispensable part of religious rituals
and has, for centuries, been perceived as not causing major harm
to children’s health in any way if carried out according to the
highest medical and hygienic standards. Moreover, the (erroneous) belief
is still relatively widespread, also amongst religious communities
holding up their traditional rituals, that very young children are
not yet as sensitive to pain as older children or adults and that
their pain can be relieved with local anaesthetic creams.
21. In the face of the arguments of those promoting children’s
right to physical integrity, religious representatives would generally
tend to interpret the “best interest of the child” in a broader
manner, also by taking into consideration religious rights and practices.
From this point of view, it is considered to be in a child’s best
interest not to be discriminated against or marginalised within
the own religious community. In the face of efforts undertaken to
legally restrict circumcision in the religious context, such as
recently in my own country Germany, religious communities would
often warn against “circumcision tourism” by parents travelling
to countries where such operations are more easily accessible, but
not necessarily under the safest conditions for the child. From my point of view as a children’s rights
activist, these are arguments purely serving the adults who wish
to avoid a confrontation with the “dark side” of their own religion,
traditions and, finally, identity. Such arguments ignore both current
medical knowledge about the lack of necessity and the consequences
of circumcision, and the fact that children are subjects of rights
and should no longer be objects and victims of harmful practices
imposed on them by adults.
From my point of view as a children’s rights
activist, these are arguments purely serving the adults who wish
to avoid a confrontation with the “dark side” of their own religion,
traditions and, finally, identity. Such arguments ignore both current
medical knowledge about the lack of necessity and the consequences
of circumcision, and the fact that children are subjects of rights
and should no longer be objects and victims of harmful practices
imposed on them by adults.2.1.3. Arguments against male circumcision as a routine procedure
22. The British Medical Journal already concluded in
1949 that there was no medical justification for routine neonatal
circumcision. From
an ethical point of view, which I would like to support with the
present report, infant circumcision applied in a routine manner
is increasingly considered as an infringement of the human rights
of a child, in particular if carried out by non-medically trained
persons and in a non-sterile environment (in a private home, a religious
edifice, etc.) as very often happens in the religious context.
From
an ethical point of view, which I would like to support with the
present report, infant circumcision applied in a routine manner
is increasingly considered as an infringement of the human rights
of a child, in particular if carried out by non-medically trained
persons and in a non-sterile environment (in a private home, a religious
edifice, etc.) as very often happens in the religious context. 23. Qualified medical experts who have themselves carried out
many circumcision regularly underline that the protective function
of the male foreskin must not be underestimated, that any circumcision
is a considerable intervention which always involves cuts around
the whole penis (as the Latin name “circumcisio”
indicates) and the need for a general anaesthetic (when applied
to older children or adults). There is evidence that unprofessional
circumcisions may cause infections, organ curvatures, perforated
urethra and, finally, additional operations, whilst even wrongly
applied bandages can have severe consequences such as necrotic tissue
and other irreversible damage. Some of the complications are regularly
fatal. Of course not all consequences or side effects of operations
are widely known given that neither medical staff nor patients (or
their families) like talking about complications. However, in 2013,
38 professors around Europe and in Canada officially contested the
new policy statement published by the APP in 2012 (see footnote
12).
24. On the other hand, recognised paediatric surgeons would argue
that the benefits of newborn circumcision should not be overestimated:
while circumcised infants are known to have ten times less urological
infections in their first year, such infections are generally so
rare that, statistically speaking, 100 circumcisions are needed
to prevent a single infection. Furthermore, there is scientific
evidence that the pain suppressing system of children is only operational
a few months after birth, and that a newborn child feels more pain
than an adult. Medical studies have also shown
that analgesic treatment available for small children (who are too
young for general anaesthetics) do generally not have the intended
effect, and are not recommended for children under 12 years of age
anyway. The increased pain perception by young children and the
lack of effective pain treatment for infants are, from my point
of view, amongst the main arguments against circumcision of young
boys, as they can be traumatising for the child.
Medical studies have also shown
that analgesic treatment available for small children (who are too
young for general anaesthetics) do generally not have the intended
effect, and are not recommended for children under 12 years of age
anyway. The increased pain perception by young children and the
lack of effective pain treatment for infants are, from my point
of view, amongst the main arguments against circumcision of young
boys, as they can be traumatising for the child. 25. Even in the religious context, more and more critical voices
can be heard. One of them is that of Victor Schonfeld, a British
film producer and a Jew himself, who started taking a critical view
when his own son was expected to be circumcised. In his well-known
TV documentary “It’s a Boy” (produced for Channel 4 in the United
Kingdom in 1995), Victor Schonfeld shows the suffering of a Jewish
baby boy, Joshua, who is circumcised according to the traditional
Jewish ritual, that is to say without anaesthetic, by a rabbi who
is not a doctor, in non-antiseptic conditions, including use of
a sharpened fingernail and the rabbi’s mouth. The film also shows the severe
infection that the little boy suffers from a few days later as a
consequence of the operation, and the extreme social pressure exerted
on his parents: whilst the father had tried to object to the procedure,
without success, the mother was not allowed to be present, neither
during the operation itself nor in the aftercare provided to her
son. The documentary also shows an interview with a young mother
whose son died following the procedure a few days after birth.
The film also shows the severe
infection that the little boy suffers from a few days later as a
consequence of the operation, and the extreme social pressure exerted
on his parents: whilst the father had tried to object to the procedure,
without success, the mother was not allowed to be present, neither
during the operation itself nor in the aftercare provided to her
son. The documentary also shows an interview with a young mother
whose son died following the procedure a few days after birth.26. Increasingly aware of the underestimated risks of such procedures,
especially when undertaken without medical professionals, of the
fact that newborn circumcision is not necessarily medically required
and of the pressure that is put on them, more and more Jewish families
seem to question the traditional ritual of circumcision today. This
can, for example, be observed with initiatives such as the Jewish
Circumcision Resource Center created by Jews who question ritual
circumcision and “who generally evaluate an idea not solely based
on its conformance with the Torah, but also in light of its agreement
with reason and experience”. They openly call on Jews to listen
to and feel the intense pain of the children, and the denied pain
of the adults that they become, in order to realise that circumcision
does not necessarily serve the best interest of the child or the
community of Jews.
27. The debate is of a slightly different nature in the Muslim
community where boys are generally circumcised at a later age, by
medical professionals and in more acceptable health conditions involving appropriate
anaesthetics. Nevertheless, the tradition is also increasingly questioned
by members of the Muslim community, and the long-term physical and
psychological consequences for boys having been submitted to this
violation of their physical integrity are certainly the same as
in other contexts. Critical Muslims regularly point out that no
sura of the Koran indicates an obligation to circumcise, but that
the main reference are some hadithe,
thus stemming from prophets’ words mentioning circumcision as “an
obligation to be imitated”. However, until today, Islam scientists
are divided over the question of whether circumcision truly is an obligation
or a simple recommendation.
28. The above shows that both medical professionals and religious
communities are increasingly aware of the considerable harm inflicted
on children through circumcision procedures, especially if performed
in a routine, traditional manner. Society should launch new research
projects concerning the necessity of circumcision as a medical intervention
and enter into an active dialogue with religious communities to
raise awareness of what circumcision really means for the physical
integrity and lives of boys and men, and to foster the development
of alternatives which do exist in many cases and contexts.
2.1.4. Alternatives exist
29. In reality, it is often left to families to decide
on behalf of their sons who cannot yet express their wish, whether
or not a circumcision should be performed. This confirms the importance
of providing families with arguments for and against circumcision
in the most complete and transparent manner and of accompanying them
in a difficult choice, whether in the medical or the religious context.
30. In the medical context, there is increasing evidence that
the operation is often applied too rapidly and alternatives are
not sufficiently considered. Amongst these alternatives and for
different urological problems (such as phimosis), one may for example
find topical steroid therapies and variations of prepuce operations, which
do not involve the removal of the entire foreskin. Paediatricians
and urologists therefore need to receive adequate training on pathologies
which may indicate circumcision, for example when it comes to distinguishing between
physiological phimosis – prevalent with more than 90% of male newborns
and very often cured by the age of 3 with specific treatment – and
pathological phimosis which may require more far-reaching measures, but
not necessarily straight at birth.
31. In the religious context, alternative rituals are regularly
being considered already. They may include other ceremonial elements
that are more sensitive to the child and the community. An alternative
ritual, sometimes referred to as a “naming ceremony” or “bris shalom“,
may or may not be led by a rabbi. To underline the acceptability
of such rituals, critical Jews would point out that many Jewish
circumcisions already do not meet religious standards if carried
out by medical staff in a hospital. In addition, the religious ritual
should be performed with the appropriate mindset. However, this
is not the case if many Jews circumcise their sons with great emotional
conflict, reluctance, and regret. Finally, the use of an alternative
ritual has another advantage for which it is attracting growing
interest amongst Jewish communities: it can be used for both male
and female children.
2.1.5. Various conditions and actions required to accompany male circumcision
32. In certain countries, there is a large consensus
that minimum standards need to be guaranteed to ensure that male
circumcision is carried out in healthy and safe conditions. Even
those strongly in favour of the operation, such as the American
Academy of Pediatrics (see above), generally request that those
carrying out circumcision need to be adequately trained, that sterile
techniques need to be used and that effective pain management techniques
must be applied. Moreover, the American
Task Force strongly recommends that medical standards and training
should be developed with regard to the circumcision procedure, that educational
material should be developed both for professionals and parents
(of circumcised or uncircumcised children) and that doctors should
advise families, in a non-biased manner, about the potential benefits
and risks and inform them about the optional nature of the procedure
for which many alternatives exist today.
Moreover, the American
Task Force strongly recommends that medical standards and training
should be developed with regard to the circumcision procedure, that educational
material should be developed both for professionals and parents
(of circumcised or uncircumcised children) and that doctors should
advise families, in a non-biased manner, about the potential benefits
and risks and inform them about the optional nature of the procedure
for which many alternatives exist today. 33. As rapporteur, I regret to have to say that such measures
are not yet systematically applied in my own country Germany. Today,
circumcision as a religious ritual may even take place entirely
outside the medical system, and may be practised within private
homes or religious edifices. According to the latest revision of
the German Civil Law as amended on 20 December 2012, male circumcision
of infants is now explicitly allowed if it does not endanger the
child’s well-being and if undertaken “according to the rules of
medical art”. Within the first six months after the birth of a child,
circumcisions may also be performed by qualified religious representatives
who are not medical doctors. An alternative proposal moved by
myself and a group of parliamentarians, that prior to the operation
the child should have reached the age of 14, given his consent, and
that the circumcision should always be carried out by a paediatric
surgeon or urologist, was unfortunately not endorsed by a majority
within the German Bundestag.
An alternative proposal moved by
myself and a group of parliamentarians, that prior to the operation
the child should have reached the age of 14, given his consent, and
that the circumcision should always be carried out by a paediatric
surgeon or urologist, was unfortunately not endorsed by a majority
within the German Bundestag.34. From the facts presented above, in favour and against male
circumcision of young boys, I wish to conclude that – according
to the current state of medical knowledge – the operation is not
as innocuous as many used to or continue to believe, but may have
serious short-term and long-term consequences for the health and
well-being of boys and men. Although it has been practised for thousands
of years, it should therefore be strongly questioned today, both
in the medical and the religious context. Alternatives do exist
and should be promoted wherever possible: if circumcision seems
to be indicated for medical reasons, its necessity should be closely
examined on a case-by-case basis; in the religious context, families
should be systematically made aware of the risks of the procedure
and be provided with full information on the alternatives.
2.2. Female genital mutilation (FGM)
35. According to European standards, such as the “Istanbul
Convention” of the Council of Europe (Convention on Preventing and
Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence, CETS No.
210) and human rights activists across Europe, female genital mutilation
(FGM) is amongst the worst human rights violations against girls
and women, next to domestic violence, sexual abuse, the abortion
of female fetuses for cultural reasons, so-called “honour crimes”,
or trafficking in human beings. Numerous non-governmental organisations
(NGOs), such as Terre des Femmes in
my own country, Germany, support girls and women to ensure that
they are protected from violence, may decide themselves about their
sexuality and reproduction and above all are protected from severe
bodily mutilations for which no medical reason exists.
36. Female genital mutilation, as defined by WHO, comprises all
procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external
female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for
non-medical reasons. The term used by Unicef is wider and includes
the notion of “cutting” to speak of “female genital mutilation/cutting
(FGM/C)”. This definition takes into consideration that community-based
approaches, and therefore less judgmental notions, are sometimes
required. For this report, however,
I would like to stick to the more restrictive notion but which clearly
qualifies FGM as a violation of the physical integrity and human
rights of girls.
For this report, however,
I would like to stick to the more restrictive notion but which clearly
qualifies FGM as a violation of the physical integrity and human
rights of girls.37. WHO currently distinguishes four major types of FGM:
- clitoridectomy: partial or total removal of the clitoris (a small, sensitive and erectile part of the female genitals) and, in very rare cases, only the prepuce (the fold of skin surrounding the clitoris);
- excision: partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora (the labia are “the lips” that surround the vagina);
- infibulation: narrowing of the vaginal opening through the creation of a covering seal. The seal is formed by cutting and repositioning the inner, or outer, labia, with or without removal of the clitoris;
- other: all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, e.g. pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterizing the genital area.
38. FGM is in particular practised in certain parts of Africa,
Asia and the Middle East. About 140 million girls and women worldwide
are estimated to live with the consequences of FGM, while we speak
of 92 million girls of 10 years of age and older who have undergone
FGM in Africa alone. Increasingly, FGM is encountered in Europe
as well. Here, most often, girls and women are taken to their countries
of origin during school holidays where they are confronted with
the pressure to be cut. The European Parliament estimates that 500 000
girls and women living in Europe are suffering with the lifelong
consequences of female genital mutilation. For Germany once again, Terre des Femmes estimates that
more than 20 000 migrants are concerned and more than 5 000 girls
are currently at risk of undergoing FGM in the near future, whilst
43% of gynecologists in Germany have already treated a woman concerned.
For Germany once again, Terre des Femmes estimates that
more than 20 000 migrants are concerned and more than 5 000 girls
are currently at risk of undergoing FGM in the near future, whilst
43% of gynecologists in Germany have already treated a woman concerned. 39. According to WHO, the causes of female genital mutilation
include a mix of cultural, religious and social factors within families
and communities. Where FGM is a social convention, the social pressure
to conform to what others do and have been doing is a strong motivation
to perpetuate the practice. FGM is often considered a necessary
part of raising a girl properly, and a way to prepare her for adulthood
and marriage. FGM is often motivated by beliefs about what is considered
proper sexual behaviour, linking procedures to premarital virginity
and marital fidelity. FGM is in many communities believed to reduce
a woman's libido and therefore believed to help her resist “illicit”
sexual acts. Though no religious scripts prescribe the practice,
practitioners often believe the practice has religious support.
40. FGM, which is, in certain cultural contexts, carried out on
young girls sometime between infancy and the age of 15, has no health
benefits whatsoever, but is known to have severe physical and psychological consequences
for girls and women concerned. Amongst
the immediate consequences of FGM we can find severe bleeding, problems
urinating, infections, or sometimes even the death of the mutilated
girl. Amongst the
long-term effects are chronic pain, pelvic infections, abscesses
and genital ulcers, excessive scar tissue formation, infections
of the reproductive system, decreased sexual enjoyment and painful
intercourse. The health consequences therefore continue throughout
the woman’s life, often producing repetitive trauma when she is
about to give birth. FGM is also evidently linked to higher maternal
and infant mortality. Due to these severe consequences,
it is widely recognised as a human rights violation.
Amongst
the immediate consequences of FGM we can find severe bleeding, problems
urinating, infections, or sometimes even the death of the mutilated
girl. Amongst the
long-term effects are chronic pain, pelvic infections, abscesses
and genital ulcers, excessive scar tissue formation, infections
of the reproductive system, decreased sexual enjoyment and painful
intercourse. The health consequences therefore continue throughout
the woman’s life, often producing repetitive trauma when she is
about to give birth. FGM is also evidently linked to higher maternal
and infant mortality. Due to these severe consequences,
it is widely recognised as a human rights violation.41. The large majorities of girls and women (about 80%) are cut
in poor hygienic conditions, by a traditional practitioner, a category
which includes local specialists (cutters or exciseuses),
traditional birth attendants and, generally, older members of the
community, usually women. In most countries, medical personnel,
including doctors, nurses and certified midwives, are not widely
involved in the practice, though the “medicalisation” of FGM, whereby
girls are cut by trained personnel, seems to be on the rise. According
to Unicef, this trend may reflect the impact of campaigns that emphasise
the health risks associated with the practice, but fail to address the
underlying cultural motivations for its perpetuation.
42. As most FGM interventions are still carried out by women,
women are also key stakeholders when it comes to raising awareness
of the need to protect a girl’s physical integrity and the abolishment
of such harmful traditional practices that they were themselves
submitted to as children and that they perpetuate on their daughters.
The average age at which girls are submitted to FGM seems to be
declining, possibly because it is then often easier to hide the
procedure which is illegal in an increasing number of countries
today.
43. The cruel practice of FGM violates a number of human rights:
the right to physical and mental integrity; the right to the highest
attainable standard of health; the right to be free from all forms
of discrimination against women (including violence against women);
the right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment,
the rights of the child; and, in extreme cases, the right to life.
Many international organisations and child protection agencies have
started taking action against FGM, including the European Union,
agencies of the United Nations and many NGOs. Amnesty International
launched the END FGM European Campaign in 2009 to ensure that the
European Union and its national governments act now to end this
practice and protect women and girls.
44. The Parliamentary Assembly adopted it first report
on FGM in 2001, clearly condemning it as torture, inhuman and barbaric
treatment of girls and young women and a violation of human rights
and bodily integrity, thus asking the governments of Council of
Europe member States in its Resolution
1247 (2001) to take committed action against it at different levels
(legislative, judicial, political, educational, etc.). The Assembly
is currently pursuing its action against FGM in the framework of
its activities aimed at promoting the Council of Europe Convention
on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic
Violence (Istanbul Convention), which clearly condemns female genital
mutilation and establishes extra-territorial legislation for such
crimes. The Istanbul Convention, opened for signature on 5 May 2011
(but which has not yet entered into force), clearly condemns FGM
in its Article 38 by criminalising its performance or any behaviour
inciting the procedure or coercing a girl into it. On 6 February
2013, a joint statement to mark the International Day of Zero Tolerance
for Female Genital Mutilation was made public by José Mendes Bota
(Portugal, EPP/CD), general rapporteur on violence against women,
and myself as general rapporteur on children of the Parliamentary Assembly.
45. Juan E. Méndez, United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture
and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, regularly
underlines that FGM/C amounts to torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
or punishment as set forth in Articles 1 and 16 of the United Nations
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment (CAT). According to him, many States in
which FGM is practised, including those with immigrant communities,
have enacted laws that specifically prohibit FGM, or apply general
provisions of their criminal codes.
46. Nevertheless, the practice and social acceptance of FGM persist
in many countries and effective mechanisms to enforce prohibition
are often absent. A formal prohibition of FGM by law is thus not
sufficient to conclude that State protection is available. States
are obliged to take effective and appropriate measures to eliminate
FGM. These obligations include the prohibition through legislation,
backed by sanctions, of all forms of FGM, at every level of government,
including medical facilities.
47. Not only must States ensure that perpetrators are duly prosecuted
and punished, they are also required to raise awareness and mobilise
public opinion against FGM, in particular in communities where the
practice remains widespread. States should ensure that victims of
torture or other cruel and, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
obtain redress, are awarded fair and adequate compensation and receive
appropriate social, psychological, medical and other relevant specialised
rehabilitation.
48. It is not because FGM is mainly carried out outside Europe,
that European stakeholders should not feel concerned by this issue.
Evidence shows that, in the face of a globalised world and increasing
migration flows, girls are confronted with this human rights violation
in many countries, even though the operation itself sometimes takes
place abroad, in their families’ countries of origin. Moreover,
female genital cutting seems to be increasingly developing in Europe
and is openly promoted by some mass media. Especially the reduction of
the labia minora and the tightening of the vaginal opening are regularly
presented as operations with beneficial outcomes for aesthetics
and sexuality. Young girls should be made aware, through sexual
education within their families and at school, that although such
operations may be fashionable, they may have major and irreversible
consequences for their health. With regard
to FGM, migrant families and in particular women need to be convinced
to spare their daughters such painful and unnecessary procedures
and mutilations.
With regard
to FGM, migrant families and in particular women need to be convinced
to spare their daughters such painful and unnecessary procedures
and mutilations.2.3. Sex-determining operations on intersex children
49. The term “intersex” refers to atypical and internal
and/or external anatomical sexual characteristics, where features
usually regarded as male or female may be mixed to some degree.
This is a naturally occurring variation in humans and not a medical
condition. It is to be distinguished from transsexuality, a phenomenon where
someone has an evident sex, but feels as if he or she belongs to
the other sex and is therefore ready to undergo a medical intervention
altering his or her natural sex. The notion of intersex however,
does not clearly indicate whether one needs to speak about a third
sex between the two others or if a clear indication of a sex is
simply renounced.
50. From the late 1950s onwards, starting in the United States,
intersex infants and children were increasingly subjected to cosmetic
surgery intended to ensure that their genital appearance and internal gonads
were in conformity with the assigned gender, as well as to accompany
hormonal treatment. Such treatment was often justified by the assumption
that intersex children and/or adults would be subjected to discriminatory
behaviour because of their bodily differences, which was not necessarily
correct because differences are not always evident or visible.
51. From the early 1990s, numerous intersex adults have come forward
to say that these medical practices had been extremely harmful to
them, both physically and psychologically. This public debate was
initiated at the time when intersex persons first federated in the
Intersex Society of North America (INSA) in 1990. Today, relevant
advocacy organisations strongly recommend that genital operations
and other forms of treatment should be avoided until a child can
fully participate in decision making. Both
on legal and ethical grounds, the determination of the sex should
be postponed until an age at which affected individuals can make
fully informed decisions for themselves.
Both
on legal and ethical grounds, the determination of the sex should
be postponed until an age at which affected individuals can make
fully informed decisions for themselves.52. In Germany, the Ministries for Education and Research and
for Health have jointly mandated the German Ethics Council (Deutscher Ethikrat) in 2010 to examine
the situation of intersexual persons based on an invitation by the
United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against
Women (CEDAW) to the German authorities to take appropriate measures
to protect intersex persons’ human rights. Sex-determining operations
undertaken without the consent of the person concerned are indeed
increasingly perceived as a violation of personal rights given that
the latter include the right to live one’s life according to the subjectively
perceived sexual identity.
53. Advocacy organisations further criticise the perception of
an intersex condition as a pathology and plead for its understanding
as an individual sexual variation and a medically complex situation.
Different perceptions are reflected by the terminology used: amongst
intersex persons themselves this very notion is controversial, whilst
many experts today use the internationally recognised notion of
DSD, originally standing for “disorders of sex development” but
today increasingly understood as “differences” or “variations of
sexual development”. Without further developing the issue of medical
differentiations and expressions of intersex characteristics of any
kind, it may just be said that these terms generally cover endocrinal,
metabolic disorders on the one hand, and inborn deformations and
chromosome abnormalities on the other. In particular, the term also
covers girls and women with the so-called androgenital syndrome
(AGS) who have masculine expressions in their outer sexual organs,
although they are genetically female. According to Europe’s leading
intersex organisation “Organisation Intersex International (OII)
Europe”, “intersex” is the best available, least stigmatising and simplest
way of describing atypical sex characteristics.
54. Different empirical studies in Germany have shown that until
now 96% of all intersex persons across different categories had
received hormonal therapy. 64% of persons concerned had received
a gonadectomy, 38% a reduction of their clitoris, 33% vaginal operations
and 13% corrections of their urinal tract. Many had been submitted
to a series of operations and were confronted with post-operative
complications. Relevant treatment was traumatising for them and
often involved humiliating procedures such as being exposed to large groups
of medical professionals and students studying this curious phenomenon.
For many, the interventions linked to their syndrome had long-term
effects on their mental health and well-being.
55. Some may wonder why, with relatively few numbers of children
concerned by this phenomenon, so much public attention is currently
given to it. Indeed, very few people are statistically concerned
by intersex conditions. For Switzerland for example, the
National Advisory Commission on Biomedical Ethics, in its own opinion
No. 20/2012 on the “Handling of Variations of Sex Development”,
estimates that between 20 and 30 children per year are born without
evident sexual assignment. Estimates by the organisation OII Europe indicate
that intersex phenomena concern between 1% and 2% of the population. In any case, where such conditions appear,
they have a considerable impact on people’s lives, especially if
sex-determining operations are undertaken at an early age and without
asking children’s consent. Next to medical complications and subsequent
suffering, there are cases where the “wrong” sex had been assigned
to children at an early age, which did not correspond to their own
feeling.
For Switzerland for example, the
National Advisory Commission on Biomedical Ethics, in its own opinion
No. 20/2012 on the “Handling of Variations of Sex Development”,
estimates that between 20 and 30 children per year are born without
evident sexual assignment. Estimates by the organisation OII Europe indicate
that intersex phenomena concern between 1% and 2% of the population. In any case, where such conditions appear,
they have a considerable impact on people’s lives, especially if
sex-determining operations are undertaken at an early age and without
asking children’s consent. Next to medical complications and subsequent
suffering, there are cases where the “wrong” sex had been assigned
to children at an early age, which did not correspond to their own
feeling. 56. The empirical surveys quoted above have shown that, whilst
certain persons affected by the AGS syndrome consider that early
childhood operations may be useful, most of the persons with other
intersex characteristics find it important that operations be made
at an age where children can give their consent. Legal loopholes
therefore need to be overcome in most countries, now that more medical
knowledge about the phenomenon is available, in particular to differentiate
between the few cases where operations in early childhood are acceptable
or appropriate and the great number of cases where the children
concerned must participate in decisions concerning their sex in
order to be heard about their personal perceptions and feelings. Finally,
specific information and training are required for families of intersexual
children, medical professionals of different categories and staff
in charge of childcare, allowing them all to handle the situation
of intersex children in the most sensitive manner.
2.4. Further violations of the physical integrity of children
57. The interventions quoted above are certainly amongst
the most far-reaching interferences with the physical integrity
of children, even though they vary in severity according to their
specific expression and the context in which they take place. Many
of them are decided by families who have never known anything other than
these practices, who have good intentions in principle or who are
not sufficiently aware of the risks linked to the described procedures.
58. Further violations of the physical integrity of children,
in most cases having a minor impact, may occur outside of these
main categories, such as, for example, piercings, tattoos or plastic
surgery performed on children in an irresponsible manner, or authorised
by parents without making their children aware of the risks.
59. A recent case in Germany has drawn attention to parents’ responsibility
even in cases of small operations such as ear piercings: a girl
of 3 had her ears pierced in a Berlin tattoo studio and suffered
pain for several days afterwards. When the parents sued the owner
of the studio (who was finally condemned to pay compensation of
70 euros), the judges tended to examine whether the parents had
acted in a responsible manner. The debate on this case has shown
that even minor operations of this kind are controversial. Whilst those
who offer ear-piercing services, including on children, consider
that this is a minor intervention, medical experts consulted in
this context stated that earrings on small children were an interference
with the physical integrity of a child, that they are mainly meant
to please parents and that children should decide on such bodily decorations
or modifications at their own age of legal responsibility (14 in
Germany).
60. In the same manner, plastic surgery on children has been debated
controversially in recent years. In this context, it will firstly
be important to distinguish between medically or psychologically
indicated operations, such as the reparation of bodily damage after
severe accidents or the correction of prominent ears, and operations applied
for purely aesthetic reasons or to escape bullying at school, such
as breast enlargement on minors or large tattoos. It will secondly be essential to
protect minors from irresponsible decisions taken by their parents in
this context and to raise awareness amongst medical staff and service
providers so as not to carry out such operations on young children.
It will secondly be essential to
protect minors from irresponsible decisions taken by their parents in
this context and to raise awareness amongst medical staff and service
providers so as not to carry out such operations on young children. 61. Finally, isolated religious communities, such as Jehovah’s
Witnesses, promote the omission of certain medical treatments, in
particular blood transfusions, which may cause serious health risks
for children in need of such treatments. Under the criteria applied
here, this must also be perceived as an undue interference with the
physical integrity of children who enjoy the full right to the highest
attainable standard of health, just like any other human being.
This context is a complex one and should therefore be considered
on a case-by-case basis. A recent case reported from the United
Kingdom has shown that it may not always be the parents who decide
themselves against such interventions but the children themselves
under the influence of the sectarian beliefs that their parents
have drawn them into: in 2010, a teenage Jehovah’s Witness declined
the blood transfusion advised by doctors and, not being overruled
by his family, finally died at the age of 15.
62. Such cases create a complex legal situation: whilst a doctor
could be sued for non-assistance to persons in danger, doctors who
administer blood in the face of refusal by a patient could also
be considered as acting unlawfully. There have been cases where
doctors have gone to court to get permission to give blood to children against
the wishes of parents who are Jehovah's Witnesses. In the light
of such ethical and legal complexity, raising awareness for this
specific human rights violation, violating children’s most fundamental
right to life, is therefore of utmost importance in the national
context.
3. Conflict and balance between different categories of human rights
63. As already seen above, political and legal responses
to the above-mentioned situations are very complex and vary from
one country to the other. Every national situation has its own rules
and complexity to be taken into account when defining national strategies
for the protection of children’s physical integrity.
64. For me as rapporteur, the highest standards in the field of
child protection, of the human rights to life and security as well
as of “the highest attainable standard of health” are clearly the
highest priorities and “yardsticks” to be universally applied when
it comes to the issue of children’s right to physical integrity.
These are clearly laid out in the United Nations Convention on the
Rights of the Child (UNCRC), the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights of 1948, as well as the preamble of the World Health Organization’s
Constitution, as described in the introduction.
65. Nevertheless, I am aware that there might be categories of
human rights which are conflicting with the above-mentioned categories,
such as the right to respect for private and family life or the
right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion as respectively
laid out in Articles 8 and 9 of the European Convention on Human
Rights (ETS No. 5). Both articles provide respectively that there
shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise
of the right to respect for private and family life and that the
right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion shall only
be subject to limitations as are necessary … “for the protection
of the rights and freedom of others”.
66. In other words, this would mean that the parental right to
private and family life and the right of parents to freedom of thought,
conscience and religion may be limited in so far as the protection
of children’s rights would require it. Although we should not create
an abstract hierarchy of human rights judging the “best interest of
a child” independently from a specific situation, I would like to
insist on the fact that the physical integrity of children is a
value that should not be too easily undermined. Every adult having
some kind of power over or influence on a child’s physical integrity,
be it as a parent, medical doctor or religious representative should
first of all feel responsible for protecting a child against physical
and moral harm. Especially in the light of the current knowledge
of consequences of the mentioned procedures, such as medically unjustified
circumcision, FGM or sex-determining operations on intersex children,
adults should strongly question whether their freedom of thought,
conscience or religion is to be valued higher than the physical
integrity and well-being of their own child.
67. I do, however, also understand that families may be subjected
to social pressure in their own cultural and religious contexts
which simply does not allow them to renounce very old rituals from
one day to the next or which make them take certain decisions on
behalf of their children that they believe to be in their child’s
best interest. In such situations, parents should be provided with
a maximum amount of information, receive advice and support, and
be provided with alternative solutions allowing them to protect
their children against any physical harm or life-long consequences
for their health. I am convinced that children, if they were given
a choice, would not decide to be harmed by a medical operation,
which is not entirely beneficial to them. Their parents should therefore
be enabled to become the spokespersons of what their children would
wish for their own development.
4. Conclusions and recommendations
68. Thanks to the many efforts and years of commitment
of child protection activists, as well as the overall recognition
of children’s vulnerability and special need for protection, children’s
rights are already secured in many circumstances and many different
ways across Europe today. Nevertheless, violence and harm is still inflicted
upon children in different contexts, and it is of utmost importance
that legal and political action in this respect be pursued and reinforced.
69. In this respect, we need to differentiate between some of
the procedures concerning the physical integrity of children described
above. There is certainly a clear line to be drawn between male
circumcision which may have certain medical benefits for boys and
men, and female genital mutilation (FGM) which evidently has no
medical benefit whatsoever, but is a procedure intended to control
the sexual behaviour of girls and women throughout their lives.
70. The legal framework to be referred to when it comes to protecting
the physical integrity of children is very clear: the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights determines that everyone has the right
to life, liberty and security of person (Article 3) and that no
one shall be subjected to degrading treatment (Article 5), whilst
Article 24 paragraph 3 of the UNCRC provides that States Parties
shall take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to
abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children.
71. It is widely recognised – and the Council of Europe has been
promoting this idea for many years – that “children are not mini
human beings with mini human rights” but enjoy the full set of human
rights just like any adult person, and that, additionally, they
benefit from the right to special protection and support for their development
as set out by various international standards and national legislations.
However, the problem is one of ensuring implementation.
72. I therefore call upon the Parliamentary Assembly, and my fellow
parliamentarians represented herein, to launch an appeal for more
awareness for the need to protect children against various types
of physical injuries, and their consequences for children’s physical
and mental integrity and well-being, as described in this report.
73. Both short-term and long-term actions are required to effectively
protect children. In the short term, the most evident legal loopholes
should be filled, for example by prescribing that only qualified
medical staff be allowed to undertake certain operations, such as
circumcision, in sterile conditions. Comprehensive and understandable
information should be provided to families more systematically,
to make them understand the risks of certain operations. In the
long run, awareness of the child’s right to physical integrity as
a fundamental human right should be better promoted, with a view
to changing deeply rooted and unquestioned but very often harmful
religious and cultural practices concerning children.
74. Against this general background, the Assembly should in particular
convey clear recommendations to member States by asking them, inter alia, to:
- carefully consider the prevalence of the different operations and interventions impacting on the physical integrity of children in their respective countries, as well as the current practices, according to the categories presented in this report and in light of the best interest of the child in order to define in which areas action is immediately required;
- initiate and suggest in particular awareness-raising measures as regards violations of the physical integrity of children, to be carried out in various contexts where information may be conveyed to families, such as the medical sector (hospitals and individual practitioners), schools or religious communities;
- provide specific training, for example on risks of and alternatives to certain operations as well as the medical reasons and conditions that should be fulfilled when undertaking such procedures, to various categories of professionals involved, in particular medical and educational staff, but also, on a voluntary basis, religious representatives;
- initiate a public debate aimed at reaching a large consensus on where the absolute limits with regard to interventions with the physical integrity of children are to be drawn according to human rights standards;
- publicly condemn the most harmful procedures, such as female genital mutilation (FGM), and pass legislation banning these, thus providing public authorities with the mechanisms to prevent and fight these practices;
- for practices which may be considered acceptable under certain circumstances and in certain contexts, such as the male circumcision of young boys or sex-determining operations of young children in some cases, clearly define, also by legislation, the medical and other conditions and proceedings under which relevant operations must be undertaken, including in the religious context, and to implement procedures and structures which allow all families to access such operations in a legal manner;
- facilitate and promote an interdisciplinary dialogue between experts and representatives of various professional backgrounds including medical doctors and religious representatives so as to overcome some of the prevailing traditional beliefs which do not take into consideration the best interest of the child and the latest state of medical art, and to ensure that all children may benefit from the latest scientific knowledge and highest medical standards for any operation performed on them;
- raise awareness, in particular, about the need to ensure the participation of children in decisions concerning their physical integrity wherever appropriate and possible, and to adopt specific legal provisions to ensure that certain operations will not be carried out before a child is old enough to be consulted.