Uncut

This week's editorial in Eye Magazine raises the thorny issue about circumcision -- and asks, why is it still legal? A baby doesn't agree to have the procedure done. There are no health reasons to do it. There is only tradition and religion. So why is it still legal? Recently the British Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons said that it was "a non-therapeutic and medically unnecessary intervention" -- yet, seems to turn a blind eye at the practice with the statement: "If for religious or cultural reasons you decide to perform an infant male circumcision, ensure that your skills are current." It seems like a double standard. There are other practices that religions are OK with, yet are against the law, and aren't allowed -- why this one? The article is a convincing one for a change. For such a civilized society, we still don't have laws against such barbaric practices.