Response to interpellation 2023/24:9 on a ban on non-medical circumcision
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns a potential ban on non-medical circumcision. KD argues that circumcision is a millennia-old tradition that requires respect for religious and cultural aspects 1. KD considers that the current law provides a reasonable balance through safety and supervision 2 3, and that religion can contribute positively to enlightenment 4. KD emphasizes that law and fundamental values are a given 3. SD argues that religion and cultural customs must not weigh more heavily than the child's right to their own body 5. SD considers that circumcision of minors without a medical basis is wrong because the child cannot give consent 5 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Acko Ankarberg Johansson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Pontus Andersson Garpvall has asked me if the government is prepared to ban non-medical circumcision of minors.
Circumcision of boys is a thousands-of-years-old tradition that occurs all over the world. In Sweden, circumcision of boys has occurred for a long time and has never been explicitly prohibited. For many Jews and Muslims, it is an important tradition from both religious and cultural aspects.
At the same time, the circumcision of boys for non-medical reasons is a custom that raises questions about the demarcation between different ethical principles and other interests, for example, between the constitutionally protected freedom of religion and children's rights according to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which applies as law. I fully understand that the issue may provoke debate and that the custom, from different perspectives, can both be criticized and defended.
Since 2001, there has been specific legislation in Sweden regarding non-medical circumcision of boys, the so-called circumcision law. The purpose of the law is that such circumcisions shall be carried out in a reassuring manner and with regard to the child's best interests. After a careful weighing of the advantages and disadvantages of different alternatives, the government and the Riksdag then reached the conclusion that a ban on non-medical circumcisions was not feasible. Instead, a regulation was introduced with the aim of preventing the procedures from occurring in a way that is not compatible with the boys' best interests.
Among other things, circumcision may only be performed by licensed physicians or by persons who have been granted special permission by the Health and Social Care Inspectorate. If the boy is older than two months, the procedure may only be performed by a licensed physician. The boy's attitude shall be clarified as far as possible, and the procedure may not be performed against a boy's will. Pain relief shall always be provided by a licensed physician or a licensed nurse. Anyone who performs a circumcision without being a licensed physician or without having special permission may be sentenced to a fine or imprisonment for a maximum of six months.
Circumcision of boys is also covered by the provisions in the Patient Safety Act, and the Health and Social Care Inspectorate is responsible for the supervision of such activities.
In conclusion: The Government has no intention of introducing a ban on non-medical circumcision of boys.
Pontus Andersson Garpvall (SD)
Mr. Speaker! In Sweden, it is permitted to operate to remove the foreskin of minors without medical reason. According to the law on circumcision, circumcision may be performed at the request of or with the consent of the boy's guardian.
In my opinion, it is strange how religious or cultural customs can be considered more important than a small child's rights. Male circumcision is, after all, an irreversible procedure that an infant cannot possibly consent to. Despite this, thousands of procedures are performed every year for cultural or religious reasons at the request of the children's guardians.
The question is much-debated, and many have expressed criticism that the phenomenon is permitted. We can look at what parts of the profession say:
The Nurses' Ethical Council considers that circumcision of boys that is not medically justified is incompatible with the child's right to privacy, self-determination and the best interests of the child according to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Vårdförbundet has in turn long advocated for a ban on non-medical circumcision and writes on its website that "circumcision violates children's human rights".
The Swedish Pediatric Society has approached the National Board of Health and Welfare with a letter in which they take a stand against non-medical circumcision.
My perception is that religion and cultural phenomena cannot be considered more important than the child's right to their own body. I do not believe that the minister, or the government for that matter, would accept in any other issue that parents impose a non-medical surgical procedure on their child, however harmless it may be. But when it comes to cutting into an infant's most private parts, it is okay.
And let us be honest, Mr. Speaker: The reason why there is still legislation that allows non-medical circumcision of boys, I believe, is that the politicians in power, from right to left, would rather not clash with certain religious groups. For a non-believer, it is therefore strange that consideration is shown to a phenomenon that in all non-medical respects is wrong.
To cut into and perform an irreversible procedure on a child who cannot say no, without medical reasons, is wrong. The Swedish Pediatric Society says it is wrong. Vårdförbundet thinks it is wrong. The Nurses' Ethical Council thinks it is wrong. The latter argues that the procedure violates the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, a convention that, among others, the Kristdemokraterna were involved in making into Swedish law.
Does the Minister for Health agree, among others with the Nurses' Ethical Council, that non-medical circumcision violates the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?
Statsrådet Acko Ankarberg Johansson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the contribution and not least for the question. It is an important question to discuss, as there are difficult trade-offs between laws. It is no unusual situation that we have laws that can seemingly conflict with one another and where politics needs to make a trade-off. It is a question that is constantly pushed and pulled in this chamber: How do we weigh them? Not least a government also needs to weigh the consequences of one law against the other. What we are talking about now, non-medical circumcision, is an irrevocable physical intervention, and therefore it is reasonable that the question is posed and discussed from time to time.
Now, neither the member nor I was there in 2001 when this law was adopted, but my assessment is that the reason was that one wanted to ensure that circumcision takes place in as safe a way as possible and remove the risks of illegal and unsafe procedures. This is still a custom that requires that one respects both religious and cultural aspects. We must ensure that it takes place in as safe a way as possible and not in the shadows and with great risks for the child, which was a situation that could be seen previously.
What we have today, since the law was enacted, is that we can supervise. We also have criminal liability in this – if one does not follow the law, one can even be sentenced to imprisonment.
It is absolutely true that we have cultural and national minorities, and we shall have respect for them. We shall find a reasonable balance. I think the law provides a reasonable balance based on these aspects, but the question regarding specifically the Convention on the Rights of the Child is important to ask. The Convention on the Rights of the Child has very many articles. It concerns both children's right to spiritual development, i.e., children's right to religion, and children's right to their own body. All of this must be weighed in when it comes to how one does this.
One can also see in the Convention on the Rights of the Child that children should not be subjected to unnecessary pain, but among the examples found in the preparatory works, male circumcision is not included. It is not claimed to be such. It is clear that it can be a matter of balancing. I also know that professional associations make a different assessment. But I have reviewed the preparatory works for the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and there one cannot straightforwardly draw that conclusion.
Like all other issues, it is important to follow this one, but the government does not intend to change the law or tear it up. On the other hand, we want to ensure in every way that the law is followed and that Ivo uses his supervision so that it is ensured that it happens in a safe and secure manner.
Pontus Andersson Garpvall (SD)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you to the Minister for the answer!
I noted that the Minister, in his opening statement, mentioned that circumcision of boys is a thousands-of-years-old tradition. The Minister is, of course, correct in that. But that a tradition has lasted a long time, I do not mean, is no argument for it to continue for all eternity. For a long time, animal sacrifice was a tradition within many cultures and religions, but it is nothing that is done now. Not until the year 2000 did the Catholic Church revoke its judgment against Galileo Galilei, who at that time challenged the church's traditional interpretation that the earth was the center of the universe, and for a long time it was a tradition within the Church of Sweden that only men could become priests, but even that was a tradition that was abolished.
What I want to get to is that there have been times in Sweden and the world when we have had customs, rules, and laws that we consider to be wrong today. Many of these we have changed even though religion has often lain like a wet blanket over enlightenment and science. Some religions' and cultures' will to, in this case, circumcise children is no exception. Religion says one thing and the profession and science say another. One can choose whether to follow the word of religion or the word of the profession.
As the minister pointed out, this is in many ways a philosophical discussion about whether one considers freedom of religion or children's rights according to the Convention on the Rights of the Child to carry the most weight. For my part, I do not believe that freedom of religion means that one can do whatever one wants in the name of religion; there are also limits there.
The purpose of Sweden's circumcision law was, as the minister mentioned, to prevent boys from suffering harm during circumcision because it otherwise risks occurring abroad or illegally in Sweden. But perhaps we do not reason in that way regarding other types of legislation. There are plenty of phenomena that we consider reprehensible and which we have prohibited in Sweden, but which still occur illegally in Sweden or abroad involving Swedish citizens. Part of the purpose of legislation must be that we, from a political standpoint, mark our opposition to a certain phenomenon that we do not consider okay and thereafter also expect the law to be followed.
The circumcision law states that the boy's attitude should be clarified as far as possible and that the procedure must not be performed against the boy's will. But it is, I believe, completely impossible to clarify regarding both infants and small children. This makes that wording quite meaningless unless the boy has reached an age so high that the boy himself can decide whether he wants to undergo the operation or not.
In light of that, I would like to ask the minister two questions, with respect for the fact that there are no facts regarding the first one. My first question is whether it ever happens at all that the procedure is interrupted because doctors have made the assessment that it is being done against the boy's will. My second question concerns the fact that the government, as stated, has no intention of introducing a ban on non-medical circumcision of boys. Does the government see the possibility of changing the legislation so that the boys concerned shall have reached an age so high that they themselves can decide whether they want to undergo the operation or not?
Statsrådet Acko Ankarberg Johansson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Regarding the first question, I have no information about it and cannot give any answer. There are quite a lot of things happening in healthcare where we do not have full information on all parts, and this is one of them. We do not even know which competencies and which employees are in healthcare today. This government therefore has quite a lot to do to be able to find out how it looks and also to be able to make wise decisions moving forward.
No, the government will not change the laws in the parts that the member highlights in his second question.
I reacted to something the member said. It is of course about freedom of religion. It naturally concerns both freedom of religion and freedom from religion. But I thought I heard the member say that religion lays itself like a wet blanket over development. That is not my opinion. Religion can sometimes lead to things that are undesirable, but to claim that religion in general would have stopped good development, enlightenment, and good educational ideals is completely incorrect. On the contrary, we can see how it has contributed in many different ways to enlightenment, development, and education.
I believe that one needs to see religion just like other things. It can have both good and negative things associated with it. My perception is not that religion is a wet blanket over development. That is not my view of the whole thing, but I may have heard incorrectly or emphasized it incorrectly in some way.
It is clear that this issue concerns religion. That is how it is, because there are fundamentally both cultural and religious customs surrounding this. I believe, however, that it is necessary to maintain the law, ensure that there is a functioning oversight, follow the development based on what we know about the interventions, and ensure that they occur in a safe manner.
We do not intend to change the age rules in the way the member proposes.
Pontus Andersson Garpvall (SD)
Mr. Speaker! Thanks again to the Minister for the answer!
Regarding my first question, I did not mean that it happens on a general level, but that in some cases it can be so that in a question concerning, for example, circumcision, religion says one thing and the profession says another. I mean that politicians in Sweden take a side and listen to religion before the profession, for certain reasons, even though it is known that there is no medical purpose whatsoever and that it only happens for traditional or religious reasons. But the minister and I shall simply have to agree that we do not agree.
My view on this issue is crystal clear. Circumcision of fully healthy, underage boys who cannot say no should not be allowed to be carried out in Sweden. Freedom of religion is not the same as being allowed to do whatever one wants in the name of religion. There are limits, and this is an issue where the limit is crossed for me.
In the world and in Sweden, there have been traditions and customs that have long been passé. A small child can in no way give its consent to this type of operation, and the intervention is irreversible. The profession is against it, but politicians from right to left choose, as they say, rather to follow religion than the profession's word.
I understand and respect that the Minister and the government have a difficult balancing act to perform in these issues. There are strong forces to keep the legislation as it is, but sometimes politics is also about having the will and then making decisions that can be uncomfortable precisely because they are right.
Mr. Speaker! I would like to thank you for this debate. Thanks also to the Minister for Health and Social Affairs for an interesting discussion!
Statsrådet Acko Ankarberg Johansson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the question! It is, as I mentioned before, necessary to highlight these issues even if the government does not intend to change the law. It is necessary to have the law that regulates how it happens so that it does not happen in any other way to the detriment of children, but it is important that one dares to raise these issues.
My view is that one cannot have one's religious belief as a reason for not living under Swedish law. That Swedish law and the fundamental values contained in the Instrument of Government apply is a self-evident matter. That is also why we have the circumcision law, which states how one should proceed if one wants to do this thing. Acting under the law is a self-evident matter. One must also, as a believer, comply with it. If you come to Sweden, it is Sweden's laws that apply. At the same time, we have freedom of religion, so we must make this possible. I believe that combination is possible. My view is that the circumcision law is an example where we find a reasonable balance in a very difficult issue.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.