[Medical and legal aspects of genital mutilation and circumcision. Part II: Male circumcision]. / Medizinische und rechtliche Aspekte der Genitalverstümmelung bzw. Beschneidung. Tell II: Die rituelle Zirkumzision.

In the last few years, male circumcision has become the subject of controversial discussion. On the one hand, medical and hygienic arguments, ideology, freedom of religion, cultural identity and social adequacy are claimed by those supporting male circumcision. On the other hand, the justification of this practice also has to be critically scrutinized just as the question whether the parents have the right to consent to the operation. Today, opinions range from those who claim that religion and culture alone justify the practice to those who consider circumcision of minors unable to give their consent as bodily injury subject to punishment. In contrast to female genital mutilation, most positions do not postulate that circumcision violates morality. If the person concerned is able to give his consent, freedom of religion may also justify circumcision after weighing its pros and cons as well as its risks and potential side effects.

[Medical and legal aspects of genital mutilation and circumcision part I: female genital mutilation (FGM)]. / Medizinische und Rechtliche Aspekte der Genitalverstiimmelung bzw. Beschneidung Teil I: Weibliche Genitalversttimmelung.

Female genital mutilation (FGM) is considered to be against the law and against morality not only in Western countries, although a woman of age and able to consent may sometimes think differently. The procedure may have serious physical and emotional consequences for the girl or woman. Nevertheless there are attempts to justify the procedure with medical and hygienic pseudoarguments, ideology, freedom of religion, cultural identity and social adequacy. Outside the Western world, some people claim that religion and culture alone justify the practice. In Germany, parents can lose the right to determine the residence of their daughter, if she is faced with the risk of genital mutilation in order to prevent that the child or girl is taken to her home country. Genital mutilation as a gender-specific threat is recognized as a reason to grant asylum or prevent deportation. Proposals to make genital mutilation a separate punishable offence are presently discussed by the legislator.

Impact of general versus local anesthesia on early postoperative cognitive dysfunction following carotid endarterectomy: GALA Study Subgroup Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the influence of either general (GA) or local (LA) anesthesia on the postoperative neurocognitive outcome in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in a randomized study. Therefore, we performed a subgroup analysis of the multicenter GALA study. METHODS: A total of 40 patients were enrolled and randomized to receive either LA (n = 17) or GA (n = 23) anesthesia. The indication for intraoperative shunting was based on the intraoperative cognitive performance in the LA group and on the clinical experience of the surgeon in the GA group. Outcome measurements included patient performance on a neuropsychological Trail Making Test, evaluation of patients mood using the self-report inventory BSKE, and serum levels of the neurobiochemical marker S100beta. The data were analyzed for each variable using a t-test and were presented as the mean (SD). Differences in shunt frequency were analyzed performing a chi-squared test. Group differences in the Trail Making Test, BSKE evaluation, and S100beta concentrations were derived from the analyses of covariances with repeated measurements using preoperative values as covariates. RESULTS: Compared to baseline, the S100beta concentrations increased significantly in the GA group [0.086 (0.038) vs. 0.061 (0.024) microg/l; p < 0.001] before unclamping of the carotid artery, whereas there were no changes in the LA group [0.068 (0.024) microg/l, p = 0.09 vs. 0.061 (0.021) microg/l, p = 0.09). Furthermore, we detected significant group differences after surgical intervention (GA 0.087 (0.031) microg/l; LA 0.06 (0.021) microg/l; p = 0.006). The postoperative neurocognitive performance in the Trail Making Test decreased significantly in the GA group, whereas there were no significant changes in the LA group. The self-report inventory BSKE evaluation revealed no significant group differences. CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that performing local anesthesia in patients undergoing CEA positively influenced early postoperative neurocognitive outcomes. Significant group differences in postoperative S100beta concentrations confirmed the beneficial effect of local anesthesia.