Uncircumcised penis photo by David G Weismiller, MD (from Up-to-Date)
Eighteen states, including Colorado and South Carolina have eliminated Medicaid coverage for male circumcision. Furthermore, ballot initiatives, including one attempted in my hometown San Francisco, are being discussed that would ban the procedure altogether. I always worry when politics and political agendas start to mess with public health.
How about inserting some facts into the decision-making process? Well, the American Academy of Pediatrics 1999 policy on circumcision, reaffirmed in 2005 and soon to be updated again, states that, although there could be medical benefits to male circumcision (including reduction of transmission of sexually transmitted diseases), “the procedure is not essential to the child’s currentwell-being, parents should determine what is in the best interestof the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all maleinfants should be given accurate and unbiased information andbe provided the opportunity to discuss this decision.” Ok, that is sensible…informed choice should be an essential ingredient for all health decisions.
So here is some more useful information that the public and policy makers should consider. Aaron Tobian, MD, PhD and Ronald Gray, MD, MSc, of John Hopkins School of Medicine and Bloomberg School of Public, respectively, reviewed recent medical evidence about the risks and benefits of Male Circumcision in their commentary, “The Medical Benefits of Male Circumcision” featured in the November 23, 2011 issue of JAMA.
Here is a summary of their key findings:
- Studies in Africa have demonstrated that adult male circumcision decreases human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) acquisition in men by 51% to 60%. They go on to say that “there is substantial evidence that removal of the foreskin reduces the risk of male heterosexual HIV acquisition, however, the effect of male circumcision on reducing HIV acquisition among men who have sex with men is unclear.”
- Male circumcision reduces the risk of acquiring and transmitting certain heterosexually acquired sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), such as genital herpes, bacterial vaginosis, and trichomoniasis.
- The risk of acquiring high risk human papillomavirus (a cause of penile and cervical cancers) is reduced by about a third.
- Although these studies were conducted in Africa, STDs, including heterosexually transmitted HIV are common in the US.
- Neonatal male circumcision provides other potential benefits during childhood such as prevention of infant urinary tract infections, meatitis, balanitis, and phimosis
- The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) and the WHO have adopted a policy advocating male circumcision in countries with heterosexual HIV epidemics and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found economic benefits to the procedure based on reducing HIV infections alone.
Opponents of male circumcision consider the procedure to be a form of genital mutilation sometimes comparing it to female circumcision which involves removing some or all of the clitoris, a procedure that is associated with a lot of morbidity and even mortality. Newborn male circumcision, usually performed in the hospital a few days after birth, is a relatively simple procedure that involves snipping of the foreskin. I have a attended couple of brit’s, the Jewish ceremonial circumcision that takes place when the boy baby is 8 days old. Neither the hospital- performed nor the religious circumcision seem to cause much distress to the infant. They cry for a bit, but are easily soothed by the parents (or by a drop of wine in the case of a brit) – it doesn’t seem any worse than the first sprained ankle or skinned knee. That being said, I personally don’t know any circumcised men who are obsessed by the trauma of their early childhood penile operation or their sprained ankle/skinned knees, do you?
Some who oppose male circumcision say that male circumcision can cause sexual dysfunction. However, Tobian and Gray state that “the male circumcision trials evaluated sexual satisfaction in adult men and their female partners before and after the procedure and compared men randomized to male circumcision with uncircumcised controls. There were no significant differences in male sexual satisfaction or dysfunction among trial participants, and in one trial, circumcised men reported increased penile sensitivity and enhanced ease of reaching orgasm. In addition, 97% of female partners reported either no change or improved sexual satisfaction after their male partner was circumcised.”
As is true with all health care interventions, the consumer and policy makers needs to weigh the pros and cons – but they need solid information upon which to base their decision. It would be a shame if, like the hysteria over vaccinations related to faked research, the politics surrounding male circumcision lead to public health policies that are not sound..and safe.
{ 28 comments… read them below or add one }
Not mentioned, but very important, are two circumcision complications that should be part of the “informed consent.”
Circumcised men are 4.5 times more likely to acquire erectile dysfunction than intact men.
An estimated 117 baby boys die each year from circumcision complications. A Pittsburgh boy died just a few days ago.
Great blog. My extended family has split down the middle on this issue, so I am pleased to know where the science comes out.
“As is true with all health care interventions, the consumer and policy makers needs to weigh the pros and cons – but they need solid information upon which to base their decision. ”
The “consumer” is the infant and future man. Doctor Salber, stop posting discredited studies and take off your cultural blinders long enough to see tat you are wrong.
No national medical association in the world recommends routine circumcision, but Dr. Salber seems to think she knows better in this one-sided article. Circumcision is a money maker for physicians, including for those who receive millions of dollars in grant money from taxpayers to conduct studies promoting circumcision in Africa. Continuation of these funds requires that they find a benefit to circumcision.
In addition, healthy amputated foreskins from infants are sold to researchers to be used as feeder cells for embryonic stem cell research, for use in Oprah’s skin care products, and for developing skin for skin grafts. There is money involved in circumcision, and physicians benefit financially from convincing parents to circumcise.
The June 22, 1987 Boston Globe quoted Thomas Wiswell, M.D., as saying: “I have some good friends who are obstetricians outside the military, and they look at a foreskin and almost see a $125 price tag on it. Each one is that much money. Heck, if you do 10 a week, that’s over $1,000 a week, and they don’t take that much time.” (Lehman 1987)
The 18 states that have defunded medically unnecessary circumcisions have recognized that this tax money should be used only for medically necessary purposes. Medicaid funds by law are to be used for only medically necessary services. No one can validly make the case that amputating a healthy body part from another person is a medical necessity. All 50 states should stop wasting tax dollars on non-therapeutic circumcisions.
Medicaid and private health insurance funds should not be wasted on unnecessary surgeries, driving up health care costs today in hard economic times. It is far more important to be using funds for necessary costs like insulin to keep diabetics alive or chemotherapy to treat cancer patients than it is to pay physicians to cut off healthy foreskins from infants so that male children will “look like” their circumcised fathers. This is the most common reason given by parents today for choosing circumcision. This is not a medical reason, and the healthy foreskin is not a birth defect.
Dr. Salber and others can learn more about the anatomy and functions of the foreskin at:
http://www.cirp.org/pages/parents/lostlist/
http://mensightmagazine.com/Articles/Northrup/lovecirc.htm
To know or not to know: that is the question.
In this case, it appears that Patricia Salber has chosen not to know.
She makes no mention of the anatomy or functions of the human foreskin, which is a complex, multifunctional structure, composed of mucosa, normal skin, muscle fiber, blood vessels, and a huge number of nerves. The foreskin provides physical protection, several immunological functions, several mechanical functions aiding intercourse, and sensation to the autonomic and central nervous systems. It is essential for normal sexual function. Salber apparently has no knowledge of this at all.
Removal of the foreskin from a child leaves the child with a lifelong burden and violates his legal and human rights to bodily integrity and security of his person. Consequently, the amputation violates many rules of medical ethics.
Salber commits a logical fallacy by appealing to the authority of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), a highly biased source, since many of its members profit by performing the operation. It is now well established that the AAP overstates the unproved alleged benefits and understates the complications, risks, certain injury, and other disadvantages and drawbacks to the amputative surgery.
Salber properly reports that 18 state Medicaid plans have discontinued payments for the non-therapeutic operation. She fails to report the British National Health Service does NOT provide the non-therapeutic operation. She does NOT report that all fourteen Canadian Health Insurance Plans have, one-by-one, discontinued payments for non-therapeutic circumcision. She does NOT report that the New Zealand Health Plan long ago discontinued payments for non-therapeutic circumcision. She does NOT report that public hospital in Australia have discontinued providing non-therapeutic circumcision.
Salber fails to see the trauma of circumcision when the evidence of it is before her eyes. Circumcised doctors usually are the advocates and performers of infant circumcision. In so doing, they are re-experiencing and re-enacting their own trauma.
Salber then confuses a religious practice with medical science. The practice of circumcision as a religious rite does NOT justify its practice as a medical procedure.
Salber then cites a polemical argument by two notorious advocates of male circumcision and claims that male circumcision does not impair sexuality. In actuality, several recent studies have reported adverse effects for both the male and his female partner.
Medical funds are finate. Male infant circumcision is a non-therapeutic operation that has no medical indication. It is NOT medically-necessary. The eighteen states that have discontinued payments for this non-therapeutic operation have acted wisely because they can now use those funds previously squandered on non-therapeutic circumcision to provide necessary medical services.
Salber concludes by citing the necessity for “solid information.” Unfortunately, it WON’T come from Salber.
I have never had such a passionate response to anything I have written in the 6 years I have been hosting and writing for The Doctor Weighs In. Whew! I must say much of the criticism to my review of a paper published in JAMA falls into exactly the type of pseudo-scientific communication that I have concerns about – a lot of passion, but no solid evidence cited – Mensightmagazine, in my humble opinion, does not qualify as a peer-reviewed medical journal. I am neither for nor against circumcision. I believe it should be an informed choice that parents make on behalf of their male children. I am, however, strongly opposed to advocacy being confused with science.
The standard of care for pediatric surgery requires the medical benefits of the surgery to far outweigh the medical risks and harms or for the surgery to correct a congenital abnormality. Non-therapeutic circumcision does not even come close to meeting that standard of care. It is a clear violation of the principles of medical ethics that govern all other surgery on children.
Non-therapeutic male circumcision is a form of permanent body modification, not a valid medical procedure. There are effective, non-invasive ways to prevent or treat the medical problems that male circumcision is supposed to prevent. Medical ethics requires doctors to use effective, non-invasive methods of prevention and treatment first, before they use surgery.
The fact that Muslim and Jewish parents believe that male circumcision is a religious requirement is not a sufficiently good reason for society to tolerate medical doctors performing unnecessary surgery on the genitals of non-Muslim and non-Jewish boys.
Dr. Salber, I appreciate your willingness to partake in the discussion. I am not surprised at the response you’ve received. You might think of male infant circumcision as a common, safe procedure handy for training new interns surgical techniques, but this is a heated issue inside and outside of medicine. The news magazine “The Week” voted circumcision the #1 parental controversy of 2010.
I call circumcision “your parent’s body mod.” It has had a life of its own since it became medicalized in New York, in 1856. Circumcision spread around the country in the late 19th century when quacks like Kellogg and Remondino promoted it to cure masturbation and a host of other “ills.” As these were refuted new reasons sprang up, some supported by the latest study, some merely on anecdotal evidence. These were also found to be false. I recall sitting in a meeting a long time ago and someone cautioned, “Some day a doctor will come up with a theory to say that circumcision cures HIV/AIDS.”
About 30 years ago a grassroots movement sprouted up composed of doctors, nurses, and men, all suffering from the trauma of experiencing circumcision. They were joined by children’s advocates concerned about the ongoing human rights violations. One of the problems they deal with is that doctors have appropriated a primitive ritual as medicine, bolstered it with hundreds of articles, while conveniently ignoring articles that show harm (which I note that you have done here), all the while ignoring the elephant in the room: If circumcision were to be introduced today as a prophylactic surgery it would be flatly denied on the basis of bioethics.
When articles are printed that attempt to discuss the pros and cons of circumcision they tend to limit their discussion to medicine, which is odd since infant circumcision is non-indicated, and therefore cultural, not medical. Such self-imposed blinding! They don’t mention the ethics surrounding the sexist, non-consensual, sensory-depriving elective surgery of a minor; and upon their genitals no less! The true term for this is genital mutilation. Instead they call for an evidenced-based decision, but this is a smokescreen. It is a straw-man argument meant to support the ongoing mistreatment of children rather than question what has happened to its millions of victims. To me, this would be like an 1860’s journalist who wants to write a “balanced” article on slavery by discussing the economic advantages of reduced labor costs and the benefits from plantation life, but not interviewing a single slave, anti-slavery advocate, or ethicist, or considering for a moment this might be a human rights violation.
I suggest you visit http://intactamerica.org and http://circumcisiondecisionmaker.com
Why are you surprised that surgery without consent (that amputates highly erogenous tissue) would generate anything less than a “passionate” response?
Are you a doctor? If so you then certainly have access to the medical photos of children so badly damaged from circumcision “accidents” that the entire penis was destroyed. If you did not find these in your research for this article then your research was superficial. If you knew about these casualties from forced genital surgery and still published such a superficial article then shame on you for hiding the truth and promoting this abuse!
My own studies into circumcision and the damage in its wake have revealed that there are countless children who have been so damaged by this surgery on their genitals (where there was no need or consent) that many died, and some took their own lives as bitterly unhappy adults.
“I am neither for or against circumcision.” What a pathetic and vapid comment from anyone, let alone someone purporting to be knowledgable about this subject. Replace the word circumcision with some other human rights abuse, slavery for example and see how this sounds.
You say you are “strongly opposed to advocacy being confused with science.” I am strongly opposed to junk science being used to violate human rights.
A new Danish study found that “Circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfilment. ” Here’s a medical journal article for the doctor. See:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21672947
http://sciencenordic.com/male-circumcision-leads-bad-sex-life
Those who are interested in the welfare of children should learn how circumcision has impacted children through botched circumcisions and circumcision deaths. These sad cases are brought to light every time a new lawsuit is filed. These are all tragedies that did not need to happen, because circumcision is not a necesssary surgery. See:
http://www.glorialemay.com/blog/?p=581
This 2007 study, published in the BJU, demonstrates that circumcision removes the most sensitive parts of the penis.
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/sorrells_2007.pdf
For a graphical representation of the data:
http://www.circumstitions.com/Sexuality.html#sorrells
The Mensight article by Christiane Northrup, M.D. was based on a study published in BJU International (1999), 83, Suppl. 1, 79-84. You can read that study at:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1079.x/pdf
The photo accompanying this article is a photo of a normal, natural, intact penis, before the doctor got his or her hands on it. We don’t say “uncircumcised” to describe the normal genitals of females who have not been circumcised.
“I am neither for nor against circumcision.” If so, then why is this article all
pro-circumcision? This is not a neutral article, and your words are indicative of that.
” I believe it [circumcision] should be an informed choice that parents make on behalf of their male children.” Who does the penis belong to- the male child or his parents? Who has to live with the lifelong consequences of circumcision- the male or his parents? Why do you fail to recognize the human rights of children to retain all of their healthy body parts? If you want to grant parents the “right” to genitally cut their male children, then out of equality and fairness you should also want parents to have the “right” to genitally cut their female children. I don’t favor either.
I am against non-therapeutic, forced circumcision of both males and females, and I am not afraid to say so. The time is long overdue for physicians to stop soliciting for and promoting circumcision. Non-therapeutic circumcision needs to go the way of routine tonsillectomies, which were abandoned many years ago. It does not speak well of the medical profession when doctors continue to perform a surgery that no national medical association in the world recommends.
Here’s Salber, another perverted, disgusting, human-rights-violating MD spreading the usual deception, lies and unethical “reasons” for continuing the lucrative racket in US business (formerly medicine) of torturing and sexually mutilating helpless, healthy boys. This evil in medicine is the most alarming, most horrifying thing that’s ever happened in the history of medicine: US MDs (who, if US-born and male, are sexually mutilated) ignoring and trampling “First, do no harm” and destroying, slicing off normal, natural, healthy, lifelong beneficial erotogenic nerves, specialized foreskin parts, and tissues in the priceless male foreskin, and thereby these MDs and those like Salber guarantee sexual dysfunction for the boy (later man) and cheating those males from ever knowing the full measure, the full degree of male sexual pleasure and keeping them from ever knowing the ease in attaining and controlling that pleasure. We truly live in a sick, violent, religion-damaged world. Just as in the case of countless US MDs, she’s brainwashed about and fears and hates the normal, natural intact penis and its owner. I wish I had written the following but I’ll offer it here and hope Salber squirms and trembles a good deal:
With their calculated, deceptive rhetoric, the perpetrators of this atrocity
attempt to draw links between an obvious horror and positive abstractions such as “tradition”, “religion”, “science”, “medicine”, and “hygiene”. The documents and essays on http://www.SexuallyMutilatedChild.org, however, expose this charade and show what the sexual mutilation of children is really about: envy, lust, hatred, male sexual rivalry, sadism, criminal psychopathology, desperation, ruthlessness, power, control, oppression, violence, contempt for humanity, and greed.
It is about time that more human rights activists followed this lead and refused to play the circumcisers’ game of evading the real issues. Circumcision is not really about medicine or public health. Circumcision is not really about preventing or curing any disease. Circumcisers are not mistaken in their medical beliefs; they are lying. Circumcision advocacy is really about weaving a convincing network of lies to deflect the attention of the public and the criminal justice system from the frightening truth that circumcisers are really criminally deranged, psychotic, knife-wielding maniacs driven by psychopathic obsessions and compulsions that most people could never understand.
- Anni, commentator in SAN FRANCISCO BANS CIRCUMCISION,
http://bit.ly/9GgUzp
I’ve never been able to accept the fact that someone cut part of my penis off
when I was a baby. The sheer monstrosity of it haunts every waking moment of my life. Sometimes I think I’m beginning to make some sort of adjustment to it, but then I see an unmutilated man in a magazine or shower and I become
overwhelmed by uncontrollable feelings of outrage and disbelief that I was made the victim for life of something so sick. Sometimes I feel I’m at the edge of madness and just can’t handle it.
– statement from a US-born sexually mutilated (“circumcised”) man; collected by John A. Erickson, creator of “In Memory of the Sexually Mutilated Child”, http://www.SexuallyMutilatedChild.org
Despite the obviously irrational cruelty of circumcision, the profit incentive in American medical practice is unlikely to allow science or human rights principles to interrupt the highly lucrative American circumcision industry. It is now time for European medical associations loudly to condemn the North American medical community for participating in and profiting from what is by any standard a senseless and barbaric sexual mutilation of innocent children.
– Paul M. Fleiss, MD, MPH [Circumcision. Lancet 1995;345:927] [Fleiss is a Jew who, along with other Jews, (see http://www.JewsAgainstCircumcision.org and http://www.JewishCircumcision.org) works to end this atrocity and fraud in US medicine.]
Sharing the awareness that the human penis is designed correctly the way it normally comes into the world: with its foreskin intact; that a male’s possession of his own penis – including his foreskin – is his inviolable birthright; and that a child’s chances for health and happiness throughout
his life are greater – by far – if he’s allowed to keep all of the penis he’s born with.
– John A. Erickson (creator of “In Memory of the Sexually Mutilated Child”, http://www.SexuallyMutilatedChild.org )
Salber defends herself by saying:
There are a number of problems with this statement. First of all, infant boys have healthy foreskins, aren’t sick, and don’t need surgery. There are NO medical indications for the surgical amputation.
Parental consent for circumcision is surrogate consent. Surrogates are much more limited in their capacity to consent than are individuals who give their own consent. Surrogates have a clear duty to act in the best interests of the patient for whom they are giving surrogate consent. Male neonatal non-therapeutic circumcision quite clearly – by its very nature – violates the infant’s right to bodily integrity and the security of his person. It cannot be in the best interests of a person to violate his rights, unless there is a very compelling medical indication to do so. Such an indication is lacking in the case of infant circumcision.
Parents don’t have rights over their children. They do not own their children. They are given sufficient power to carry out their duties to their children. Cutting off a healthy body part is NOT a duty that a parent owes to a child.
The Committee on Bioethics puts it this way:
Male infant circumcision is not a diagnostic procedure and it is not treatment, because no disease is present to be treated. It is simply an invasion of the child’s person and destruction of a valuable body part in violation of his rights. Granting of permission or consent for non-therapeutic infant circumcision exceeds the powers granted to parents and other surrogates.
Salber has it wrong. Parents have a duty to protect the human person of their children. There can be NO right to circumcise.
The decision to circumcise should be taken by the child when he is of age, not before.
Reference:
1. American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Bioethics. Informed consent, parental permission, and assent in pediatric practice. Pediatrics 1995;95(2):314-7. Available at: http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/pediatrics;95/2/314.pdf
To Patricia Salber,
Cutting healthy erogenous tissue from infants and children has NOTHING to do with public health. It is child abuse.
You said, “I personally don’t know any circumcised men who are obsessed by the trauma of their early childhood penile operation or their sprained ankle/skinned knees, do you?”
Obsessed? I would say informed and focused. Yes, I am one of those men whose childhood was deeply traumatized by this form of child sexual abuse and I know others. Aside from night terrors as a child up until the age of 7 I also suffered from too much penile skin being removed so that my penis chaffed and bled when sexually active as a young man.
The fact that you compare the willful, organized and routine destruction of a child’s foreskin with “skinned knees and sprained ankles” shows how dis-ingenuous you are.
A child’s basic human right to bodily integrity supersedes the junk science you quote in this superficial article.
Men are now reporting the lifelong harm resulting from this surgical abuse of children’s genitals. See the Global Survey of Circumcision Harm for an ever growing library of photos documenting the harm, some extremely severe of this heinous form of abuse.
Forced genital cutting of children is falling into disrepute, even though a few unscrupulous people are still promoting it.
The thing that needs to be studied is the psychological reasons why people like yourself are still promoting this form of child abuse.
This article, along with all the harmful pro-circumcision nonsense before it becomes part of the collective archive showing how this abuse continued and ultimately comes to an end. Like slavery and the subjugation of minorities the sexually repressive act of genital cutting of children will end.
I’m a man that was non- consensually genitally cut and I really wish I had the choice to experience sex the way that nature intended. It’s my body, so it should be my choice.
The idea that it is ethical for a doctor to cut off a normal, healthy, sexually sensitive part of my body without my consent because Tobian and Gray think I am too stupid or too lazy or too irresponsible to protect myself and my partners from HIV infections is extremely condescending and offensive.
Routine infant circumcision is wrong on every level. This procedure has bothered me since I was a boy. Genital cutting on a male, or female, can and in many cases does result in psychological trauma to some degree when the individual realizes that a very intimate part of his/her body was removed. Every consent form should clearly state that circumcision may result in psychological trauma as the individual realizes that he has had part of his penis removed.
The medical community must understand that litigation concerning this matter will increase in the future, as young men realize they have undergone a procedure to satisfy a cultural norm. When I was a boy I thought I was the only person in the world that felt this way, but now there are many thousands and the numbers are increasing daily. I urge those in the medical profession to consider this carefully. What you are doing is wrong. I know you mean well, but you have hurt so many, so deeply. It’s time to start the healing and stop the hurting.
You people who think that circumcision is a mutilation make no sense to me. I neither remember nor experience ANY draw backs from being cut. Those who say sex isn’t as enjoyable for you or your partner are screwed in the head. I’ve never heard any complaints from any of my partners, nor have I had any difficulty performing the act. I can’t imagin sex being any more enjoyable then it already is. And spare me the arguements that having a foreskin makes it better because if you’re cut you wouldn’t know anyways.
As for any feelings that my genitals have been mutilated, never had any… And as to any memory of being cut, who remembers the first 3 years of their life anyways, let along the first week.
As is typical with pro-circumcision arguments you present several reasons why circumcision might be good – see “…summary of their key findings…”. However as usual you’re careful not to state what the actual % chance of getting any of the quoted disabilities/illnesses is before circumcision. In each case, the % chance is already pretty small.
Allow me to clue people in here. If male circumcision is such a useful helpful thing, why is it thatvery few cultures in the world practice it? To put this in perspective, nowhere in the first world is circumcsion routinely practiced other than in the USA. In europe, circumcision is very rare and strangely enough men in europe don’t suffer from a huge % of penis related medical or hygene problems.
To Bill who posted – so what advantages have you had from having your foreskin removed? Care to tell us how your life has been improved? if there aren’t any positived why have it done?
Sounds to me like way too many of you “men” have some serious psychological issues that have little or nothing to do with a routine circumcision performed as a newborn infant…suck it up big boy. Who knows what trauma *might* have occurred, had you not had the procedure. Endless infections, excess yeast, tight foreskins that rips constantly during sex/masurbation, painful retraction disorders and more that may have required you to have the procedure done at an age when you WILL have remembered and felt every last pain filled second of it…you will never know so quit your whining and grow a pair – not a foreskin.
There is no reason to circumcise any person.
As a father of 3 intact boys and 2 intact girls, I can say that the boys were much easier to clean. None of my boys ever had a single UTI, or any of the other misleading falsehoods that the pro-circ group spouts.
The incidence of a baby’s circumcision being botched is HIGHER than the chance of him ever developing a problem with his foreskin in his life.
There is never a need for circumcision, since any of the rare foreskin issues that may occur can be cured with antibiotics and non-surgical methods. Circumcision is an outdated solution for any foreskin issues.
Problems with “endless infections, excess yeast, and tight foreskins” is the biggest load of bull I’ve ever heard. Around 85% of males in the world are intact, and foreskin problems are virtually unheard of in any country other than the United States. Just another scare tactic to convince parents to chop off a perfectly healthy, important body part so doctors can make a few bucks.
Circumcision is certainly not cleaner. The foreskin protects against disease and bacteria, the same way that the eyelids protect the eyes. An intact boy only has to pull back the foreskin and let the water run over the glans in order to keep himself clean. Actual population statistics show that circumcised men have 3-4 times HIGHER rate of STDs and AIDS than intact men.
The foreskin is not a birth defect. It is a healthy part of the male body and has many important functions. It’s not “extra skin”. It is the tip of the penis. The foreskin protects the glans from infection and abrasion from rubbing against clothing. It is an important protective membrane — the same as the eyelids, lips, and nostrils. Females also have a foreskin. The foreskin lubricates enhances sexual pleasure for both the male and female. It contains thousands of pleasurable nerve endings, as sensitive as the nerve endings in our fingertips. Males lose 70% of these pleasurable nerve endings during circumcision.
Circumcision is not a “quick snip”. It’s a surgery in which they strap the baby down and cut off a healthy, protective, and useful part of his penis.
Circumcision is extremely painful. At birth, the foreskin is fuzed in place, and doesn’t separate on its own until childhood or puberty. The first step in circumcision is ripping the foreskin away from the glans, which results in the nerve endings being torn away, and permanently desensitizes the head of the penis. The American Academy of Pediatrics describes the pain of circumcision as “severe and persistent”. Even with anesthetic (which is rarely used) the pain cannot be entirely eliminated. The needle itself is very painful and must be shot into multiple areas of the baby’s genital region–including straight into the head of the penis. A dorsal nerve block (the most commonly used anesthetic) only numbs the top of the penis. Once the doctor begins cutting the underside of the penis, the pain is felt full force. Circumcision involves crushing the foreskin with a cold metal clamp. Once the foreskin is crushed for a few minutes, the foreskin is cut away with surgical scissors and knives–slicing apart veins and nerves. Many babies go into shock from the intense pain and stop reacting.
Circumcision is psychologically damaging. Studies show that boys and men who were circumcised in infancy are more sensitive to pain than girls and intact boys. Circumcised men also have a higher incidence of emotional problems, trust issues, and communication issues.
No medical organization in the world recommends circumcision.
The United States is the only country left that continues regular circumcision in hospitals. Other countries, such as Canada and Australia have discontinued the practice in their hospitals because the surgery is severely damaging to the infant and has no benefits.
Most parents today are NOT having their boys circumcised. Since 2009, less than 30% of infant boys in hospitals the United States have been circumcised.
I’m not positive if this mentioned in any other comments but it has been proven that men who are intact are at a higher risk of getting HIV/AIDS then men who are circumcised because the cells that make up the foreskin are more sensitive to diseases.
Kaitlyn- When saying something is “proven” it is helpful to provide a reference so readers can judge for themselves. As you know, this is a very controversial topic. Many experts believe circumcision has a role to play in HIV prevention in the developing world. Go to PubMed and search for “circumcision and HIV prevention). These studies look mainly the outcome “HIV infection.” The issue of acceptability of the practice in various populations is a different research question. Many HIV researchers would say that routine condom use is the preferred prevention strategy.
for 100+ years, and only in the u.s. and canada, has the practice of non-medically indicated circumcision been practiced based literally (read the history) on pre-scientific folklore and myth and seen as a panacea (cure-all) for disease in general (in fact, the first performed in order to cure motor & developmental issues in two male infants), and only now, 100 years after millions of males have been unnecessarily operated without medically justifiable basis nor evidence of benefit whatsoever established (and therefore explicitly violating the “do no harm” of the Hippocratic Oath), the circumcision research done in africa i have read recommends it THERE because of the rates of HIV and the dire economics of third world countries where proper access to medical care as well as rates of compliance with practices of HIV prevention through barrier methods like condom use is generally very low, THEREFORE the conclusion of its recommendation. they key missing element is (and i am sure that any minimally competent doctor, including the author of the obviously highly biased yet purportedly neutral article), would know that these are conclusions centered on and limited to the african populations & countries’ social and economic circumstances, not generalizable to a first world, wealthy country like the US. one need simply apply the statistical science of 1 out of 500 infants experiencing severe and even life-threatening complications due to non-medically indicated (ie. so-named “routine”) infant circumcision compared to, for example, the normal risk (1% total) for urinary tract infection in infants under the age of 2, to understand that the benefits of intact male genitals far, far outweigh those purported for non-medically necessary circumcision. it’s worth noting that myths and psuedo-science in the mid 1800s began what is now simply a trend, and that we would never justify, for example, removal of all breasts in all females to prevent breast cancer, which certainly we could show statistically would drastically reduce adult incidence of the disease as well as many other related breast health issues such as mastitis, and even breast tenderness during menses.
Thanks for the article, and I know there are many pro’s and con’s to this whole debate. But, ultimately I wished my parents gave me the opportunity to make the decision. I am very unhappy with my circumcision and as an adult suffers from severe depression, anxiety and feelings of inadequacy about my circumcised penis. I am not happy about it and would have liked some say in it and are therefore pro legislation that prevent parents even on religious grounds to perform circumcision on young males who have no say in the matter.
Being one who is circumcised…I can say I love it. I was circumcised because my parents were lucky enough to find a doctor who would do it. I never had to worry about the “peel the foreskin back an clean it good”, and I also lower the possibility of giving my wife infections. I don’t have to worry about the STD’s because I only sleep with her…but circumcision does make things easier to keep clean for both me and my wife’s health. And I think things down stairs look a lot sexier being circumcised….and I don’t know 100% sure (because I’ve never been “not circumcised”), but sex feels far better. Now on that last one, I can only assume, because if I had foreskin covering the most sensitive part of my body, things wouldn’t feel as good…I could only imagine. Either way…was married before to an uncircumcised guy. She was always getting infections…and she says that sex feels way better to her now (with me)….also she says I’m far more pleasing to the eyes by being circumcised. So as a man who was circumcised as a baby…I can say, “thank God I’m circumcised”.
I keep hearing it’s a “personal choice.” It’s MY body and I was NOT given a choice. I would have chosen to keep my whole penis. I am pissed off I am missing a functional part of my body and I had no say in it!