Outside of religion, what is the need for male circumcision? Female circumcision is too big an issue for me to take on currently. I got the news late but here it is: Genital Integrity Awareness Week 2018 takes place March 28-April 3! Perhaps, we should celebrate.
How wide spread is male circumcision (the removal of the foreskin from the penis)? The rates vary from 1% in Japan, and 2% in Spain and Sweden, to 58% in the United States, to more than 80% in Muslim-majority countries. There appears to be very little medical reason for male circumcision, and yet it continues.
There appears to be very little medical reason for male circumcision, and yet it continues.“In 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) stated that the medical benefits of male circumcision were not enough for the group to recommend that the procedure be made routine at all hospitals. As a result, some states began withdrawing Medicaid coverage for circumcision.” – newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/male-circumcision-rates-lower-78871
When Medicaid cut payments for circumcision, the number of operations dropped.
As more and more people understand circumcision the more they object. “On March 25, 2017 the Danish Nurses Organization declared non-therapeutic circumcision of healthy boys unethical and a direct violation of children’s rights according to the UN convention.” It’s the old catch-all phrase of “why fix something that isn’t broke.”
In countries with free public health, circumcision is almost non-existent.Some people think that doctors push circumcision. If a doctor delivers a child he gets one fee, but he can earn more if he also does a circumcision. There may be something to that way of thinking. The proportion of boys circumcised for medical reasons in England fell from 35% in the early 1930s to only 6.5% by the mid-1980s. Why? After World War II, the U.K. established free health care, which meant there was no economic reason for a doctor to suggest an extra medical procedure. By 2000, an estimate was shown that only 3.8% of male children were circumcised.
In countries with free public health, circumcision is almost non-existent.
Many people still voice the old wives tale that babies can’t feel pain. Not so!
A few weeks ago I posted a simple query on Facebook: “The unkindest cut . . . what are your thoughts on circumcision?” Discussion lasted for days. Here are just a few of the replies*.
- I don’t really have an opinion, but my husband certainly does. Especially when our son was born.
- Completely barbaric and unnecessary!
- There are health benefits on the “pro” side, the primary con is the temporary experience of pain, but that can be addressed easily.
- It has no benefits ar all except religious brainwashing. I faced thus issue when my son was born. My husband ‘s was a supporter abd wanted my son to be circumcised. But I stood my grounds. This is a very old school.
- ask my Dad .. do it or not .. he hesitated .. I said ” Dad just think a minute .. and then just tell es or No ” He said better do it … I still remember the scream from the nursery down the hall.
- Why would anyone want to learn and listen I thought it was just kind of one little snip when they were a baby like a few weeks old or something and if you days I can’t remember certainly wouldn’t do it after that seems like it would be too painful.
- We were given an opportunity at the local small hospital where we volunteered at to watch a circumcision. That experience has stayed with me like it was just this morning! We were told that a child that young….a few days old ….was too young for anesthetic so what they did was fill a finger of sterile glove with brandy…poke a tiny hole in it and let the baby suck on it just prior to the “surgery”. There is NO WAY that the brandy was sufficient……that baby howled like it’s life was being drained from it’s tiny body.
- It’s torture. If I had a little boy I wouldn’t have done it, I would have taught him how to wash his penis properly…. I can’t believe this barbaric practice still exists when we can freaking wash ourselves….
- Not sure torture is the right word. Cruelty, certainly, but nobody is seeking to torment or extract confessions from circumcision victims (is victim the right word?).
- How can a man’s first experience in life be sexual torture and not affect his sexual relationships in life?
In many progressive countries, female circumcision has been illegal for years. Iceland is now on the verge of taking a legal step and banning male circumcision as well. I think it is a good idea. Do people not realize the pain babies go through? When our children were little, I insisted my wife take the kids in for their shots. I couldn’t stand hearing them cry from the minor pain of a shot, much less a medical procedure involving blood and actual pain. Today I would just say, no.
Just because newborn babies can’t tell you they feel pain doesn’t mean they don’t feel pain. They do.“Just because newborn babies can’t tell you they feel pain doesn’t mean they don’t feel pain. They do. And parents can help. We tend to think that newborns are too little to really experience pain, and that if they do experience it, they soon forget it. However, research has shown that, indeed, babies do experience pain . . . ” – health.harvard.edu/blog/what-parents-need-to-know-about-pain-in-newborns-201601269076
Please, feel free to comment about this article.
* Comments are presented as they were sent.
Yes the AAP is the last medical organization on earth to support male genital mutilation and why? The organization is primarily Jewish cowards that want to protect there beliefs over the right’s a child should have to there own body no matter the gender. Just pin pricking a female genitalia in the United States is a long prison sentence, sucking on a male child’s genitals after completely mutilating the normal function of the adult male is legal and often jokes are made about it by Jewish newspapers. Wake up people protect your children no matter what gender no matter what religion the child’s freedom to choose for themselves should and must be protected by the Constitution.
Rick,
Thank you for reading and for writing. I always enjoy comments. I wasn’t sure where you were going at first, but it looks like in the conclusion we are both on the same page. I think it is about freedom and the right of choice . . . and the un-needed procedure.
Thanks, again for reading and commenting.
Don
There is NO WAY you can compare female circumcision to male circumcision. It’s a completely different process for HORRIBLE reasons. The female circumcision is designed to make sex have no pleasure or even painful, hoping to keep your captive, child bride from straying. It’s truly horrible and barbaric. Not even close to the same thing.
Betsy,
Thank you for reading and writing. I agree completely with you about female circumcision. I too think it is horrible and barbaric.
Please, continue to read my articles and commenting.
Don
Half of the skin covering and 2/3 of the erogenous nerve endings are removed often leading to mental stenosis, narrowing of the pee hole, that must be treated with surgery.
Do you even know what you are talking about Betsy? Or are you just repeating what you’ve been taught to say.
Thank you for reading and for writing. I like to point out that almost all male mammals have a foreskin. Nature must have thought it important, so why should man remove it? It doesn’t make sense to me.
Thank you, again for reading and for commenting. I like to see interaction . . . and discussion.
Don
You have a right to your opinion. That is the beauty of this Country.
However, in following your facebook posts, I find that you tend to spark more discussions in the hope of pitting people against other people than really finding of fact.
I was circumcised as an infant, and do not feel that I carry any emotional baggage that I am firmly aware of… to the point that I certainly had not qualms having my son circumcised, and I held his hand through the procedure. Now, I have had more than one person inform me that in the past 13 years, I am a good parent. So, are there so many people that are incorrect? That I am a horrible parent? My son’s mother did not beg me to reconsider, so it was not just a “man thing”. According to some of those opinions you sought, it seems that I must be ranked right up there with people that kick puppies & kittens, join the NRA or become Yankee fans.
For every point made in the discussions I have read, there has been a counter point. Unless you are considering yourself to possibly have more children, with the chance that one is born a man child, how about we let parents discuss this topic with their medical practitioners, clergy, rabbi, Mullah or who ever they wish instead of sensationalizing a personal topic.
Paul,
I always appreciate your point of view, so thank you for reading and for commenting. I don’t feel that I write to pit people against people. I sometimes have to defend what I think and write. People don’t always see eye to eye. As I state in this article I posted a simple query about circumcision on Facebook and was taken aback by the responses both in the number and the emotional content. I looked for facts instead of assertions and statements. I’m a good researcher and fact finder on the internet. In addition a friend loaned me a copy of “Male & Female Circumcision” by Sami A. Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh. Although I alluded to the website http://www.savingsons.org in my second image of the article I did not use the content and connections that it contained. That website did show me how serious many people are about male circumcision (that is where I found out about GIAW, however). I think it would be a very unusual day if you kicked a puppy. And personally, I find baseball boring. Rest assured, however that even though I am sometimes quick with a quip, I am quite serious and dedicated to what I do . . . and believe. Thanks again for reading and writing. We should do coffee.
Well said, Paul. Besides the obvious fact that the methods and ends of circumcision completely differ between the genders, it’s ridiculous that anyone would ask the government to step in and ban something that is no one’s business. I also don’t suppose it even needs to be said that many who are in favor of such govt interference in THIS matter are, conversely, opposed to the govt stopping doctors from actually killing that same child, just a few weeks before.
Jordan,
Thank you for reading and for writing. I’m a little confused . . . or perhaps you read something into the article that wasn’t there. A ban by the state was never even remotely suggested. I was talking about male circumcision and its need for lack of.
Thanks, again for reading and for commenting, however.
Don
Mr. Nimmo, I agree with your comments regarding the writer’s intentions, and his use of this platform to discuss this subject. My wife is an obstretric nurse and this subject is discussed between the physician and the soon-to-be parents accompanied by informational materials. The writer should stick with what restaurant serves the best spaghetti sauce.
Marty,
Thank you for reading and for writing. I appreciate your observation, but I don’t see an opinion other than spaghetti sauce. I would like to see your wife’s opinion. I recommend the website http://www.savingsons.org for other opinions. That you, again for reading and for commenting.
Don
Each of the nearly two million boys born in the U.S. this year will have the fate of his penis decided by his parent(s). Civil and civilized discussion and consideration of topics such as this need to be had. If we can’t even discuss why we hold our beliefs on a topic such as cutting a baby boy’s foreskin, we will never be able to grapple with climate change, gun control, and abortion. Maybe spaghetti sauce needs to remain a topic between the cook and customer. Thanks for the article.
Richard,
Thank you for reading and writing. Hopefully learning and discussion should go hand in hand. For any operation or medical procedure, there should always be a logical reason behind it. Just because something has been going on for years, doesn’t make it right or acceptable. Thank you for your intelligent and open minded comments.
Please, keep reading and commenting.
Don
Five Observations:
1. Mr. Doman’s article, whether he is right or wrong about all his stated facts, is thought provoking. When he states only 1% of Japanese males are circumcised and then states 58% of males are circumcised in the United States, I was floored.
I had no clue about the 1% and I thought almost 100% of US males were circumcised. Without questioning our cultural proclivity towards circumcision I assumed that with rare exceptions, mostly religious, all males in America went under the knife at an early age.
Mr. Doman’s worldwide facts, in themselves, should open up intelligent conversation between thoughtful and intelligent readers. Do we have it right in America or is Japan correct?
2. It is interesting to me that all three previous reader comments seem to make an effort to shut down Mr. Doman’s decision to write about circumcision. I am an eclectic writer, but never in my wildest dreams have I ever thought about writing an article on this subject. I think Mr. Doman should be admired for coming up with the topic and for having the courage to write about circumcision in a public forum.
3. While I totally and emphatically agree with everything Ms. Tainer says in her reader reply, in my mind Ms. Tainer’s comments do not apply to Mr. Doman’s article. In fact Mr. Doman’s second sentence takes female circumcision completely out of the discussion.
4. Mr. Nimo and I have known each other and been friends for decades and it is my hope our positive relationship continues in spite of anything I might say related to Mr. Doman’s article.
Obviously Mr. Doman struck a nerve with Mr. Nimo as evidenced by his strong reactionary comments.
I am not able to address Mr. Nimo’s Facebook observation because I have happily chosen to avoid the Facebook scene, completely.
From reading this specific article without the benefit of any Facebook readings, all I see is an American citizen exercising his right to free speech with ample courage to bring up a unique and personal topic that obviously can benefit from more thoughtful discussion and scientific research. It is very possible more light needs to be placed on this topic.
I see no connection between Mr. Doman’s article and good father Vs. bad father.
5. If Marty’s wife were an obstetric nurse in Japan the culture might find his wife and her medical team not talking about circumcision and it is also possible there are no free pamphlets on the subject in Japan either.
So bottom line for me is I would like to see more topic related conversation on this subject with a 3-prong target objective of (1) confirming circumcision is the only intelligent option or (2) circumcision is not the best option or (3) it is up to each individual as it makes not difference one way or the other.
I know not which finding research and science would provide us, but it is certainly constructive to ask, “Are we doing the right thing in our current cullture”?
Thank you Mr. Doman.
Oh, it is okay with me if you write restaurant reviews as Marty suggests and it okay with me if you write about circumcision too. The only thing I ask is that you not combine the two topics in one article.
Joseph Boyle
P.S. To other readers, even if we do not agree, I thank you for your contribution to lively discussion.
Joseph,
Thank you for reading, writing, and observing. Yes, Facebook is a different animal entirely. It’s a social tool. I’m stumped while some users only make it a one way street and don’t allow comments. Comments is what make it social . . . although some of the comments aren’t that social. It is a good place to learn and remember . . . and share.
I enjoy The Suburban Times as another social tool. I like seeing opposing views, because they make me think and reconsider, but not necessarily change my mind . . . like a good conversation. Also, The Suburban Times is a great place pose to questions and opinions.
We should have coffee and then have both of us write about the experience . . .
Thanks again for reading, and commenting.
Don
Mr. Boyle, maybe you didn’t get far enough to read this as the lead in on the discussion of legalization, “In many progressive countries, female circumcision has been illegal for years.”. It’s not a stretch to see that as a comparison.
I am German and am not, my boy is born in here and is also not circumcised.
There is no benefit to the procedure if the foreskin has an ample opening and can be retracted for cleaning.
Now for my two cents: it’s odd that we have pot shops on every corner and the world’s largest porn industry but we can’t discuss circumcission lest someone argue it’s in appropriate. This is likely why, when it’s not discussed openly, that parents are in the dark in the US and just go along with our for profit medical system.
As a completely unrelated item (popped into my head), the US is also one of the few countries where docking animal tails is still leagal and common practice; also completely useless procedure that people are in the dark over.
Tre,
Thank you for reading and writing. I invite commenting. I agree, we can openly discuss porn queens and the president, but shy away from facing medical decisions on procedures that have no real benefit? It doesn’t make sense. People prefer to look the other way, but not deeper into the subject.
Thanks, again for reading and commenting.
Don
This article might just as well have been written by anti-vaxxers. It uses the same modus operandus. What appears is bogus. These days called “fake news”.
In reality, failure to recommend circumcision for baby boys or childhood vaccination is unethical and contravenes international human rights treaties because it puts the child’s immediate and lifetime health at serious risk.
The latest American Academy of Pediatrics infant male circumcision policy statement (in 2012) concluded that benefits exceed risks and that unbiased education be given to parents early in infancy, as well as other recommendations clearly designed to encourage this highly beneficial procedure. The CDC draft recommendations support male circumcision in infancy as the best time, and later for those not circumcised at birth.
The benefits of infant male circumcision exceed the risks by over 100 to 1. Over their lifetime, half of uncircumcised males suffer a medical condition caused by their foreskin. See article in Mayo Clin Proc in 2014:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24702735
and article in World J Clin Pediatr in 2017:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28224100
Many men will die as a result of their foreskin, as will their sexual partners …. from genital cancers, HIV/AIDS and syphilis.
Given the benefits and very low risks early infant male circumcision is in many ways similar to vaccinations. In fact, it would be unethical now not to recommend the procedure to parents of baby boys:
http://www.circinfo.net/pdfs/Rivin_IntJChildrensRights_2016.pdf
Multiple large systematic reviews and a meta-analysis have shown that circumcision has no adverse effect on sexual function, sensation or sexual pleasure. See systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the USA, Denmark, Australia and China, all published in peer-reviewed journals:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=morris+bj+2013+sexual
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=tian+circumcision+meta-analysis
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=circumcision+2016+dan+med+j
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28653427
Men circumcised as sexually experienced adults report better sex after being circumcised. This was the finding of two large high quality randomized controlled trials in Africa and Central America:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=krieger+2008+circumcision
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28258953
Sexual sensation resides in the head of the penis, not the foreskin:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=cox+g+2015+circumcision
All well-designed unbiased research studies, including high quality randomized controlled trials, find that the overwhelming majority of women prefer a circumcised man for sexual activity and pleasure. Women with male sexual partners who are circumcised have lower risk of cervical cancer, various common STIs and infertility: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=morris+bj+2017+lancet
A study of 1.4 million males by CDC researchers found adverse events from infant circumcision in the USA to be 0.4%, virtually all being minor and easily treated with complete resolution:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24820907
As stated above, failure to recommend circumcision is akin to failure to recommend vaccination.
http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/15718182/24/2
The ethical course is to recommend infant male circumcision. This recent article in the Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics explains why:
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1073110517750603
For confirmation of the latest scientific evidence on male circumcision go to PubMed.com or reputable sources such as the website of the Mayo Clinic for reliable advice, not anti-circumcision websites and opinion pieces in the lay news media.
Brian Morris, DSc PhD, Professor Emeritus in Medical Sciences, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
These national medical organizations all disagree:
Canadian Paediatric Society
http://www.cps.ca/en/media/canadian-paediatricians-revisit-newborn-male-circumcision-recommendations
“OTTAWA— In an updated statement released today, the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) continues to recommend against the routine circumcision of newborn males.”
Royal Australasian College of Physicians
http://www.racp.edu.au/docs/default-source/advocacy-library/circumcision-of-infant-males.pdf
“After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand.”
(almost all the men responsible for this statement will be circumcised themselves, as the male circumcision rate in Australia in 1950 was about 90%. “Routine” circumcision is now *banned* in public hospitals in Australia.)
British Medical Association
http://bma.org.uk/-/media/Files/PDFs/Practical%20advice%20at%20work/Ethics/Circumcision.pdf
“to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate.”
“The medical benefits previously claimed, however, have not been convincingly proven, and it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks.”
Danish Medical Association
http://www.thelocal.dk/20161205/danish-doctors-come-out-against-circumcision
“The Danish Medical Association (Lægeforeningen) has recommended that no boys under the age of 18 be circumcised in Denmark.
The association released its recommendation on Friday, saying that circumcision should be “an informed, personal choice” that young men should make for themselves.”
The Royal Dutch Medical Association
http://knmg.artsennet.nl/Diensten/knmgpublicaties/KNMGpublicatie/Nontherapeutic-circumcision-of-male-minors-2010.htm
“The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organisations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children’s rights to autonomy and physical integrity.”
Swedish Paediatric Society
“Circumcision of young boys for religious and non-medical reasons ought to be banned in Sweden, urged the Swedish Paediatric Society (Svenska barnläkarföreningen, BLF).”
http://www.thelocal.se/20120219/39200
Mexican Secretariat of the Interior
“Evitar como práctica rutinaria la circuncisión, toda vez que no existe evidencia científica que compruebe un beneficio directo a la persona recién nacida.”
Sec 5.7.13 “Avoid circumcision as a routine practice, since there is no scientific evidence to prove a direct benefit to the newborn person.”
http://www.dof.gob.mx/DOFmobile/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5432289
http://www.crin.org/resources/infodetail.asp?id=31830
“[30 September 2013] – At a meeting today in Oslo, the children’s ombudspersons from the five Nordic countries (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, and Iceland), and the children’s spokesperson from Greenland, in addition to representatives of associations of Nordic paediatricians and pediatric surgeons, have agreed to work with their respective national governments to achieve a ban on non-therapeutic circumcision of underage boys.”
German Pediatric Association
http://www.intactamerica.org/german_pediatrics_statement
(very long, but very much against circumcision, and includes the following)
“Therefore it is not understandable that circumcision of boys should be allowed but that of girls prohibited worldwide. Male circumcision is basically comparable with FGM types Ia and Ib that the Schafi Islamic school of law supports”
Mark — I have read this sort of thing from you before and have rebutted it. Yet you persist, no doubt because it suits your intactivist agenda.
None of the policies you refer to are evidence-based. The ONLY EVIDENCE-BASED POLICIES are those by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2012, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in draft form in 2014, and the Circumcision Academy of Australia in 2012.
For critique of the Canadian Paediatric Society Policy see:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=morris+bj+2016+canadian+circumcision
AND REPLY TO CPS further demonstrating their inferior scholarship in developing their policy:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=morris+bj+2017+canadian+circumcision
For critique of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians Division of Paediatrics and Child Health policy in 2010 see:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=morris+bj+2012+royal+circumcision
(THIS WAS PUBLISHED IN AN OFFICIAL RACP JOURNAL AFTER PEER REVIEW, unlike the RACP’s policy that was simply placed on a website with no formal peer-review)
Brian J Morris, DSc PhD, Professor Emeritus, School of Medical Sciences, University of Sydney
I can’t help being curious how many of the opinions are driven by coverage source, ie, national health coverage vs private insurance.
Brian,
Thank you for reading and commenting. Your comments seemed daunting at first . . . so daunting in fact that I questioned my own writing . . . momentarily. I checked out a number of your links and found that they seemed to come back to you. I did another search but this time I simply used your name and added the word “bias.” Very revealing. The link is: http://circleaks.blogspot.com/2013/12/its-official-brian-morris-is-desperate.html. Part of what is says is “No, of course not. But stay with us reader, so you can see through the words of Emeritus Professor Brian Morris, who -we never get tired of repeating it- is not a medical doctor, a sexologist, an epidemiologist, a pediatrician, an urologist or anything similar, but a molecular biologist and a circumcision enthusiast, one who, apparently, manages to convince naïve or biased reporters every few months.” You may in fact be correct, but since like you I am not a medical doctor I can only rely on my own research.
Thank you for writing, however.
Don
Thank you for your reply, Don
My reviews with practicing medical doctors and Professors of Medicine as co-authors, and for two, Professors of Law, and one, a Professor of Bioethics who is a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics Risk Force on Circumcision, represent science-based academic reviews of the medical literature. The publications cited can be found by anyone on PubMed and show the strong scientific evidence that supports early infant male circumcision. As for the anti-circ website you refer to, I think the following article in Slate puts such activities in perspective: Stern MJ, How circumcision broke the Internet. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2013/09/intactivists_online_a_fringe_group_turned_the_internet_against_circumcision.html
All my very best
Brian
Brian,
Thank you for commenting, again. I agree there are people that go crazy on both sides of the question. It’s a very emotional position for some. The factor that impressed me was that even the studies that showed medically in favor of circumcision the margins were so low that it wasn’t worth the effort, baby’s pain, nor prevention.
Thank you for reading and writing.
Don
That’s why one must do a risk-benefits analysis, so that all of the small (and not so small) benefits and small risks are summated and a calculation then performed to see which comes out on top. When this is done properly the benefits exceed risks by well over 100:1, as mentioned din the CDC’s draft recommendations. Over their lifetime, approx. 1 in 2 uncircumcised males suffer an adverse medical condition related to their foreskin. You might like to read the article I was invited to write for Mayo Clinic Proceedings and the associated video: http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196%2814%2900036-6/abstract
btw: Did you know that I became interested in the benefits of male circumcision after inventing a PCR-based test for cervical screening and then becoming aware that women with circumcised male partners are at much lower risk of cervical cancer. My test is now off-patent, but is being rolled out globally as the primary test for cervical screening replacing the old, less reliable pap smear.
I have approx. 100 academic publications on male circumcision, one-quarter of my total publications.
The goal of any insightful discussion usually is not to sway those firmly entrenched into their belief. It is to reach those that are unsure or unaware of varying viewpoints and assist them in decision making processes.
Yes, I chose to circumcise my son and I believe I did so based on careful decision processes as well as religious reasoning.
Now, I have seen the words “barbaric”, “torture”, “genital mutilation” and “unwarranted medical procedure”. I even heard antisemitism as to a statement of “Jewish Cowards”. But along those lines, I saw the statement of “child’s freedom to choose for themselves should and must be protected by the Constitution”.
Ok, so any “alteration” to the body should be left to the choice of the individual. Well, we have laws regarding that. When does a “child” have say over their body?
I say this because I am not a personal fan of ear or body piercing. Something that has been done for a couple of centuries (kinda like being circumcision). It serves no medical purpose. Yet, parents are allowed to have their children, male or female, pierced. As they age, but still minors, may have other body parts done.
In fact, I was floored when researching (sparked by Don Doman’s statement that he is a careful researcher) when I found “”Any time you puncture the skin, you open up the opportunity for infection, and because infants still have developing immune systems, I encourage parents to wait until their child is at least 6 months old to get her ears pierced,” says Wendy Sue Swanson, M.D., a Parents advisor and a pediatrician at Seattle Children’s… ”
So just wondering for those that uttered the statement “any alteration to the body should be left to the choice of the individual”?
Paul,
Nice to hear from you, again . . . from the same article. I do concede to the right of the individual, considering that it should be the responsibility of the parent to protect that body until the child is no longer in their care (blurred lines). I too don’t think piercing is a good idea, but an adult with piercing that’s up to them. The same with tattoos. Personally, I don’t like shots, probes or cutting here and there. I review options, ask questions and then pick and choose . . . So far it’s worked for me . . . still tattoo free.
Thanks again for reading and responding.
Don
I’d pay a year’s salary rather than be circumcised or have my son circumcised. Why would I want the most sensitive and pleasurable parts cut off? That little bit of skin makes a big difference (it’s not just there to protect the glans).
Why don’t we just let everyone decide for themselves whether or not they want irreversible genital surgery? It’s their body after all.
It’s not like it can’t wait. I think it’s only the USA (at around 60% and dropping) and Israel where more than half of baby boys are circumcised. Other countries circumcise, but not till anywhere from the age of seven to adolescence. Only about 12% of the world’s circumcised men were circumcised as babies. Around two thirds of the world’s men (including 88% of the world’s non-Muslim men) never get circumcised.
Three national medical organizations (Iceland, Sweden and Germany) have called for infant male circumcision to be banned, and two others (Denmark and the Netherlands) have said they’d support a ban if they didn’t think it would drive the practice underground.
“Routine” circumcision *is* banned in public hospitals in Australia (almost all the men responsible for this policy will be circumcised themselves, as the male circumcision rate in Australia in 1950 was about 90%).
Mark — The evidence contradicts your opinions.
ALL large systematic reviews and a meta-analysis have debunked the myth that the foreskin improves sexual pleasure. See work in the USA, Denmark, Australia and China, all published in peer-reviewed journals:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=morris+bj+2013+sexual
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=tian+circumcision+meta-analysis
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=circumcision+2016+dan+med+j
Men circumcised as sexually experienced adults report better sex after being circumcised. This was the finding of two large high quality randomized controlled trials in Africa and Central America:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=krieger+2008+circumcision
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28258953
Sexual sensation resides in the head of the penis, not the foreskin:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=cox+g+2015+circumcision
All well-designed unbiased research studies, including high quality randomized controlled trials, find that the overwhelming majority of WOMEN prefer a circumcised man for sexual activity and pleasure.
In Australia, elective male circumcision was withdrawn only for cost-saving measures that included cosmetic procedures. The evidence in the USA where 18 states no longer covered it under Medicaid revealed that there were no cost savings. In fact costs escalated because of the need for later age more expensive circumcisions. A detailed study by Johns Hopkins University researchers, barker, Tobian et al. showed US$billions in costs for infections avoided by early infant male circumcision.
The drivers of anti-circ policies in Australia were new professors of Paediatrics appointed from England where the upper classes are circumcised and the lower classes are not. These new professors were unable to get appointments at this level in the UK because no doubt they did not have the right “old school tie”, being born in the lower classes. When they came to Australia they quickly discovered that virtually all males had the “mark” of the upper classes, whereas they had the “mark of the lower classes. So they deviously set in train policies to discourage male circumcision.
Mark,
Thank you for reading my article and for writing with back-up material against routinely having new born males circumcised. Very complete. I agree with you.
Thank you, again for reading and for commenting.
Don
If circumcision was as good as some people suggest there would be an observable difference between life expectancies in Israel and non-circumcising countries. However, Israel’s very good record in male public health is equalled or bettered in several non-circumcising countries.