Deciding About Infant Circumcision
One of the first medical decisions parents of a baby boy need to make is whether or not to have him circumcised. For many parents these days, it’s a decision fraught with confusion and controversy.
In the United States, infant circumcisions used to be performed routinely. Nowadays, people are asking more questions, and it’s no longer a ‘given.’ In fact, the percentage of boys circumcised in the United States dropped from 90% to approximately 60% during the 1980s.
When a baby boy is circumcised, the foreskin of his
penis is removed, leaving the head of the penis exposed.
The origin of the procedure is not known, but it has been practiced for over 4,000 years in many parts of the world. For some cultures it has religious significance.
In the United States, infant circumcision is performed for a number of reasons. Many parents worry their son will feel awkward if he looks different from his father, brothers and male friends. It is also widely believed that a circumcised penis is easier to keep clean and that accumulation of smegma (white, waxy material found on the head of the penis) can cause inflammation or infection.
Opponents of infant circumcision contend that there is no medical reason for the procedure and no benefits gained from it. Tests show that infants feel pain from circumcision, although the operation is brief. Opponents also believe an uncircumcised child will not feel awkward if his parents are comfortable with their decision. And, they say, simply keeping the uncircumcised penis clean will prevent infections.
The American Academy of Pediatrics reports that studies show medical benefits to circumcision, including reduced risk of urinary tract infection and cancer of the penis. The AAP’s stand on the issue is that although infant circumcision has potential medical benefits, they are “not compelling enough to warrant the AAP to recommend routine newborn circumcision.” As with any minor surgical procedure, there is a small risk of complications. And, while it has been shown that infants do feel pain from the operation, new anesthetic techniques are available that help minimize that pain. If parents decide to circumcise their newborn, the AAP recommends that pain relief should be provided. The AAP advises parents to make the decision they are most comfortable with in consultation with their pediatrician.
In making this decision, parents should consider their own religious and philosophical feelings about the procedure and what impact their decision might have on their child. Another thing to keep in mind is that some insurance carriers consider infant circumcision elective surgery and don’t cover the cost or pay only a portion of it. 435 words
No related posts.
You’ve left one person out of the decision-making process.
The p*n*s’s owner.
* If he grows up happy to have had part of his p*n*s cut off, well and good.
* If he’s not happy to have it left alone, he can always get circumcised at a time and place and by a doctor of his own choosing, and tell the doctor how much he wants taken off, and from where. But very, very few men choose it, and in Finland where it’s not customary, fewer than one in 8000 need it done, lifelong.
* If he’s happy to be left alone and keep a whole penis, well, why shouldn’t he be?
* But if you’ve had part of his p*n*s cut off and that WASN’T what he wanted, what can you tell him? “Whoops, sorry” doesn’t quite cover it.
More and more men are in that position, as the Internet tells them (correctly) that this is a highly erogenous part of the body, and simply fun to have. Women are learning that it has advantages for them as well. And word is spreading that the US is on its own in this. The rest of the English-speaking world tried neonatal circumcision and gave it up, finding it did no good, and most of the rest of the world has never done it.
Circumcision is unique and peculiar: no other part of a baby’s body (and no part at all of a girl baby’s) may be cut off at parental whim. If it were only invented yesterday, it would never get ethical approval. It is a “cure” looking for a disease.
(And the AIDS claim is highly contentious, and largely irrelevant in the US, where very little HIV transmission is female-to-male.)
You might also want to check out the following:
Canadian Paediatric Society
http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/fn/fn96-01.htm
“Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed.”
http://www.caringforkids.cps.ca/pregnancy&babies/circumcision.htm
“Circumcision is a ‘non-therapeutic’ procedure, which means it is not medically necessary.”
“After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions.”
Royal Australasian College of Physicians
http://www.racp.edu.au/download.cfm?DownloadFile=A453CFA1-2A57-5487-DF36DF59A1BAF527
“After extensive review of the literature the Royal Australasian College of Physicians reaffirms that there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision.”
(those last nine words are in bold on their website, and 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 in all states except one.)
British Medical Association
http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/malecircumcision2006?OpenDocument&Highlight=2,circumcision#Circumcisionformedicalpurposes
“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.”
National Health Service (UK)
http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/articles/article.aspx?articleId=649
“Many people have strong views about whether circumcision should be carried out or not. It is not routinely performed in the UK because there is no clear clinical evidence to suggest it has any medical benefit.”
Canadian Children’s Rights Council
http://www.canadiancrc.com/Circumcision_Genital_Mutilation_Male-Female_Children.aspx
“It is the position of the Canadian Children’s Rights Council that ‘circumcision’ of male or female children is genital mutilation of children.”
drops in male circumcision:
USA: from 90% to 57%
Canada: from 47% to 14%
UK: from 35% to about 5% (less than 1% among non-Muslims)
Australia: 90% to 12.6% (“routine” circumcision has recently been *banned* in public hospitals in all states except one, so the rate will now be a lot lower)
New Zealand: 95% to below 3% (mostly Samoans and Tongans)
South America and Europe: never above 5%
It’s worth remembering that we wouldn’t even be having this discussion if it weren’t for the fact that 19th century doctors thought that :
a) m@sturb@tion caused various physical and mental problems (including epilepsy, convulsions, paralysis, tuberculosis etc), and
b) circumcision stopped m@sturb@tion.
Both of those sound ridiculous today I know, but if you don’t believe me, then check out this link:
http://www.noharmm.org/docswords.htm
Over a hundred years later, circumcised men keep looking for new ways to defend the practice.
My husband is circumcised, and when I was pregnant with my baby boy we did our own research and decided to leave our son intact (uncircumcised). There is NO way I will put any son of mine through this unnecessary procedure! So far, he is VERY healthy. Smegma is normal, and women also creates smegma – why is it a big deal? We are not cutting the women, why we are cutting the boys. Horrific!
I agree with all of you – we had five sons and they are just as ‘Mother Nature’ intended…intact with handsome foreskins.
The fact that there is a discussion about surgical removal of healthy genital skin is to me, an example of a mentally disturbed society. Who would consider unnecessary surgery on themselves except for someone disturbed. If the majority of society does this then we have a deranged society.
1) Every person has the right to bodily integrity.
2) No person should authorize or perform the excision of healthy, functional body parts from another non-consenting person.
3) Male and female genital cutting are human rights violations.