Reader comments
Need to circumcise newborns debated

Schoen reckons circumcision is riskier and more complicated at older ages. So how does he explain the (rare) cases of death and amputation in circ performed on US newborns, and the lack of such cases in US adults?

The real reason he wants newborns circed is because he doesn't want them to have the choice, and he knows that 99% of people that grow up intact stay intact.

It's their body - it should be their choice.

it is time to stop mutilating the genitals of anyone that cannot consent.

Any discussion of non-therapeutic circumcision is a good one because it helps to bring the practice out of the shadows and into the light where it can be examined, so I appreciate the publication of this article.

Although prior to 1982 all states covered non-therapeutic infant circumcision now only 34 cover the unnecessary operation. Utah is one of 16 states, not 12, in which the former Medicaid coverage of non-therapeutic male circumcision has ended. This is because of the consensus that the operation is not necessary and is injurious.

The human foreskin is a complex organ with many protective and sexual physiological functions. Circumcision amputates the foreskin and destroys these functions so circumcision is not in the best interest of a child.

The practice of non-therapeutic has been losing popularity for some time in Utah. U.S. Government statistics for the year 2005 show that less than � of boys born in Utah were circumcised. Genital integrity now has become the norm among newborn Utah boys, just as it in the rest of the western United States and Florida.

"Ode to the Circumcised Male
We have a new topic to heat up our passions --
the foreskin is currently top of the fashions.
If you're the new son of a Berkeley professor,
your genital skin will be greater, not lesser.
For if you've been circ'ed or are Moslem or Jewish,
you're out side the mode; you are old-ish not new-ish.
You have broken the latest society rules;
you may never get into the finest of schools.
Noncircumcised males are the "genital chic"--
if your foreskin is gone, you are now up the creek.
It's a great work of art like the statue of Venus,
if you're wearing a hat on the head of your penis.
When you gaze through a looking glass, don't think of Alice;
don't rue that you suffered a rape of your phallus.
Just hope that one day you can say with a smile
that your glans ain't passe; it will rise up in style."

by Edgar J. Schoen, MD

__________________________

And we're to believe he is a trustworthy source of information? Right.

Our son is intact. After eating right during pregnancy and having an amazing natural childbirth with no interventions of any kind.... no way was I going to send him off to be "cut and skinned". The intact penis is easy to care for, just keep it washed like a finger or a toe. At the age of six or so, you show them how the skin slides back and that they should rinse it once in awhile. My son is 12 now and I haven't even glimpsed his penis in many years. It's his business.

For my husband and me this was human rights issue. One person does not "own" another. The decision to circumcise belongs to the owner of the penis. Children are not property to modify or remodel. Nature had a plan to protect the head of the penis, much like the eyelid protects the eye. I think we should respect that.

The circumcision rate is less than half in the United States now as parents realize that this has been a bad fad started by the Victorians to prevent masturbation.

I trust the American Academy of Pediatrics, which says "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision" and "parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child" and "It is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to the medical factors, when making this decision. Analgesia is safe and effective in reducing the procedural pain associated with circumcision"

They are even now considering rewriting this position statement to make it even more *pro-circ* due to the HIV studies of late. (source: Sept. issue of Alternative Medicine magazine)

I think parents should listen to these learned medical professional, rather than the philosophers on the panel.

The European circumcision rate is probably 1% (mainly Muslims and Jews), Canada 15%, Australia 10%, New Zealand 1%. These are medically advanced countries that understand the function of the foreskin. The United States is the only "western" country that practices this mutilation on the majority of its baby boys, yet has a higher penile cancer and STD rate than almost all of the above mentioned countries.

Stacey Green is being selective in quoting the AAP's policy statement. She left out "however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision." ("Routine" is ambiguous; once it meant "without even parental consent" but now it means "without medical indications") The AAP gives no reason it is "legitimate" for parents to take into account "cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions" when asking doctors to perform surgery they admit has "risks" and is "not essential to the child's current well-being".

The Australian Medical Association and the Australian College of Paediatrics say they "should continue to discourage the practice of circumcision in newborns".
The Canadian Paediatric Society recommends that "Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed."

The American Academy of Pediatrics says the potential benefits do not outweigh the risks. I think we should listen more to that part of the statement rather than the cherry picking Stacey Green did.

No major medical organization in the world recommends routine infant circumcision...and no other country does it. Time to wake up in the USA...and say no to skinning the penises of infant boys.

Although Carrie and Hugh are free to interpret however they wish, the AAP explain their position quite clearly in their "Circumcision Information for Parents" (2001):

"Scientific studies show some medical benefits of circumcision. However, these benefits are not sufficient for the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) to recommend that all infant boys be circumcised. Parents may want their sons circumcised for religious, social and cultural reasons. Since circumcision is not essential to a child�s health, parents should choose what is best for their child by looking at the benefits and risks."

Jake quotes the AAP: "Parents may want their sons circumcised for religious, social and cultural reasons." And some of them may want their daughters circumcised for the same reasons, but if they do it, they've committed a federal felony and are subject to fines and imprisonment for quite a long time. Boys have the constitutional right to equal protection of the law, and don't try to tell me that female genital mutilation is "so much worse". Circumcision needlessly injures and kills boys, girls and intersex children regardless of sex. Dead is dead. Girls killed by circumcision aren't one bit deader than boys killed by it. Even genital mutilation doesn't injure and kill selectively, as do the sexually discriminatory male-only genital mutilationists. It's time to grant all children the same absolute genital protection rights girls have enjoyed since 30 March 1996.

As an OBGYN who is quite familiar with statements by the AAP and ACOG, the problem with all the statements is that they side-step the human rights and consent issues. In other areas, the AAP and others say that we should only accept "substituted consent" (eg, the parents giving consent for a procedure on a child) when there is an imminent and significant risk to the child. Circumcision would not seem to qualify as a procedure where such a risk is at hand, so the whole question of whether parents can consent to such a procedure for their child is open to debate. Children are not owned by their parents. We need to preserve their ability to make decisions regarding their own bodily and genital integrity. Whose body is it anyway?

Routine circumcision is still done in the US because it's a

$400 MILLION a year industry!!!

In America, parents are given dominion over their children generally because they are intellectually unable to make simple (let alone complex) decisions. So the argument that infants can't consent is, to me, ridiculous! They're babies, of course they can't consent or doing anything for themselves for that matter.

That's why they can't vote or drive or make any other major decisions until they are much older. Until then, their parents are responsible for making decisions for them. Let's stop with this unrealistic notion that kids are somehow being taken advantage of because they have no say in their own medical care.

Additionally, I've heard little evidence that circumcision IS harmful emotionally, though there are potential medical risks...as with any procedure. Just because people in other countries choose not to circumcise doesn't mean their customs are somehow more intellectually advanced than ours or vise versa. It seems to be a matter of individual choice and preference with no evidence one is significantly better than the other.

Lastly, my 72-yr. old father is not circumcised, while my parents chose to have my undergo the procedure 42-yrs ago. We are both healthy physically and mentally.

firstly i was circumcised but at age 40 diagnosed with cancer of the penis .i reqiured drastic surgery ,and now 4 years down the line the medical profesion .still can not tell me why i got this terribel disease so my point is this ,if i was circumcised and still got cancer ,and they still can not tell me what caused it ,then how can they say circumcision will prevent it?

Shakin my head in sadness - why are people so obsessed about children's genitals?

Coming from a country where both boys' and girls' circumcision is viewed with utter horror I cannot but wonder people continue to do this to their children.

I fail to see why an unnecessary circumcision, done before any problems take place, should be considered "medical care" as Sandy calls it which parents should decide about. It's cosmetic surgery and it is non-reversible, why should parents have the choice on that? Consenting to a life-saving operation yes. Removing healthy body parts no.

Sandy, parents do not have "dominion" over children as though they are a piece of property. The children are individuals with their own sets of human rights. Parents are to act as proxies for children and make decisions that the children would chose for themselves if they were capable of making the decision. While parents have an obligation to provide medical care for children, they have no parental right that overrides the basic human rights of the child.

Your assertion seems to be that because a child cannot give consent, a parent may do to them as they wish. That is not the case. When you choose to unnecessarily remove a normal, healthy, sensitive, functional part of a boy's penis you ARE taking advantage of the child. You ARE violating the boy's right to bodily integrity (security of person), just as it would be violating a girl's right to bodily integrity to unnecessarily remove part of her genitals.

The AAP says �parents or other surrogates provide informed permission for _diagnosis_and_treatment_ of children with the assent of the child whenever appropriate�.

It is fundamentally horrifying to remove sexual tissue from a nonconsenting human, female OR male, unless absolutely medically necessary.

Male and female circumcision is rarely medically necessary.

One thing that will help stop circumcision is for parents who were given wrong information about circ- SUE YOUR DOCTORS! They are LYING to you about the so-called 'benefits' of mutilation. Hit them where their wallet is! Circumcision = torture of babies. And that is the ABSOLUTE TRUTH. Anyone who thinks it's 'ok' to mutilate without any anesthesia helpless infants is just sick.