Deseret News | Need to circumcise newborns debated

Reader comments
Need to circumcise newborns debated

Mark Lyndon | 3:37 a.m. Jan. 26, 2008

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.

tlh | 7:26 a.m. Jan. 26, 2008

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

George Hill | 8:46 a.m. Jan. 26, 2008

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 ï¿½ 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.

Comments continue below

Beatrice | 10:18 a.m. Jan. 26, 2008

"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.

Phillis Almgren | 10:36 a.m. Jan. 26, 2008

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.

Stacey Green | 12:54 p.m. Jan. 26, 2008

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.

Scott Jones | 1:31 p.m. Jan. 26, 2008

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.

Hugh Young | 2:22 p.m. Jan. 26, 2008

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."

Carrie | 2:42 p.m. Jan. 26, 2008

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.

Jake | 2:53 p.m. Jan. 26, 2008

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 childï¿½s health, parents should choose what is best for their child by looking at the benefits and risks."

Van Lewis | 3:46 p.m. Jan. 26, 2008

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.

David C Jones, MD | 6:09 p.m. Jan. 26, 2008

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?

Here's the real answer it's done | 8:19 p.m. Jan. 26, 2008

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

$400 MILLION a year industry!!!

Sandy Resident | 9:42 p.m. Jan. 26, 2008

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.

stuart shields | 1:40 a.m. Jan. 27, 2008

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?

Anonymous | 3:53 a.m. Jan. 27, 2008

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.

Jennifer | 4:47 a.m. Jan. 27, 2008

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.

SMT | 6:34 a.m. Jan. 27, 2008

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 ï¿½parents or other surrogates provide informed permission for _diagnosis_and_treatment_ of children with the assent of the child whenever appropriateï¿½.

spacediver | 12:42 p.m. Jan. 27, 2008

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.

Tammy Swanson | 9:56 p.m. Jan. 27, 2008

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.

Joe | 10:13 p.m. Jan. 27, 2008

Non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision (which is nearly all of them) clearly violates the most basic tenets of medical ethics. Its good to see that there seems to be increasing discussion about this issue; it is long over due. The sooner we stop endlessly groping for weak justifications and examine the issue rationally the sooner it will end and the better off everyone will be. Thanks to the panelists at Utah Valley State College for having this discussion.

Fogosa... | 11:20 p.m. Jan. 27, 2008

I circumcised my son. I do not regret it. I will circumcise all future sons. It does not hurt my son in any way mentally. It is not the same as genital mutilation in girls. Genital mutilation in girls is done to weaken their sexual desires. Circumcision in males is not done to weaken sexual desires.
I think it rather sad that people who do not wish to circumcise their sons have veiled themselves in a self-righteous cloak by saying that males who have been circumcised are "mutilated". Give me a break. Raise your own children and stop trying to start world crusades against circumcision.

Hugh | 12:36 a.m. Jan. 28, 2008

Fogosa writes: "I circumcised my son. I do not regret it." No, but will he?

"Genital mutilation in girls is done to weaken their sexual desires." This claim is often made, but where is the evidence? It is done for a variety of reasons that those who do it think beneficial (and most of them are women who have had it done to them).

"Circumcision in males is not done to weaken sexual desires." Not today, maybe, but the Jewish sage Maimonides said "one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible" and that is certainly one of the many bad reasons it was medicalised in the 19th century.

Fogosa is right that there should certainly be no "world crusade" against circumcision. Suffice it that doctors and others will finally admit that it is not ethical without informed consent (like any other unnecessary surgery) and stop doing it.

On the contrary, we recently seem to be faced with a world crusade to circumcise.

Nathan Raeburn Kennard | 1:18 a.m. Jan. 28, 2008

Steve Scott nailed the issue "Circumcision is an example of a social custom whose survival requires suspension of rational thought". Jennifer Howard pointed out that " I had no right to make that decision for my son." With regard to Medicaid, Utah legislators responded to ï¿½overwhelming constituent responseï¿½ by discontinuing funding for the procedure. As a father to 4 boys, it took watching three circumcisions and living with their aftermath to overcome the pseudo-medical conditioning used to justify it. Local anesthetic at the time the procedure is done will do nothing to assuage the disappointment of having to look at a scar every time he goes to the bathroom. Dr. Jones brings the discussion back where it belongs ï¿½the human rights and consent issues.ï¿½ A baby human is a human with rights. No parent or anyone else should be allowed to provide consent by proxy for the removal of healthy tissue from an infant.

I am glad that a baby boy born in Utah now has such a good chance to remain intact. Parents here do not usually suspend rational thought.

Katie | 3:38 a.m. Jan. 28, 2008

I only know of one circumcised guy, a step brother. everyone else I know or knew is intact/whole. I live in the UK where circumcision isn't an issue because no one sees any reason for it exceptt for those who medially require it and they are by far in the minority.

Circumcision is a barbaric practice and to be honest, I find it quite hypocritical that a country can call themselves advanced or civilised when they continue to practisee such barbarities. I also find it quite hypocritical that they condemn those who practie FGM and yet continue to practice MGM on baby boys.

JorgeM | 10:33 a.m. Jan. 28, 2008

I can't imagine the disappointment that people like Schoen and Jake must feel in the fact that American circumcision rates are rapidly dropping.

Average Americans gaining access to medical studies has to have been the worst thing to happen to the pro circumcisors since we can now see that all of the reasons given to cut babies are blatant exagerations based on poorly designed studies. Close second must be Internet access since Americans can interact with other first world countries and discover that these people keep their foreskins and are as healthy as Americans.

Even the HIV propaganda hasn't helped since anyone with an Internet connection can see for themselves that cut America has higher per capita rates of HIV when compared with foreskin'd Europe and Japan. Plus, years of safe sex education have left younger Americans with the question "Why cut when you can cover?"

Face it guys, your kind will have to ply your trade in places where information isn't so readily available and superstition is more readliy accepted.

Jackie | 12:23 p.m. Jan. 28, 2008

Fogosa,
Male circumcison does weaken sexual fun. Ask anyone that is not amputated if that part of the penis is not the most sesnitive part. Historically circumcision has been considered a sacrifice of pleasure for men and women. Thanks Hugh.

Oh yeah, that African study ignores the other study that circ men passed HIV more readily to women than intact men do! Also the U.S. study found no link between HIV and circumcision for BOTH gay sex and heterosexual sex. I guess African Americans are different form African Africans. The Circ nuts from Johns Hopkins are fudging the data to get their result. There is more chance your baby will get the staph from circ than any chance of getting HIV.

Circumcison is the health risk!

cw | 1:15 p.m. Jan. 28, 2008

I read about circumcision years ago and it traumatized me when I read how awful it was. All the things on the internet really scared me. I was so sad about the fact that it had been done. But I have realized that most of those things aren't true and people really are blowing things out of proportion. The things I read said the only way to make it better is to grow it back and so I did, but now I regret it and I just wish I had the money to be circumcised again. I see now that it's pretty insane to call it mutilation, especially since it was God who originally commanded it, and he wouldn't command something "evil" or "mutilating" like that. I have to watch out for who to trust now. The people against it say there are false statements about it but they aren't really false like they say. Don't say doctors only do it for money, there's obvious beneficial evidence. It even says in the scriptures it's cleaner.

JorgeM | 1:37 p.m. Jan. 28, 2008

cw, which things aren't true, exactly? Do you disagree with the idea that children should keep their entire bodies and not be subjected to surgery without an immediate medical need? Do you think that men are incapable of a simple 2 second washing operation in the shower? Do you believe that circumcision prevents HIV? (Cue the circumcised American men rolling in their graves...)

BTW, the "scriptures" are a manual for a religion, NOT a biology or medical textbook or even a guide for taking a shower.

cw | 2:26 p.m. Jan. 28, 2008

Many men, no matter how much they shower still have issues and diseases because of it and sometimes can't pull it back. I've heard of some who were able to pull it back but couldn't get it over the head again and it was so tight it cut off the blood supply and the whole thing had to be cut off. I've heard of way too many sad stories about it. I heard about one man who said it saved his life because it was so tight when he was young he couldn't even urinate. I have passed the argument with whose body and keeping someone whole. Some things are worth doing and they would understand, should I be upset about my tonsils mutilated out of my throat or happy about that too? I don't believe it prevents HIV but it's obvious with so many different studies that it does. And it's not just the studies but the reasons behind it, the certain kinds of tissue and the other diseases that occur more often if he isn't circumcised.

JorgeM | 2:42 p.m. Jan. 28, 2008

cw, those are blatant exagerations from people who are too lazy to properly take care of the problem. Excessive odors, like in female parts, can be caused by yeast. Other infections, like in female parts, can be caused by fungal or bacterial infections. All that needs to be done is for the care provider to culture the area and apply the appropriate treatment, just like with female parts. Phimosis, like labial adhesions, can be treated with the appropriate hormonal/steroidal creams. Even simple stretching is often enough. Its easy to conservatively treat male genitals, but American doctors find more profit in cutting.

As far as HIV studies go, a study that doesn't reproduce real world results is worth less than the paper it is printed on. Even the most ardent proponents of these studies are incapable of explaining why foreskin'd Europe has less HIV than cut America. They also can't explain why circumcision is needed when a simple condom is necessary to protect men both cut and whole as well as their female (or male) partners.

Spend less time at CircList and more time reading real scientific and medical journal articles.

cw | 3:03 p.m. Jan. 28, 2008

I read plenty of real medical articles but discovered that it's the people who are against it who won't be understanding with it. Laziness can be the case sometimes but often is not. I did a lot of reading and I have seen that the people against it will come up with excuses like doctors only do it for the money and the studies aren't real for any of the studies instead of actually being reasonable about it. They are stubborn and will only believe what they want to and focus on the negative. They will never believe that even if you do clean well for some men it still stinks or causes irritation or other things that are bothersome no matter how responsible he is. I've heard countless men say it is too tight and they went through a lot of work to stretch it but it never helped no matter how responsible they are. The people that are so against it are the ones that convinced me to grow it back, I have had more reasonable responses from people who are reasonable and understanding that I can see I can trust.

Chava | 4:10 p.m. Jan. 28, 2008

Fogosa, circumcising males was and is done to weaken the male sexual organ. Please learn its history.

1845 Edward H. Dixon declares that circumcision cures and prevents masturbation.

Source: Dixon EH. A Treatise on Disease of the Sexual Organs. New York: Burgess, Stringer & Co. 1845 pp. 158 ï¿½ 65.

1871 M.J. Moses declares that circumcised Jews are immune to masturbation.
Source: Moses MJ. The value of circumcision as a hygienic and therapeutic measure. New York Medical Journal 1871 Nov; 14(4): 368 - 74

1888 John Harvey Kellogg promotes circumcision from boys to prevent them from masturbating.
Source: John Harvey Kellogg M.D., ï¿½Treatment for Self-Abuse and its Effects,ï¿½ Plain Facts for Old and Young. Burlington Iowa: F. Segner & Co (1888) p. 107

1900 Johnathan Hutchinson pushes circumcision as a means of desensitizing the penis.
Source: Hutchinson J. ï¿½The Advantages of Circumcisionï¿½ The Polyclinic (1900) Sep;3(9):129-31

1901 Ernest G. Mark advises circumcision as a method of permanently desensitizing the penis.
Source: Mark EG. Circumcision. American Practitioner and News 1901 Feb. 15; 31 (4): 122-6

The American culture started rejecting circumcision in 1969 because of its damaging sexual side effects. New claims were invented to protect revenue.

Jennifer | 8:37 p.m. Jan. 30, 2008

Saying things like tight foreskins can cut off the blood supply and cause the whole penis to be cut off are urban myths and exaggeration.

A baby boy is more likely to lose his penis from circumcision than from paraphimosis (usually it can be treated by compressing the head and working the foreskin back, failing that yes they can circumcise, only if the male doesn't seek medical attention might they need to cut it off and I would think this would be extremely rare if it ever happens). Whereas there are far more documented cases of baby boys losing their whole penis from circumcision. David Reimer is the most famous one but in the book "As Nature Made Him" it mentions several others.

Jackie | 10:40 a.m. Jan. 31, 2008

CW,
It is the myths you are talking about that have kept this horrible practice going. Thankfully the internet helps bust these myths and educate the misinformed. Where men are intact (Europe Japan...) there are almost no problems. The problems are statistically less than circ complication (death, bleeding, skin bridge...) here in the states. These large intact populations have low HIV rates and low ED complaints.

A point the pro circumcision press is ignoring is that killer staph ( mutant form called methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA)) puts circumcised babies at risk. It is believed the elevated chance of getting staph because of circumcison is higher than the lifelong chance of getting aids.

And of course CW, circumcision does NOT prevent AIDS.

Tandy | 7:36 a.m. Feb. 2, 2008

"I don't believe it prevents HIV but it's obvious with so many different studies that it does."

No, since reality contradict the studies, what it really indicates is the studies are bogus.

"And it's not just the studies but the reasons behind it, the certain kinds of tissue and the other diseases that occur more often if he isn't circumcised"

I hate to tell you but those SPECULATIONS (NOT reasons) dreamed up by the authors have been debunked and/or disproven already... The CDC has shown that undamaged epithelial does NOT transmit the virus.

Katherine | 10:01 a.m. Feb. 4, 2008

CW - While there is a very small minority of men who have medical reasons for needing circumcisions, the vast majority absolutely do not. And even those men who legitimately need surgery have options that are less severe than a complete circumcision. Like Jorge mentioned, there are certain topical treatments or stretching that can help, or a dorsal slit if the foreskin is still so tight it causes problems. But to subject EVERYONE to the same drastic, potentially harmful, irreversible surgery because SOME people have these problems is irresponsible and morally indefensible.

This is a decision best left to the owner of the body. If you yourself have had problems and want to opt for surgery, you, as a consenting, informed adult have that right. But please allow everyone else the freedom to make their own decisions as well. This is why opponents of circumcision are against INFANT or CHILD circumcision - the child's right to choose for himself is taken away.

Katherine | 10:20 a.m. Feb. 4, 2008

CW - also, I forgot to mention in my other comment, go read your bible. Not only *would* God command something "evil", He did on many occasions (a few examples: 1 Samuel 15:3, Psalms 137:9, Numbers 31:17-18). The bible also condones slavery, suppression of women, and cruel and unusual punishment for everyone from blasphemers to adulterers. Many Christians claim those passages need to be understood in the context of the times in which they were written, and if that's the case, circumcision shouldn't be seen any differently. The purpose of it was not medical or hygienic in the bible, but rather a way of displaying obedience to God through sacrifice. If we wanted to follow the bible on everything, we also shouldn't eat shrimp, wear poly/cotton blends, or get tattoos.

Tandy | 11:56 a.m. Feb. 4, 2008

"But to subject EVERYONE to the same drastic, potentially harmful, irreversible surgery because SOME people have these problems is irresponsible and morally indefensible."

Since tha actual rate of NECESSARY circumcisions is only 6 /100,000, it is not only irresponsible and morally indefensible, it is simply paranoia.

Tandy | 12:04 p.m. Feb. 4, 2008

"Any god that demands obedience over simple human decency is inherently evil" "Hyperion Cantos"--Dan Simmons

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.