Circumcision Articles and Discussions

[Brenda86]

I know this is an old thread, but I always find it interesting when people use hygiene as a reason to circumcise a male infant, citing lower rates of UTIs but fail to mention that even UNcircumcised males will see many fewer UTIs throughout their lifetime than females.

I suppose by failing to mention this fact many people can continue to justify the slight hygienic benefit, as most people are already appalled by female genital cutting and so do not like to hear the comparisons. If you were to tell someone who circumcised their son that you are cutting your daughter because it will reduce her rate of UTIs, they will balk at you for your barbarism and yet they've done the very same thing to their son! It blows my mind!

Luckily, boy or girl, I've already had this conversation with my partner and we will NOT be circumcising a son if that is what we have this time. My heart sinks thinking about little babies being subjected to such a painful thing at such a tender age - and in the US its almost immediately after the already traumatic birth process when the baby needs warmth, milk, and love - not to have a piece of its body cut off!!

I already know many family members on my partner's side are going to have a lot to say about it. I may try to explain, but more likely, as I doubt they will really be ready/willing to hear it, I will just tell them, "My research has led me to believe that the benefits do not outweigh the risks." and if anything further is said, "It's my child and my decision. End of discussion."

 

[Hesper]

Just thought I'd add what I found while reading about circumcision and the HIV hypothesis:

So Dr. Valiere Alcena is credited with beginning this hypothesis in 1986. He's a North American doctor who said that the reason there were high amounts of HIV infections in Africa was because they were largely uncircumcised. What a stroke of genius, right? That led to digging up the old "foreskin is dirty" hypothesis and led to a number of studies and meta-analysis that found very little evidence in support of it all, due largely to so many confounding factors. From Wikipedia:

_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_HIV

We found insufficient evidence to support an interventional effect of male circumcision on HIV acquisition in heterosexual men. The results from existing observational studies show a strong epidemiological association between male circumcision and prevention of HIV, especially among high-risk groups. However, observational studies are inherently limited by confounding which is unlikely to be fully adjusted for. In the light of forthcoming results from RCTs, the value of IPD analysis of the included studies is doubtful. The results of these trials will need to be carefully considered before circumcision is implemented as a public health intervention for prevention of sexually transmitted HIV.[35]

So, around 2005-2007 3 experiments were carried out in Africa. As I was reading I kept noticing that the studies were stopped due to ethical considerations. Sure. Well, according to _http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/HIVStatement.html the lead researchers in charge of the trials were all circumcision advocates. Also, though I haven't been able to find out for sure, it looks like those circumcised were advised not to have any sexual activity for 6 weeks in order to heal from the surgery. It looks like the other group was not given such a warning! Then the trials were cut short, perhaps before the number of infected individuals in the circumcised group caught up to the other group. Gross, isn't it? And this of course led to the mass circumcision of however many thousands of men who, it turns out, believed they were almost immune to infection. Lies, lies, lies. Thought I'd share.

Effectiveness. Circumcision does not prevent HIV infection. The Auvert study in South Africa reported 20 infections in circumcised males.11 A study in Kenya reported 22 infections in circumcised males. Brewer & found higher rates of HIV infection in circumcised virgins and adolescents.24 The United States has the highest rate of HIV infection and the highest rate of male circumcision in the industrialized world. Male circumcision, therefore, cannot reasonably be thought to prevent HIV infection.

 

[thorbiorn]

This is a summary of a Danish article that appeared on _http://www.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/2013/03/17/212258.htm supplemented by some statistics.

An article about the practice of circumcision is scheduled to appear Monday the 25th of March 2013 in a medical journal called Pediatrics. (It is not clear from the article exactly which one, but I guess it is Journal of Pediatrics _http://www.jpeds.com/.)
The article has been written by a Morten Frisch, an associate professor at the Sexological Institute at Aalborg University and a high ranking doctor and specialist at the state serum institute (Statens Seruminstitut). The article has been signed by 38 leading doctors and professors from Europe and Canada.

The bottom line of the message is that one should forbid circumcision on medical grounds. The reason given is that the disadvantages to health outweighs the benefits since small children risk injury of a permanent character. The author estimates that 2-3% of the boys will experience complications in connection with the operation ranging from bleedings, infections and in worst cases death. In addition, there are later problems of psychological, physical and sexual character.

The article recommends that boys should be allowed to decide on the issue of circumcision themselves. That means circumcision of small boys should be forbidden.


I tried to find the statistics for the present circumcision rates.

Globally according to _http://www.circs.org/index.php/Reviews/Rates/Global, about 37.4 % of all males are circumcised. That is 1.3 billion! Shocking.



Whereas the above site seem to be biased towards favoring circumcision, _http://circumcisiondecisionmaker.com/circumcision-facts/ is against circumcision. They mention:

About 117 boys die each year in the United States as a result of their circumcision, most from infections or blood loss.1

Physicians are biased toward circumcision. Circumcised doctors are 5 times more likely to recommend circumcision to patients.5

Contrary to frequent claims, infants do feel pain as intensely as adults, and very possibly even more.6

Circumcision regularly removes a shocking 3/4 of the penis’ sensitivity through the removal of the ridged band, foreskin “lips,” and most often the entire frenulum.7

Anesthesia is used in only 45% of circumcisions; the type of anesthetic varies.8

The most effective method does not eliminate all pain, and the most common type used, a topical creme, does almost nothing to reduce it. In fact, a major clinical test of the various types of anesthetics, on actual infants, was halted for humane reasons because of the intense pain.9

The numbers in the quote refer to studies which are referenced on the site.

 

[truth seeker]

Hi Thorbiorn,

I looked up Frisch's name to see what, if any, other articles he may have written about the subject and found the blog linked below if you're interested. In the article, she includes a link to a pdf focusing on cultural bias of the AAP as well as the response (also a pdf) from the AAP.

_https://justasnip.wordpress.com/tag/professor-morten-frisch/

 

[Joe]

The reason given is that the disadvantages to health outweighs the benefits

Indeed they do, given that there are NO health benefits whatsoever to circumcision. It is a brutal and barbaric practice that I doubt even neanderthals would be primitive enough to engage in.

 

[griffin]

The reason given is that the disadvantages to health outweighs the benefits

Indeed they do, given that there are NO health benefits whatsoever to circumcision. It is a brutal and barbaric practice that I doubt even neanderthals would be primitive enough to engage in.

The justification for male circumcision, as I understand it, has traditionally been 'cleanliness' in order to avoid and prevent infection, presumably bacteriological, and disease, presumably sexually transmitted.

This might have had - and might still have - some valid utility in a parched and sparsely watered desert climate where bathing was - or is - very infrequent or not practiced. A similar observation might apply to societies where even the most basic modern medical care is absent, scarce, or remote and expensive.

Aside from in the world's harshest, driest deserts and most backwards foresaken societies, however, it would seem that male circumcision falls into the category of "it's an old religious way, we've always done this, why change now?" That's not rational in societies where people bathe and have doctors, and it's unconscionable that infant boys still die from infections or uncontrolled bleeding due to this.

I imagine that fewer circumcisions would be performed if more fathers made it clear to the attending physician, midwife, or whoever that when they did this act they held their own life in their hands, too.

Otherwise, if you're living in a godforsaken arid desert and don't have access to modern antibiotics, it might be a reasonably minimal risk to take for the future, and hopefully long-lived, health of a son.

 

[thorbiorn]

Thank you Truthseeker for the link. I followed the the tracks of the one who had written the summary and found an article she wrote which was accepted at the Jerusalem Post in october last year. There are many comments: _http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?

The justification for male circumcision, as I understand it, has traditionally been 'cleanliness' in order to avoid and prevent infection, presumably bacteriological, and disease, presumably sexually transmitted.

This might have had - and might still have - some valid utility in a parched and sparsely watered desert climate where bathing was - or is - very infrequent or not practiced. A similar observation might apply to societies where even the most basic modern medical care is absent, scarce, or remote and expensive.

Without saying that there are NO instances whatsoever where circumcision is not a possible way to avoid infection, I do not think that lack of water and bathing opportunities should be counted. The reason is that when a male, who has his foreskin intact, urinates, it is possible to use the urine to clean the area behind or below the foreskin using the same urine. One way of achieving the goal consists in squeezing the opening just a bit and for a short while so the area behind fills up and gets flushed. Another way is to pull back the foreskin and clean the area with the fingers of the other hand, just as one might be doing when bathing. Although the urine is not hundred percent antiseptic, it is fairly sterile. There are apparently bacteria that do live en the last inch or so of the urethra, but when urinating most get washed out with the first part of the stream. From this perspective midstream urine is more sterile.

Wondering how much money is made on circumcision in the US, I looked up the price of doing one: _http://www.babycenter.com/400_how-much-does-it-cost-to-get-your-newborn-circumcised_8581744_267.bc It ranges between USD 100 - 800. If 30% of newborn boys undergo the operation and we put the price at say 200 on the average then how much gets spend on this business?

Last year there were 3.954.000 births in the US _http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/03/14/u-s-birth-rates-remain-depressed/. Of these I estimate 51 % were boys and then it makes about USD 237.000.000 in medical bills.

The number 237.000.000 USD may be understood as 75 cents for every American, but it is also enough to keep the US military going for about 3 hours.

 

[Joe]

I say again, there are NO medical benefits to circumcision. This ridiculous act was invented by a religious nut in collaboration with "yahweh" who liked to inflict suffering on human beings. End of story. It's is utterly, utterly preposterous to suggest that there is any sane reason to cut off any external flesh from a healthy human child, unless you want to torture it for fun, which is apparently what some people like to do.

As far as I am concerned the very fact that anyone thinks that circumcision is, under any circumstances, a good idea, is evidence of just how screwed up this world has become.

 

[Tomiro]

It's really strange what sort of disgusting practices are acceptable because of religion. Many people I know are outraged that Muslim women wear head scarves, but somehow the mutilation of children does not seem to bother them.

 

[thorbiorn]

I have a correction to make to the calculation in the previous post

If 30% of newborn boys undergo the operation and we put the price at say 200 on the average then how much gets spend on this business?

Last year there were 3.954.000 births in the US _http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/03/14/u-s-birth-rates-remain-depressed/. Of these I estimate 51 % were boys and then it makes about USD 237.000.000 in medical bills.

The number 237.000.000 USD may be understood as 75 cents for every American, but it is also enough to keep the US military going for about 3 hours.

Here are the details of the corrected calculation 3.954.000*0.51*0.30*200=120.992.400
In other words it is only 121 million USD in medical expenses, or 38 cents for every American, or one and a half hour for US military.

 

[Gwenllian]

The reason given is that the disadvantages to health outweighs the benefits

Indeed they do, given that there are NO health benefits whatsoever to circumcision. It is a brutal and barbaric practice that I doubt even neanderthals would be primitive enough to engage in.

The justification for male circumcision, as I understand it, has traditionally been 'cleanliness' in order to avoid and prevent infection, presumably bacteriological, and disease, presumably sexually transmitted.

This might have had - and might still have - some valid utility in a parched and sparsely watered desert climate where bathing was - or is - very infrequent or not practiced. A similar observation might apply to societies where even the most basic modern medical care is absent, scarce, or remote and expensive.

Aside from in the world's harshest, driest deserts and most backwards foresaken societies, however, it would seem that male circumcision falls into the category of "it's an old religious way, we've always done this, why change now?" That's not rational in societies where people bathe and have doctors, and it's unconscionable that infant boys still die from infections or uncontrolled bleeding due to this.

I imagine that fewer circumcisions would be performed if more fathers made it clear to the attending physician, midwife, or whoever that when they did this act they held their own life in their hands, too.

Otherwise, if you're living in a godforsaken arid desert and don't have access to modern antibiotics, it might be a reasonably minimal risk to take for the future, and hopefully long-lived, health of a son.

From what I understand the reasons that are being given for circumcision are false. There is no proof (according to Desmond Morris who wrote about the topic) that circumcision prevents sexually transmitted diseases. These studies were just made up and published in The Lancet, if I recall correctly.

And think about it. You live in the desert without regular access to water and your son has just been circumcised. How do you keep him clean, how do you make sure that the wound will remain clean. I have heard from my ex-partner who was going on and on and on about circumcision (he wanted my sons to be circumcised) that it hurts like crazy each time a circumcised infant urinates. So, I would say that the circumstances that you find in the desert actually make it worse.

"The glans at birth is delicate and easily irritated by urine and feces. The foreskin shields the glans; with circumcision, this protection is lost. In such cases, the glans and especially the urinary opening (meatus) may become irritated or infected, causing ulcers, meatitis (inflammation of the meatus), and meatal stenosis (a narrowing of the urinary opening). Such problems virtually never occur in uncircumcised penises. The foreskin protects the glans throughout life. (22)

From:

http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/milos-macris/

Just look at the faces of these boys:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaFtcIrtbm0

 

[Psalehesost]

Interestingly, these supposed "benefits" are generally not heard of in countries where circumcision is uncommon. They seem to be brought out in favor of it by mainly: 1) Americans; 2) Jews (possibly muslims, but I have yet to hear or read of them arguing for it myself). In other words, it seems quite transparently a justification used only by those peoples who have bought into it, for whom it is "normal" - the rest of the world largely either hasn't heard these "arguments" or considers them (and the practice) more or less whacko.

It would be amusing if it were not, in fact, a horrific abuse with lasting effects on the psyche being defended.

 

[SeekinTruth]

The horrific effects on the psyche, especially when circumcised the first several days after birth, are enough to put a period to the topic. Physically, there is actually an antibacterial mechanism in the form of "smegma" that is more protective when not circumcised.

 

[mikerol]

http://www.circumcisioncomplex.com/fundamentals/


Making it a taboo to compare male with female sexual mutilation is the biggest scandal of the controversy. In both instances the most sensitive and most erogenous zone of the human body is amputated and severely damaged. In both instances, what counts primarily is the cutting of human sexuality. The imposition of control by the patriarchy. A good look at a book on embryology will show the development of the nerves and tissue and how they are the same.

What is lacking in all the talk about circumcision is discussion of its archeological dimension - that it is the left over of human sacrifice. What kind of god is it that demands that of an infant? If the Bris constitutes the identity of the male, what about the identity of a Jewish girl? Or is this an entirely homosexual ceremony?


Also, unfortunately it is / has been circumcision that has MADE for no end of anti-semitic sentiments. Freud found that it was the chief reason for unconscious anti-Semitism. And the myths surrounding it are at the core of the “blood libel.” Thus, it's time to eliminate the Brit Milah because if that is the chief reason for being anti-Semitic or anti-Abrahamic [Islam too practices the rite] then why hang on to this left-over of human sacrifice? that traumatizes the child, cutting off 5,000 nerves, that is the equivalent of female circumcision in the sense that it eliminates everything but the clitoris,and only serves the Ultra Orthodox to maintain their power? After all, reform Judaism sought to eliminate the rite in the 19th century, and Jewish identity depends on being born by a Jewish mother, or converting. Here a link to an archive of the entire German and then some debate, note especially Michael Wolffsohn's two pieces . Circumcision has been controversial also within Jewry forever.

http://analytic-comments.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-circumcision-debate-links-and.html

http://analytic-comments.blogspot.com/2012/10/michael-wolffsohns-foreskin-of-heart.html

http://www.facebook.com/mike.roloff1?ref=name

 

[obyvatel]

Hi Mikerol,
Welcome to the forum. We suggest that new members write a brief introduction in the newbies board with some basic information - like how you found this forum, what topics interest you and anything else that you are comfortable with sharing in a public forum.

Looking forward to your interaction here.