TAE has a cute little daughter, so has not come face to face with the decision whether or not to circumcise my child. However, Mrs. TAE and I plan on more kids in the future, so the subject is worth considering. But is it worth posting?
This article summarizes all of my best points, and thereby saves me the trouble. In short, circumcision is like driving...as long as done by someone qualified, then there are nothing but benefits.
Now, I certainly respect the rights of individuals to choose to opt their newborn sons out of any non-compulsory procedure, whether because of their doctor's advice or because of their own feelings. But as I have stated before, I feel those individuals that so choose are being selfish and unethical to increase the population's disease risk because of their own personal feelings (and unsubstantiated claims) about vaccines and their belief that personal risks outweighs the need for the larger community to be protected. The same goes for circumcision. By not circumcising your son, you are protecting him from rare, but possible nerve damage and deformity. Meanwhile, your putting him at much (read: MUCH) greater risk for many diseases. And you also add your son to the chain of "infectables" that act as tentpoles for a disease to travel through a population.
_
The Right Brain For The Job
6 hours ago
2 comments:
There are lots of countries which don't circumcise which have significantly lower rates of all the bad stuff than the USA, where most men are circumcised.
You might want to check out the following links:
Canadian Paediatric Society
"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.
RACP Policy Statement on Circumcision
"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: The law and ethics of male circumcision - guidance for doctors
"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."
See also:
Canadian Children's Rights Council
"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 9.2%
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) masturbation caused various physical and mental problems (including epilepsy, convulsions, paralysis, tuberculosis etc), and
b) circumcision stopped masturbation.
Both of those sound ridiculous today I know, but if you don't believe me, then check out this link:
A Short History of Circumcision in North America In the Physicians' Own Words
Over a hundred years later, circumcised men keep looking for new ways to defend the practice. If we looked for benefits to female circumcision (the people that practise it get furious if you call it "mutilation" btw), we'd probably find those too. It wouldn't make it right. One study showed that women who'd been circumcised had a significantly lower risk of HIV for example. Yeah, I know that the severe forms of female circumcision are horrific, but some forms do less damage than the usual form of male circumcision, and one form is the exact anatomical equivalent. If you think there's a fundamental difference, try arguing with the women the defend and promote female genital cutting. They use the exact same arguments to defend it as are used to defend male circumcision, and point to male circumcision itself as why they should be allowed to cut their daughters.
The record payout for a botched circumcision is $22.8 million. It was said at the time that the victim "will never be able to function sexually as a normal male and will require extensive reconstructive surgery and psychological counseling as well as lifelong urological care and treatment by infectious disease specialists."
Sure, cases like that are very rare, but why should they happen at all? If you look up the galleries of botched jobs, one thing that may surprise you is just how many jobs were botched cosmetically, rather than medically. Skin tags and skin bridges and hair growing half way up the shaft are not normal, but would not be counted as medical complications.
News just in this week: A jury in Atlanta has awarded $1.8 million to a boy whose penis was severed in a botched circumcision five years ago. The Fulton County jury also awarded the boy's mother another $500,000.
If someone wants to get circumcised, that should be their decision, nobody else's, not even their parents. Cutting off parts of babies' penises before they can give their consent is just wrong. It's not just a bit of skin like an earlobe, the inner foreskin and frenulum are the most sensitive parts of the penis - way more sensitive than the glans.
We, of course, have a son and we had to consider the issue of circumcision. What I found when I looked into it is that not one mainstream medical organization, in the U.S. or elsewhere in the developed world, recommends routine (i.e. non-therapeutic) circumcision. Neither did any of the multiple pediatricians we consulted (which makes sense, considering the AAP's negative recommendation on the procedure). If you can find a medical authority that says otherwise, I would certainly be interested in seeing it.
The consensus against routine circumcision in the medical community is, ironically, almost as uniform as the consensus in favor of routine vaccinations. So you've made the proper connection, but in the exact wrong way.
Post a Comment