Sometimes it seems that every boy is born with a coupon for $300 on the end of his penis, and all a doctor has to do is cut it off to collect.
dialogue from the upcoming film American Secret
Because circumcision has traditionally been so prevalent among men and in popular culture, the desire to fit in may pressure individuals to undergo the procedure, he said. Not only do drawings and models depicting circumcised males promote the procedure, but the use of terminology such as “uncircumcised” suggests that not being circumcised is undesirable. Adjectives such as “intact” or “natural” would be more appropriate and conscious of the sensitivity of the issue, O’Barr said.
He noted that there are multiple techniques for the procedure, each involving different instruments. The differing methods result in different aesthetic looks, which may account for the wide scope of male opinions on the subject.
William M. O’Barr is a professor of cultural anthropology, sociology and English at Duke University. He is completing a book titled An Anthropologist Looks at Circumcision in American Life.
William M. O’Barr: Is Infant Circumcision a Violation of Human Rights?
William M. O’Barr is a professor of cultural anthropology, sociology and English at Duke University. He is completing a book titled An Anthropologist Looks at Circumcision in American Life.
This is pretty interesting. A major new book about circumcision is coming out soon, and it will be interesting to see which way it leans. (Via restoringtally)
Consider the following; you’ve spent the last 5 years doing the best job you can raising a child. You have his best interests at heart, and you love your child dearly. When he was born, you circumcised him because your doctor told you that it was medically advantageous and would benefit your child.
Now some guy on the Internet tells you that circumcision is abusive and amounts to barbaric genital mutilation. What kind of emotional reaction are you going to have? There is a lot of shame involved here. It takes a strong, emotionally stable person to be able to digest what has happened here. Every parent wants to think of themselves as a “good parent”, so the notion that you mutilated your child’s genitalia is going to be a lot to swallow.
In countries where daily personal hygiene is possible and routine, there are no, or at least only highly doubtful, verifiable medical advantages of circumcising a child. Even if the removal of the foreskin could minimize the man’s risk of contracting H.I.V. or reduce his female partners’ risk of developing cervical cancer, this does not justify the circumcision of children. Whatever risks might exist for an uncircumcised man and his partners, they would not become relevant until the man is sexually active. For young boys, there are no medical benefits. On the contrary, circumcision carries all the risks inherent in any surgery.
AAP Circumcision Policy 'Seriously Flawed', Condemned by Canadian Children's Rights Group
Guest cautioned that infant circumcision could never be justified based on the ethical principle of proportionality, because there are more effective and less destructive methods to improve hygiene and prevent or treat disease that don’t involve removing healthy genital tissue. “Soap and water and safer sex practices, including condoms, can prevent disease. New vaccines against penile and cervical cancer can prevent human papillomavirus (HPV) infection.”
I’ve always given the same advice, even before this ruling. I’ve always held the view that this medical intervention cannot be regarded as conforming to current law or current medical ethics. And so I continue to advise doctors not to carry out this operation, instead, if religiously-motivated circumcision is to be carried out, it should only be carried out at an age when the child or the young person is able to permit it himself or at least consent to it.
German pediatric surgeon Maximilian Stehr
(Source: dw.de)
(How tiresome that bloggers continue to use the same tired images *sigh*)
Blue Collar Atheist: German Court Grabs Parents by the Foreskin
Another blogger comes out in support of the German ruling against male infant circumcision. He points out that if any other body part were to be cut off routine like the foreskin is circumcised, people would be up in arms. But the foreskin must be magical because few seem to mind cutting of part of a baby boy’s penis.
Being Frank on Rights: Circumcision of boys - a parent’s right to decide?
The Norwegian Centre Party has caused uproar in religious communities by proposing to outlaw the circumcision of young boys, unless medically necessary. This has happened after a two week old boy died after circumcision in May of this year in a medical institution. Jenny Klinge, Justice Policy…
The idea of protecting children from unnecessary genital surgery isn’t about protecting them from religious indoctrination. It’s about protecting them from bodily harm, which in this specific case happens to conflict with parental ideas about religion. It also seems more accurate to classify this question as that of an age restriction rather than a prohibition, since individuals would (presumably) be able to obtain a circumcision after reaching the age of consent.
The comparison with FGM is pertinent because it highlights the fact that the damage is done to a very vulnerable and uniquely important part of the body. Circumcision removes a relatively large amount of skin and mucosal tissue from the penis, which has been shown to be densely and uniquely innervated as well as highly sensitive to touch. The surgery has permanent and potentially wide-ranging negative effects on the child’s future sex life. While it’s true that some forms of FGM are more drastic and harmful than male circumcision, there are less severe variations that could be favorably compared to male circumcision (the WHO uses a four category classification system for FGM). All of them are prohibited under the same law in the United States, and presumably in Norway as well.
The situation causes uncertainty among parents who do not know if they could face charges. If the surgeries are banned, there is a danger that they will be performed abroad, or that quacks might be enlisted for the purpose, and that if complications occur, the parents might be afraid to take their children in for treatment. In addition, both the Jewish and Muslim communities oppose any ban. However, if the procedures are permitted, Finland will be giving its approval to medically unnecessary surgery that interferes with the integrity of the body. The Finnish Medical Association takes the stand that child circumcisions are in conflict with medical ethics.
(via The doctor and the foreskin)
In 2010, the Royal Dutch Medical Association published a position paper stating circumcision of minors is a violation of children’s rights. … During this symposium, organized by the KNMG, the Royal Dutch Medical Association, researchers, ethicists and representatives of professional physicians’ organizations will be discussing circumcision of boys and men. What are the medical consequences of circumcision, both in the short and the long term? Is there enough scientific evidence to implement circumcision campaigns in Africa? Can circumcision of young boys for religious reasons be morally justified? What is more important, religious freedom or the right to physical integrity of the child? And should parents decide, or should doctors?
The KNMG has been the most anti-circumcision of any of the major international professional medical associations in recent years, at least according my knowledge. It’ll be interesting to see what happens in Rotterdam this summer.
Here's what I found on circumcision and HIV from Web MD.
It does seem to halve the risk of HIV infection, however, it’s not a stand alone prevention method.
And here is an article from NY Times.
My conclusion is, and I am no medical professional, that circumcision has positives and negatives, and I still think it’s a personal choice for the person to make when they are older, rather than at birth.
With all the facts, I think an adult can make the decision to be circumcised themselves; the risks seem to be higher for adult males, but not life-threatening. With safe (meaning protected), consensual sex and proper cleaning, a foreskin should not be a major factor in contracting HIV.
I think it’s still really a personal thing.
From a purely public health perspective (which is how I am personally addressing this issue), infant circumcision is more cost effective (both in terms of monetary costs and health promotion/disease prevention costs) and less risky to the health and sexual functioning of men.
I am certainly not advocating some policy mandating circumcision or anything like that. But I am perfectly okay with the option being promoted. I am okay with parents choosing circumcision for their children (though most parents choose circumcision based on religious, cultural, or personal preferences—not health considerations). I am also okay with educating young uncircumcised males about the option and letting them choose for themselves. And I am okay with parents choosing not to circumcise and young men choosing not to have the procedure.
It is just that from a public health perspective, it seems the more circumcised men there are, the lower the risk of HIV (which is my primary interest) and other major illnesses (which is also important).
Even if your cost-effectiveness premise is true, it still has to be considered against individual autonomy. Would it be cost effective to “euthanize” people with serious developmental problems or to perform preemptive mastectomies on children? I don’t know, but should we really be exploring such possibilities?
Reading the news in the United States, you’d be forgiven for believing that the jury is still out on the medical benefits of circumcision. The truth of the matter is that there never should have been a jury to begin with. When considering the practice of female genital cutting, we don’t start from a neutral position of “I wonder whether there are any health benefits to permanently altering the genitals of baby girls? Let’s set up some studies and see what kinds of diseases cutting off clitorises can prevent!” We don’t do this, because we understand the very basic concept that cutting away healthy, functional tissue in the hopes of preventing potential disease is just bad medicine.
Eli Ungar-Sargon from his debate with Rabbi Boteach
(Source: beyondthebris.com)
A Few Thoughts on Eli Ungar-Sargon’s Latest Podcast
On Monday I devoted about 2 hours of my day listening to Eli Ungar-Sargon’s latest podcast, which features a discussion on infant circumcision with his friend and guest Jeffrey Helmreich, a philosophy PHD candidate. Eli Ungar-Sargon is the creator of acclaimed documentary “Cut: Slicing Through The Myths of CIrcumcision”, and frequent public critic of infant circumcision, both within the context of medicine and the Jewish tradition. The pair framed the discussion as a critique of this prominent paper on the ethics of child circumcision. Here are some points I took away from the podcast:
- Helmreich agreed with the premise that the discussion should include a careful weighing of legitimate benefits and harms of circumcision, even if loss of sexual function is more clearly identified in the future. While this idea was troubling for me at first, I quickly realized that I could easily reconcile it with my own viewpoints simply by weighing sexual effects and autonomy highly within the calculus. Furthermore, I can envision a hypothetical scenario where I could consider child circumcision permissible and even justifiable — in case of preventing a disease with a high morbidity/mortality and an early onset.
- Helmreich quickly disagreed with one of the authors’ key conclusions, arguing the surgery is not justifiable if the pros and cons of circumcision are considered neutral (as per the determination of the paper). He used the example of a drug treatment that has not been shown to produce a net benefit, and is therefore not marketed as a medical treatment.
- There seems to be a small point of confusion when weighing the sexual side-effects of circumcision as experienced by a partner. Helmreich correctly pointed out that these should never be weighed as highly as the sexual side-effects experienced by the individual undergoing the surgery, but I’m not sure if he gave enough consideration to the question within the context of the circumcised individual’s ability to please a partner to his (her in the case of transwomen) satisfaction. Certainly, both sensation and the ability to interface with partners are highly valuable within the realm of sexuality.
Perhaps one area that I would have liked to have received more attention in the discussion is the question of autonomy and individual experience. Sexuality is something that is often private and individualized, and circumcision has been shown to affect people in different ways: some consider themselves to be largely unaffected, while others experience it as traumatic, for example. While there are several possible explanations for this — perhaps more notably a person’s beliefs about circumcisio, as well as the variability of surgical technique and outcome — it seems applicable to ask, whether there is inherent harm in taking away control when it comes to something as intimate and highly individualized as the genitals?
Starting next week, Eli Ungar-Sargon is going on tour for his film, with screenings and discussions in 30 major cities. Check out the Facebook page for the even to stay updated with venues and times.
Listening to Eli Ungar-Sargon’s podcast on the Ethics of Infant CIrcumcision featuring philosophy professor Jeffrey Helmreich. It’s pretty good.
