Is circumcision a much-needed minor medical intervention that helps to prevent potentially life-threatening health conditions like penile cancer, HIV, and urinary tract infections later in the boy's life? Or is it nothing more than genital mutilation — something we would unequivocally condemn as a practice that should really be a crime if it were done to girls?
I am a European. Few Europeans opt to have a routine circumcision performed on their newborn sons. As such, I spent most of my adult life oblivious to the fact that people who aren't Jewish or Muslim practice routine infant circumcision on a fairly wide scale in the United States, not for religious reasons but for cultural and health reasons.
That all changed a few years ago. I was expecting my first child, and planning a home birth. This led me to some fairly radical natural parenting discussion boards on the internet. Here, I learned two things — many American parents feel that circumcision is the best choice to make for their infant sons, but there is also a very passionate and vocal minority that is strongly opposed to this fact.
Online discussions about infant circumcision always seem to devolve into name-calling feasts where those current and future parents who are pro-circumcision and those who are opposed to it accuse each other of all kinds of terrible things. I was fascinated, and decided to do some further research. I wanted to know if being circumcised offers significant medical benefits, particularly after hearing that it might help prevent or reduce the risk of HIV transmission. But I also wanted to know why some people were so very much opposed to circumcision that they believe it should be a crime, or that parents who decide to have the procedure carried out should have their children taken away, because they are abusive.
Circumcision — What Are Its Benefits?
Finding reliable information on the benefits of circumcision proved harder than I thought. Parents considering making the choice of circumcision vs no circumcision have a tough time, there is no doubt about that. Full texts of studies are rarely available for free, and even where they are, one needs to be able to interpret the data and assess how unbiased the researchers are. The best sources for information about the medical benefits of circumcision include the World Health Organization, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the British National Healthcare Service.
Among the purported medical benefits of circumcision are:
- A decreased risk of urinary tract infections.
- A reduced risk of sexually transmitted diseases, including HPV and HIV.
- Prevention of penile cancer for the circumcised man, and cervical cancer for his partner.
- Prevention of inflammations in the glans and foreskin, as well as phimosis, a condition in which the man is unable to retract his foreskin.
- Better personal hygiene — in other words no build-up of smegma between the glans and foreskin.
The World Health Organization is in favor of male circumcision, and states that it reduces the risk of heterosexual HIV transmission by 60 percent. The point out that the procedure has been shown to be safe, if it is carried out in the right setting by a knowledgeable physician. The World Health Organization recommends circumcision as an effective medical intervention, particularly in countries with a HIV epidemic. It does add that circumcision merely reduces the risk of HIV transmission, and that circumcised men should still engage only in safe and responsible sexual activities.
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) can be considered one of the foremost authorities on pediatric matters in the United States. The organization amended its policy statement on circumcision in 2012. The AAP, based on a review of available studies, concluded that the benefits of circumcision outweigh its risks. However, it also found that the benefits of infant circumcision are not great enough to recommend infant circumcision as a universal and routine procedure. Instead, the AAP calls on parents to make the decision on whether or not to circumcise baby boys within their own cultural, religious and ethical contexts. The AAP does believe that every baby boy should have access to the procedure, and that it should be covered under social insurance policies.
In Britain, the National Healthcare Service (NHS) has reached the opposite conclusion. The NHS recognizes that circumcision may help prevent certain infections, but believes that the risks of the procedure generally outweigh its benefits. While the NHS concurs that circumcision may sometimes be a good option if a boy has phimosis and other problems with the foreskin, it believes that alternative treatments should be pursued first before coming to the conclusion that circumcision would be the best choice.
What The Naysayers Believe About Circumcision
Those people who are opposed to routine infant circumcision believe that removing a baby boy's foreskin is nothing but a cosmetic procedure. From my experience with the anti-circumcision movement, I feel comfortable in saying that most believe the procedure to be genital mutilation just like female circumcision. The feeling that only the individual who was born with the foreskin has the right to decide to have it removed persists, often even in contexts where the parents practice a religion that calls for circumcision.
The pain a baby boy experiences during a circumcision is another major concern
Sometimes, circumcisions are carried out without appropriate anesthesia. This leads to a lot of pain. This concern can easily be eliminated by ensuring that the procedure is carried out with a local anesthetic cream, followed by injections of local anesthesia.
Parents who have the procedure carried out under these conditions report that their baby did not cry or even flinch.
A third reason to oppose circumcision is that, as with most medical procedures, this usually minor medical intervention can go wrong. Some baby boys have died from hemorrhage following circumcision, while others have sustained permanent damage to their penises, or have needed follow-up operations to correct a botched circumcision. These concerns are certainly valid, and taking the possibility that the procedure may not go as planned into account is wise. Choosing a very experienced physician to carry out the circumcision will reduce the worry of this happening, but can never completely take it away.
Yet another concern is about the man's sexual pleasure
Sexuality studies have shown that circumcised men do not have a problem with sexual satisfaction, and some even report that their pleasure increased after an adult circumcision. On the other side of the story, some men are really angry that their parents had them circumcised as babies. A few go as far as to attempt to grow their foreskin back. There are techniques for this on the internet, though they are not able to return the sensitivity that the original foreskin would have had.
Finally, hygiene. Are uncircumcised men unclean?
This opinion seems to be prevalent in America, where most men are circumcised Those opposed to the procedure hold that proper personal hygiene is really the only thing required. And surely, even circumcised men need to wash themselves? As a European woman, I can definitely say that I don't find the natural penis repulsive, but also that no woman likes a man who doesn't want to wash himself before engaging in intimate activities — whether he is circumcised or not!
My conclusion is that circumcision has some benefits, as well as some risks. For people who practice circumcision for religious reasons, there is no dilemma. The same might even be true if you would circumcise for cultural reasons. If you are considering circumcising for medical reasons, there is certainly evidence that those exist. Do the benefits outweigh the risks, or do the risks outweigh the benefits? No doubt, you will do your own research. Whatever conclusion you draw, many others have agreed with you and will continue to do so. By the same token, if you do choose to opt for a circmcision, there will always be those who are eager to condemn that choice.