untitled

Three Reasons Behind Our Circumcision Decision

By D.A. Huffman-Parent

©2001

Graphics are currently down because I recently moved this site.  I'll fix them in the near future.

Please note that I do not necessarily support any of the sites advertised on the top of this web page.
Please also note that this page is a personal endeavor and is in no way associated with any of the organizations to which I belong.

  Originally, my husband and I didn't give circumcision much thought.  I asked him once before we were married if he wanted to have our future sons circumcised and he just shrugged.  I wanted it done.  I was once pro-circ, heck, I didn't even know until I was about 16 that the majority of the world didn't circumcise.  I thought it was just something that had to be done.  My husband and I actually agreed before we were married to have our sons circumcised, but the more we learned about it, the more we thought we should look into it.  Once we did some research, we decided we wouldn't circumcise our future sons.  Here are our top 3 reasons.  

  I have tons of reasons and they're all very important and most of them are interrelated. Plus, we're Jewish, so I've scoured the Tanakh and different Jewish texts for information as well, but I'll stick to the secular arguments for this page.  If you'd like to read my arguments against circ from a Jewish perspective, you can go here:  Questioning Brit Milah from a Jewish Perspective.  If you're Christian, you may be interested to know that circumcision is NOT mandated for Christians and there are actually passages in the "New" Testament which proclaim that Christians shouldn't circumcise.  I'm not going to deal with the Christian aspect here, but there are a number of websites that do.  

 Here are my secular (non-religious) reasons from 3-1 with 1 being the most important.

You may not know that an article reported on CNN  (Pediatricians turn away from circumcision) states:

<<ATLANTA (CNN) -- American pediatricians are turning away from the practice of routine circumcision, concluding that doctors have no good medical reason to perform the procedure. >>

From AskDrSears.com: DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT TO CIRCUMCISE YOUR BABY BOY  

<<Medical benefits - THERE ARE NONE! Do not circumcise your baby because you think there are some medical benefits.>>

Whether or not you were aware, you'll find much more information on the topic on this site.  I hope it proves to be useful.  

"All mammalian penes either are covered by a protective foreskin-like sheath or are protected inside the body. So why is the U.S.-born human male uniquely in need of surgical correction a few days after birth for evolution's presumed error? Since 85 percent of human males alive today still have their foreskins, why are they not suffering the dire consequences foretold by U.S. allopathic medicine for those who remain intact as nature made them? " from Foreskin 'phallusy': Do circumcized penises come up short?

Please note that I have provided many links to valid  medical organizations and medical documents as well as sites and quotations by doctors and nurses, not merely  links to anti-circ sites.  

Although there are many more, here are my three main reasons followed by commentary:

3. It's painful. 

2. It's not our penis, so it's not our decision

1. It's not necessary (there are no proven benefits and no  medical association in the world recommends it)

3. It's painful. Circumcision is excruciatingly painful without anesthesia and what many people don't realize is that the vast majority of neonatal circumcisions are done with no anesthesia even today.  The percentages range, but on average, 60-85% of Routine Infant Circumcisions in hospitals are done with no anesthesia at all.  Even with topical anesthesia (which is the typically the only form of anesthesia used among those 15-40 % of hospitals that use some form of anesthesia), it's painful and introduces risks.  In fact, the study linked below declared topicals "woefully inadequate."

 CNN - Circumcision study halted due to trauma - December 23, 1997

Here's a quotation from that article:

<<ATLANTA (CNN) -- A new study found circumcision so traumatic that doctors ended the study early rather than subject any more babies to the operation without anesthesia.

 The researchers discovered that for those circumcised without anesthesia there was not only severe pain, but also an increased risk of choking and difficulty breathing. >>

From Experts Say Newborns Need Pain Relief, Too (3/5/2001),

<<Newborns are just as sensitive to pain as older children. In fact, infants are so sensitive to pain that they can suffer long-term health and behavioral problems due to routine procedures such as immunization and circumcision....Studies have shown that newborns exposed to extreme pain are at an increased risk for illness and death and are more vulnerable to pain later in life.>>

The Swindells didn't circumcise their son.  Why?  A number of reasons that you can read here: Why We Did NOT Circumcise   (this link is down, sorry), but this says it all:

 <<We think our family doctor's statement sums it up when we asked his opinion on circumcision, "Well, I can torture your child if you want me to." >>

  Anesthesia does provide some relief, but not enough and it's dangerous.  Anesthesias are VERY risky for babies. The topical EMLA cream contains warnings that specifically states that it's not to be used for infant circumcisions, on infants under a month old, nor should it be used on the genitals: EMLA Topical anaesthesia for circumcision WARNINGS.   Any anesthesia that must be injected is VERY dangerous since babies are so tiny and you never know how they'll react to chemicals especially when they're only a day old. There have been MANY circ-related complications including brain damage and even death from the injected anesthesia. Even though the wound site is exposed to feeces and urine and rubs against the diaper, babies are given no pain relief after the fact.  Doctors send babies home with Tylenol which DOES NOT affect pain. It reduces fever. I've noticed this in my own body and have been told same thing from doctors and nurses.  My mother's doctor told her in May of 1999, "Tylenol isn't for pain.  It doesn't really do anything for pain.  Tylenol is for reducing fevers.  Ibuprofen is for pain."

 Some parents believe that it's not an issue if it's painful because the child will not remember the trauma.  This type of argument opens the doors for all sorts of ethical issues.  If a man uses a Rophynil, the "date rape drug" which causes the victim to black out; and then rapes a woman, is it any less of a crime because she doesn't remember it?  If a baby is sexually abused, but has no conscious memory, is that any less of a crime?   If we argue that it doesn't matter because he won't remember it, we're on very shaky ground.  Would you intentionally hurt your child simply because he wouldn't remember it?  While infants are very likely not to have an actual memory of the cirucmcision, the pain may affect the child later in life.  

HealthCentral.com - Dr. Dean Edell - Pain And Babies: No Thanks For The Memories -(9/21/2000)

From that article:

<<Evidence is growing that babies do feel pain and they remember it, a finding that could result in them becoming hypersensitive to needles and other stimuli as adults. >>

Others have found similar results:  THE LANCET, Volume 349: Pages 599-603 March 1, 1997.  EFFECT OF NEONATAL CIRCUMCISION ON PAIN RESPONSE DURING SUBSEQUENT ROUTINE VACCINATION Anna Taddio, Joel Katz, A Lane Ilersich, Gideon Koren

From Psychological impacts of male circumcision

<<Enough evidence now exists to say with confidence that male circumcision causes psychological changes. The trauma of the experience is injurious. It can have long-term deleterious effects later in life. However, the specific psychological and behavioural changes resulting from early genital trauma have never been properly investigated. Much more study is needed to further elaborate these changes. >>

 Cansever tested boys before and after circumcision and found that the trauma causes severe disturbance of normal function.  BRITISH JOURNAL OF MEDICAL PSYCHOLOGY, Vol 38: Pages 321-31 Psychological Effects of Circumcision* by Gocke Cansever

From DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOBIOLOGY, Volume 9, Number 1: Pages 89-95, January 1976. EARLY BEHAVIORAL DIFFERENCES: GENDER or CIRCUMCISION?

<<In human studies, the possible long-term effects of behavior of early physical insult or pharmacological agents have received little attention. We present both circumstantial and direct evidence that circumcision of male infants leads to behavioral changes. In some American studies using circumcised infants, reported gender differences may instead be the result of the alter behavior of circumcised males. We suggest that circumcision requires more study in its own right and that it requires description if not control in all neonatal and infancy risks.>>

Here's yet another link on the topic:  Block Painful Nerve 'Memories'--Medicate Preemptively by Nada Mangialetti, Medical Writer

  So it's too painful without anesthesia (and dangerous as the study proved) and both painful and dangerous WITH anesthesia.  Plus, the pain may have a lasting effect on the child's brain.   All this for a surgery that is essentially cosmetic.  There's no way I can agree to let that be done to my future sons.  Why put your child at risk?

2. It's not our penis so it's not our decision: People like to insist circumcision is a personal decision.  I completely agree, it's a decision for the person to whom the penis belongs.  Altering such a sensitive area of the body should be a decision left up to the boy when he's an adult.  If the boy is left intact and later decides he wants to be circumcised, he has that option.  If he decides he likes the benefits his foreskin gives him, he can stay intact.  A circumcised boy has no such choice.  Circumcised men have started attempting to restore their foreskins, but the procedure takes a long time (it can last over two years) and the foreskin that is created is not as sensitive nor does it function as well as the original foreskin.

 The foreskin is a natural part of the penis.  It's not just a "flap of skin".  It contains millions of nerves and it acts as a sheeth for the glans of the penis.  It aids during sexual intercourse for both the male and his partner.  The foreskin DOES have a purpose.  You might want to read the Ridged Band  or Foreskin far from useless, HSC pathologist says  Finding sheds light on ‘unkindest cut’  to find out more.  The latter website was created to "provide scientific information about the anatomy and function" of the foreskin for medical professionals, journalists, and the general public.

 I'm not shy about admitting that I prefer the look of the circed penis, but what on earth do I care what my son's penis looks like? I'm not going to have his nose altered if I don't like the way it looks and EVERYONE will see his nose. Only a select few will see his penis.  I realized many men want their sons to be circumcised if they are.  I asked my dh why that wasn't important to him (he's anti-circ as well) and he said he wanted a child, not a clone.  I will never understand why a man feels his son's penis needs to match his, but he won't even think of taking steps towards cosmetic surgery if the child's eyes, nose, or ears don't match the father's.  Evidence now shows that circumcision is a mistake so I'm not going to make the same mistake with my children just so my husband and our sons have matching scars.  When I asked my mother if my oldest circumcised brother ever asked about a difference between  himself and his intact father,  my mother replied with these oh so wise words, "Of course not.  They don't go walking around with their penises hanging out."  When I told her one of the most popular reasons parents cite for circing is "to look like daddy", she laughed and insisted that was stupid.  For once, I've gotta agree with mom.  :-)  It's not my body.  I'm not going to alter it so it suits me.  It's not my body to alter.  

 Here's a related link:  Circumcision: Whose Penis is it Anyway?  A note to all those mothers who insist their little boys had a perfect circumcision with no problems, you may in fact be very wrong.  Some complications aren't noticed until the boys reach puberty or become sexually active.  And in such cases, it's highly unlikely for the adolescent or adult male to discuss the issue with his parents.  

Apparently,  circumcision problems not noted until adulthood are not quite so rare.  A report in the British Journal of Urology reported that:

<< Unrecognized outcomes in childhood may become more apparent and troublesome in adulthood. The Virginia Urologic Society’s former president acknowledged, "Often a poor surgical result is not recognized until years after the event. Adverse long-term consequences of infant circumcision on the sexual health of American men must be recognized by physicians, parents and legislators" >>  A Preliminary Poll of Men Circumcised in Infancy or Childhood by T. Hammond, British Journal of Urology International (83, Suppl. 1), p. 85-92, January, 1999

From A Jewish Woman Denounces Circumcision, Part 2

<<Sexual sensitivity is decreased when a boy is circumcised. The foreskin contains many nerve endings which of course are destroyed when it is removed. However, the exposed glans is also affected. According to Dr. Dean Edell, over 75% of the glans near surface nerve endings are destroyed in the years following circumcision by friction between the glans and clothing. >>

Sexual enjoyment may not only be diminshed for the male during intercourse.  From Newsweek: Sex Life Not Good? Sue!:

<<Kristen O’Hara’s study of 139 women—all of whom had partaken of penises of both varieties—revealed that women were twice as likely to have an orgasm, half as likely to experience pain during sex and nearly twice as likely to enjoy the experience with an uncircumcised man... the study also showed that circumcised men were more likely to prematurely ejaculate. >>

from Daddy, why is your penis different?

<<We are told on page 37 in Love's Body by Norman O. Brown, that the piece of flesh that is cut is "the size of a quarter, containing more than three million cells, twelve feet of nerves, one hundred sweat glands, fifty nerve endings, three feet of blood vessels... and [the] penis's own personal lubrication... An essentially internal organ [has been] made permanently external with the drying out and desensitisation that accompanies any moist, sensitive skin adapting itself to frequent contact with an often abrasive world.">>

 The foreskin is a normal functioning part of the body that is there for a purpose.  I have no right to remove that from my future children.  I have no right to take away the pleasure that they have every right to.  Their body, their decision.

1. It's not necessary:

From AskDrSears.com: DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT TO CIRCUMCISE YOUR BABY BOY  

<<Medical benefits - THERE ARE NONE! Do not circumcise your baby because you think there are some medical benefits.>>

 The majority of the world's men are intact (84%) and they have no problems. The U.S. is the only nation that routinely circs for reasons other than religion (and please note that circumcision is NOT a religious requirement of Christians). If these other nations really had such a problem with the foreskin, they would have embraced circumcision decades ago. Actually, some areas once did routinely circ (England, Canada, Australia), but now don't. If such problems exist with the intact penis, why have these countries turned away from circumcising in favor of the intact penis?

  While the U.S. is the only country to continue Routine Infant Circumcision, the rates are dropping. In the 1960's, 90% of baby boys were circumcised.  Today, the average rates are about 60%, however, that varies by area.  In some areas, the rates are as low as 33%.  You can see the intact rates by area here:  Circumcision Fact Sheet

From a medical text book: -- Neil Campbell, Lawrence Mitchell, Jane Reece. Biology, Concepts and Connections. 2000 (Third Edition). Addison Wesley Longman. (pg. 539)

<<As in the female, a fold of skin called the prepuce, or foreskin, covers the glans. Circumcision, the surgical removal of the prepuce, is commonly performed for religious or health reasons. However, scientific studies have not proved that circumcision has any effect on a man's health or that of his sexual partner.>>

  Those existing studies about the suposed pros of circumcision are flawed and are typically not accepted by other countries and are even questioned by our own. One study said that intact babies have more urinary tract infections (UTI's) during the first year of life.  Even if that was true, it's a very small percentage ("at most one percent" according to the AAP) and UTI's can be treated with antibiotics. Plus, it's only an issue for the first few months of life.  <<...the risk of urinary tract infection does not appear to be higher in uncircumcised adult men>> (Medscape:  Risks of Circumcision (I'm currently trying to update this link since Medscape took over Health Watch's archives) Why remove the foreskin just to possibly reduce the risk for a few months?  That being said, there are some problems with those studies and there are other studies which contradict them.

Here's a quotation about those studies from Separated at Birth: Did Circumcision Ruin Your Sex Life?:

<<“The whole body of research on this issue is a how-to-lie-with-statistics classic,” argues Dr. Altschul. “Depending on how you collect the data, you can get almost any result you want.” Dr. Altschul’s own research also found that many of the urinary-tract infections in uncircumcised boys were "attributable to congenital anomalies." Recently, several studies have suggested that neonatal circumcision may actually increase the infection rate.>>

Here's another link about the flaws in the study:  UTI's Rarely Caused By Foreskin

In Circumcision: A Medical or a Human Rights Issue?, Marilyn Fayre Milos, RN and Donna Macris, CNM, MSN write:

<<The AAP  (American Academy of Pediatrics) reported that studies reflecting an increase in UTIs among intact boys are "retrospective," may have "methodologic flaws," and "may have been influenced by selection bias". The more recent research of statistician and pediatrician, Dr. Martin Altschul, refutes the earlier UTI studies. New York pediatrician, Dr. Leonard J. Marino, agrees with Altschul:

Since one fourth of my male infant patients are not circumcised, and if the frequency of UTI in the uncircumcised is as high as it is said to be, I should be seeing many UTIs in male infants. If I'm missing the diagnosis, they somehow are getting better without treatment. My experience reinforces the practice of discouraging routine circumcision, a cause of more morbidity than benefit.>>

Here's one study that provides evidence that conflicts with the idea that intact infants are at a higher risk for UTI's: FORESKINS: Seek Elsewhere for Infants' Urinary Tract Infections from the PHYSICIANS WEEKLY, Volume 14 No. 48 December 22, 1997.

 From that article:

<<The maligned foreskin has won a clean bill of health in infants' urinary tract infections. In a prospective study at St. Louis University of 52 circumcised and 56 uncircumcised infants under six months with a first urinary tract infection, 72 had clinical pyelonephritis. Yet circumcision status (35 were circumcised) wasn't significant, while anatomical obstructions were. >>

Here's yet another such article which is about an 8 year long study which found circumcision did not lower the incidence of UTI's:  PEDIATRICS, Volume 100 (supplement): page 580. THE INCIDENCE OF GENITOURINARY ABNORMALITIES IN CIRCUMCISED AND UNCIRCUMCISED BOYS PRESENTING WITH AN INITIAL URINARY TRACT INFECTION BY 6 MONTHS OF AGE  Department of Surgery, Department of Pediatrics, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.

<<Conclusion: Regardless of circumcision status, infants who present with their first UTI at 6 months or less are likely to have an underlying GU abnormality. In the remaining patients with normal underlying anatomy and UTI we found as many circumcised infants as those who retained their foreskin.>>

According to Louanne Cole Weston, Ph.D. at OnHealth: Is Circumcision the Right Choice?,

<<Proponents of circumcision also say the procedure protects against urinary tract infections, and there are studies that show an increase in urinary tract infections among uncircumcised boys when compared to circumcised boys. But further analysis of those studies reveals that many of the infections may be attributed to abnormalities in the structure of the genitals, not the presence of an intact foreskin.>>

Here's yet another link:  Circumcision: Is the Risk of Urinary Tract Infection Really the Pivotal Issue? John B. Chessare, MD, MPH. from Clinical Pediatrics Volume 31 Number 2: Pages 100-104, February 1992.

From that link:

<<For the set of values assigned to the possible outcomes, the choice of no circumcision yielded the highest expected benefit. The preferred choice would remain no circumcision given this set of values....The choice of circumcision, excluding those for religious beliefs or cultural reasons, must be made by well-informed parents and should not be dictated by the risk of urinary tract infection alone. >>

And from Historical Medical Quotes On Circumcision:

<<"Circumcision is not a medical decision. Preventing an improbably future infection is a spurious indication. The standard of care is antibiotics, not amputation."--Eileen Marie Wayne, MD,Letters (Nothing to Debate on Circumcision), American Medical News, (27 July, 1998). P.27.>>

You may also want to read this article:  Study Shows Circumcised Boys are Prone to Penis Problems

 Some claim intact men have a higher rate of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. Well, if that's the case, then why does the US, where the majority of men are circumcised, have such a high rate of HIV and sexually transmitted diseases?   <<The U.S. HIV incidence rate is 3.5 times higher than that of the closest advanced industrialized nation according to World Heath Organization data from 1995. The U.S. also has the highest circumcision rate of any of these countries. Clearly, if HIV transmission is related to lack of circumcision, this finding would not be expected.>> Medical "Benefits"  

Those studies that suggest circumcised men are less likely to contract an STD may be flawed.  Here's a link that explains why: Circumcision and HIV.  Also, another study showed that circumcision after age 20 didn't decrease the risk: HealthCentral.com - News - Adult circumcision not protective against HIV - (3/26/1999). Well, if the foreskin leaves you more susceptible to STD's like they're suggesting, then removing it at any age should decrease your risk. The only answer to why men circumcised at age 20 and over don't reduce their risks at all is one of two things (or it could actually be both): 1. The foreskin has nothing to do with it and/or 2. The men studied who were circed over 20 had already contracted an STD prior to circumcision. If that's the case, then the doctors didn't do enough research if they didn't even test their patients before the study.  If that is the case, how could you trust a study that has such basic flaws?  If that's not the case and the foreskin has nothing to do with it or actually helps aid in prevention of STD's, then those studies are wrong.

From a recent study (April 2001): From Circumcision Not a Factor In Spread of HIV

<<Seattle, WA - New research concludes that circumcision does not thwart the spread of HIV. Previous studies from Uganda suggested the opposite, but this latest study reverses those conclusions.>>

<<The United States has the highest AIDS rate and circumcision rate in developed countries. Clearly circumcision does nothing to stop the AIDS epidemic, " says Dr. Denniston, Director of Doctors Opposing Circumcision (DOC). "Circumcision doesn't protect against HIV - adopting behaviors inconsistent with transmission protects against HIV. ....Parents are continuing to perform a hazardous operation with the mistaken belief that it benefits their baby boy's health when the opposite is true. Circumcision has no prophylactic health benefits...>>  

  Another study has actually proven the African study wrong. Again, from Separated at Birth: Did Circumcision Ruin Your Sex Life?:

<<What about circumcised men and STD's? A recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that circumcised men did have a lower incidence of syphilis and HIV. But they had a higher rate of infection with herpes, hepatitis, and chlamydia. Overall, the study authors wrote, “We found no evidence of a prophylactic role for circumcision, and a slight tendency in the opposite direction.”>>

CIRCUMCISION IN THE UNITED STATES: Prevalence, Prophylactic Effects, and Sexual Practice from the JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, Volume 277, Number 13: Pages 1052-1057, April 2, 1997.

This is from a completely different study:

<<When the raw data are combined, a man with a circumcised penis is at greater risk of acquiring and transmitting HIV than a man with a non-circumcised penis (odds ratio (OR)=1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.01-1.12). Based on the studies published to date, recommending routine circumcision as a prophylactic measure to prevent HIV infection in Africa, or elsewhere, is scientifically unfounded. >>  CBS HealthWatch.com:  Circumcision and HIV infection: review of the literature and meta-analysis. You can read the entire article here: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF STD &, Volume 10, Pages 8-16,January 1999.

According to Facts About Circumcision By Joshua Levine More, Health Correspondent,

<<Meanwhile, studies swing back and forth regarding a correlation between early urinary-tract infections and circumcision. They are similarly inconclusive about the foreskin being more susceptible to STDs. The latest research, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, found "no significant differences between circumcised and uncircumcised men in their likelihood of contracting sexually transmitted diseases." >>

Nancy Snyderman, MD cites the same study in Circumcision from Dr. Koop.com:

<<the debate on both sides of the fence has been heated. Over the years medical reports have appeared to support the anti-circumcision point of view. Now comes another study which supports the stand of the anti-circumcision group.

An exhaustive look at the practice of circumcision in the United States was recently published in the Journal of the American Medical Association and states that there is no difference between circumcised and uncircumcised men when it comes to their risk of sexually transmitted diseases.>>

she adds:

<<So where does this leave us? It leaves you with the knowledge that circumcision in an option - not a mandate. It is not a surgically necessary procedure... there is no medical gain by removing the foreskin. >>

AEGIS, "The largest HIV/AIDS website in the world" published a collection of articles regarding HIV and circumcision and this is from the analysis:

<<Thirty-five articles and a number of abstracts have been published in the medical literature looking at the relationship between male circumcision and HIV infection... Based on the studies published to date, recommending routine circumcision as a prophylactic measure to prevent HIV infection in Africa, or elsewhere, is scientifically unfounded. >>

  Nearly all doctors (and the AMA and AAP) agree that either abstenance or safe sex involving condoms is the best way to prevent the spread of HIV, not surgery.   

 Penile cancer isn't even an issue since even the American Cancer Society doesn't recommend circumcision to reduce the risk.  The foreskin does not cause penile cancer.   The cancer has been diagnosed in both intact and circumcised men.<< Some say that circumcision promotes cleanliness, which offers protection against cancer. Yet the penile cancer rate in Europe, where circumcision is rarely performed, is no higher than the rate in the United States>>OnHealth:  Is Circumcision the Right Choice?  Males have a higher risk of being struck by lightning then they do of developing penile cancer.  The rates of harm caused by circumcision are far higher than the penile cancer rate (according to the American Cancer Society's Penile Resource Center, the cancer risk is .001%).  Many more babies are injured from circumcision each year then the number of men who are diagnosed with penile cancer.  Women (and even men) have a MUCH higher rate of contracting breast cancer ( 1 in 8 women will have breast cancer.  Only 1 in 100,000 men will get penile cancer), yet we don't have breast tissue removed at birth (or even at puberty). Read the American Cancer Society's Statement on Circumcision.  

 The American Cancer Society Penile Cancer Resource Center states,

<< The consensus among studies that have taken these other factors into account is that circumcision is not of value in preventing cancer of the penis. It is important that the issue of circumcision not distract the public's attention from avoiding known penile cancer risk factors -- having unprotected sexual relations with multiple partners (increasing the likelihood of human papillomavirus infection) and cigarette smoking.>>

Doctor's Oposing Circumcision write: FORESKIN CURRICULUM

<<The risk of cancer of the penis is one in one hundred thousand (1/100,000). If circumcision could prevent cancer of the penis (which is not likely - Madden presented a study recently with 37 cases of cancer of the penis in circumcised men), performing 100,000 circumcisions on normal infants to possibly prevent one cancer of the penis in an elderly man is unethical. A number of infants will die in the process, and many (200) will sustain significant, serious complications. Nowhere else in medicine is this type of prevention practiced.>>

Of interest is also this link:  NEONATAL CIRCUMCISION DOES NOT PROTECT AGAINST CANCER from the BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, (London) Vol. 312 no 7033

Another great article with quotations from various studies is The Wrongness of Circumcision

As for the old idea that sex with an intact partner causes cervical cancer, from the American Cancer Society:

<<Research suggesting a pattern in the circumcision status of partners of women with cervical cancer is methodologically flawed, outdated, and has not been taken seriously in the medical community for decades.>>

In addition to all this, something I found extremely interesting on the topic are the reports that circumcision lessens sensation.  Men who were circumcised later in life have attested to this phenomenon:  Men Circumcised As Adults,   I Want My Foreskin Back! (From WebMD), Circumcision: Male -- Affects Upon Sexuality, and The Sexual and Psychological Consequences of Infant Circumcision among others.  Now, however, a recent study exists which lends credence to this concept.  

Men Scarred by Circumcision

<<University of Sydney, NSW In the first study of its kind, researcher Tina Kimmel presented, at the Sixth International Symposium at the University of Sydney, Australia, her preliminary findings indicating that penile sensitivity of intact males is 25-30% greater than that of circumcised males.>>

I absolutely can NOT agree to have this done to my future sons. There's no reason and it's too dangerous. Plus what right do I have to do this to another person?  No child of ours will be circumcised!

 If you'd like more information, please visit my collection of links below.  They're separated into categories to make finding links you need easier.  

See also: Questioning Brit Milah From A Jewish Perspective

Here are some more useful circumcision links separated by topics:

Why shouldn't we circumcise?

What doctors/nurses say about circumcision:

Personal Stories from Parents

Problems that occur from circumcision:

Effects of Infant Circumcision in Adulthood:

If the father or older brothers are circumcised:

The foreskin is not just a flap of skin:

Cleaning the intact penis:

Honestly Unbiased Information:

Of Interest:

What Medical Associations say about circumcision:

Canadian Paediatric Society: Neonatal Circumcision Revisited

<<"Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed."

"The overall evidence of the benefits and harms of circumcision is so evenly balanced that it does not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns. There is therefore no indication that the position taken by the CPS in 1982 should be changed."

Note: In 1982 the CPS took a stand against routine infant circumcision because "there are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period.">>

British Medical Association: Circumcision of Male Infants

<<"Where conditions can effectively be treated conservatively, it is accepted good practice to do so. Even limited procedures should only be carried out where there is good reason, and then only after adequate conservative treatment. The BMA opposes unnecessarily invasive procedures being used where alternative, less invasive techniques, are equally efficient and available."

"Doctors have a duty to keep up to date with developments in medical practice. Therefore, 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."

"It is rarely necessary to circumcise an infant for medical reasons.">>

Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons: AAPS: Guidelines for Circumcision

<<"The Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons does not support the routine circumcision of male neonates, infants or children in Australia. It is considered to be inappropriate and unnecessary as a routine to remove the prepuce, based on the current evidence available."

"We do not support the removal of a normal part of the body, unless there are definite indications to justify the complications and risks which may arise. In particular, we are opposed to male children being subjected to a procedure, which had they been old enough to consider the advantages and disadvantages, may well have opted to reject the operation and retain their prepuce."

"Neonatal male circumcision has no medical indication. It is a traumatic procedure performed without anaesthesia to remove a normal functional and protective prepuce. At birth, the prepuce has not separated from the underlying glans and must be forcibly torn apart to deliver the glans, prior to removal of the prepuce distal to the coronal groove.">>

American Academy of Pediatrics:  AAP Circumcision Policy Statement (RE9850)

<<"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child.">>

Special thanks to Jeff for these statements and links.

This Fight Sexual Mutilation WebRing site is owned by Hyphen
Fight Sexual MutilationWebRing
· Prev. 5 Sites · Previous · Next · Next 5 Sites · Random Site · Join · Sites List ·

Uncut Entertainment


Web Hosting · Blog · Guestbooks · Message Forums · Mailing Lists
Allwebco Web Templates · Build your own toolbar · Site Building Articles · Audio, Fonts, Clipart
powered by a free webtools company bravenet.com