Circumcision: Is It Right for Your Baby Boy?

I guess all the men in Europe are going around with their penises rotting off. Aids started in Africa in the villages not in any urban civilized areas. Go take a look on youtube and see what these poor babies are put through for the sake of genital mutilation. We get so upset when it happens to females but not our boys. This has got to stop now. Shame on that organization!

Reply

According to latest statistics, 33% of boys are circumcised in the USA. Keeping your child intact is the norm in the USA now. There is a bit about the rise and fall of circumcision rates here, with some of the various medical reasons given for it here: www.veoh.com/collection/Circumcision/watch/v1028772JgXD37Sy#watch%3Dv1134639X63btBHB

No medical research has been able to conclusively support routine circumcision of newborns. If we ignore the fact that newborns are not at risk of STIs, there has been research to suggest that circumcision increases the risk of HIV transmission to women, and possibly increases the risk of UTIs. The data on UTIs is poor at best, with no research coming out in favour of a reduction of UTIs after the first year. Overall, UTIs in boys are rare, and an intact boy has a lower risk of UTIs than a girl. There is some information on UTIs here: www.circumstitions.com/Utis.html, on disease in general here: www.circumstitions.com/#disease and a critical examination of the studies being used to promote circumcision as a preventative for HIV in Africa here: www.futuremedicine.com/doi/full/10.2217/17469600.2.3.193

Phimosis, IF it occurs in adulthood (it cannot be diagnosed in childhood as a child's foreskin shouldn't be retracted by anyone other than the child, and retractability may not be achieved until adulthood) does not require circumcision. Stretching of the preputial opening is the least painful, most effective way to treat phimosis, and if surgery is desired then preputioplasty (the removal of the phimotic ring) is much less damaging. Many men live contentedly with non-retractile foreskins and do not find them problematic.

These are the risks involved in neonatal circumcision, which are neither rare nor trivial: www.circumstitions.com/Complic.html#damage This is a comparison of cut vs. intact outcomes: www.drmomma.org/2010/01/cut-vs-intact-outcome-statistics.html This is what is lost during circumcision: www.norm.org/lost.html This depicts circumcision damage in adult men from neonatal circumcision - this is common, 'normal' stuff: www.noharmm.org/IDcirc.htm

Overall, this is a lay article of extreme bias, with a POV which is not in line with any medical organisation in the world. Neonatal circumcision must, from a medical ethics point of view, be considered unethical, as there is NO measurable benefit to a neonate from circumcision - infants are not at risk of STIs. The risks, however are alarming - that of severe infection, bleeding, penile loss and in the worst case scenario, death. Whether this is 'rare' or not is unimportant from an ethical perspective - any non-elective procedure with no immediate medical benefit and a small risk of death must be stopped, as it is not in the patient's best interests.

Reply

So dissapointed in Parentdish for this ridiculously biased article. How about a list of benefits of keeping boys intact? Just a few: preventing a newborn from suffering pain (we really don't know how much, do we? on his first day in the world; the foreskin is an organ that actually serves a purpose - protecting the head of the penis; there are many complications that can result from circumcision - adhesions, excessive bleeding, even death (these complications are way more likely than the small risk of infection from not circing); men who were circumcised later in life report a lessening in sexual satisfaction . . .

And what DOCTOR would actually recommend circing a boy "because Dad is." SERIOUSLY? Has any boy in the history of the world ever been even slightly upset because he and his dad don't have "matching penises"? My husband is circ'ed. Our son is not. If he ever asks we will tell him that this used to be a common tradition in the US, but we didn't do it to him because we know better now.

On a side note, we live in Northern California and I have yet to see a circumcised boy at my son's swimming lessons.

Reply

Circumcision is a dangerous distraction in the fight against AIDS. The USA has the highest rate of circumcision of any developed country, but also the highest rate of HIV. Even in Africa, there are six countries where men are *more* likely to be HIV+ if they've been circumcised: Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, and Swaziland. Eg in Malawi, the HIV rate is 13.2% among circumcised men, but only 9.5% among intact men. In Rwanda, the HIV rate is 3.5% among circumcised men, but only 2.1% among intact men. If circumcision really worked against AIDS, this just wouldn't happen. We now have people calling circumcision a "vaccine" or "invisible condom", and viewing circumcision as an alternative to condoms. The South African National Communication Survey on HIV/AIDS, 2009 found that 15% of adults across age groups "believe that circumcised men do not need to use condoms".

The one randomized controlled trial into male-to-female transmission showed a 54% higher rate in the group where the men had been circumcised btw.

ABC (Abstinence, Being faithful, and especially Condoms) is the way forward. Promoting genital surgery will cost African lives, not save them.

You might also want to check out the following:

Canadian Paediatric Society
www.cps.ca/english/statements/fn/fn96-01.htm
"Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed."

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."

Royal Australasian College of Physicians
www.racp.edu.au/index.cfm?objectid=B5610716-9E3E-6C97-A8D87880FD002E3B
"After extensive review of the literature, the Paediatrics & Child Health Division of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians has concluded that there is no medical reason for routine newborn male circumcision."
(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
www.bma.org.uk/ethics/consent_and_capacity/malecircumcision2006.jsp#Circumcisionformedicalpurposes
"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."

The Royal Dutch Medical Association
knmg.artsennet.nl/Diensten/knmgpublicaties/KNMGpublicatie/Nontherapeutic-circumcision-of-male-minors-2010.htm
"The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organisations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children's rights to autonomy and physical integrity. Contrary to popular belief, circumcision can cause complications - bleeding, infection, urethral stricture and panic attacks are particularly common. KNMG is therefore urging a strong policy of deterrence. KNMG is calling upon doctors to actively and insistently inform parents who are considering the procedure of the absence of medical benefits and the danger of complications."

Reply

Little boys don't wash their hands. We should cut those off too, because stumps are easier to clean.

Reply

I'm pretty sure Tylenol doesn't cut it... I watch a little boy who was circ'd at birth, but his parents didn't believe enough foreskin was removed (there were no issues or complications, either immediate or suspected for the future). He was re-cut a year later, and they had to put him under general anesthesia. The Dr didn't even bother with Tylenol, Tylenol 2, or even Tylenol 3. They went straight to Vicodin, which he was on for over a week; we tried to wean him off much sooner, but even seven days later he would be screaming in pain long before the Motrin wore off. After we were finally able to get him off the Vicodin, he was still on Motrin for another 2 weeks.

Sugar water and Tylenol? Not so much.

Reply

It's barbaric and anyone who is endorses this antiquated view is essentially condoning child abuse.

Reply

Stupid quote of the decade:>> "parents should first consider whether or not the father is circumcised.
"If so, then proceed, if no then do not do it," he says. "Because when this boy grows up, he will be very different from his father.""

You've got to be kidding me! What are you smoking?? Using this logic, If a father only has one testicle or loses one or both in an accident, then you should cut off the testicle(s) of his little boy so as they won't be different. This has got to be the most asinine reason for circumcision that I have ever heard. It's not like a father and son sit around and compare penises when they have free time to bond. At least I hope not because if this is the case, I was neglected by my father.

I was circumcised as an infant. It was not my choice, I was not asked, nor could I answer at two days old but it was the choice by my well meaning parents. In essance it was a legally, medically and church sanctioned sexual and physical abuse, assault and mutilation on my body in which I had no say in the matter. I would not have chosen to do this to myself or to have done this had I had a son. My wife (at the time) thought that should we have a boy, that circumcision should be done. Her reasoning was that as a women, she prefered a circumcised penis and thought that an uncircumsized penis was ugly and gross. This shouldn't have mattered to her as I don't think she planned an incestious relationship with our son but she narrowmindedly thought she was speaking for all women. Why should a women have any say into altering a male sexual organ that they will never have any concept of understanding (let alone be writing this article.) We, in civilized countries, don't go around saying infant girls should have their clitoral hood removed. As a matter of fact this procedure is banned by the United Nations and the medical community as unneccesary and is considered to be Female Genital and Sexual Mutilation, so why do we believe that it is ok to mutilate a male infant without his consent?. My wife neglected to consider the wishes of the victim..our child. And she was going to have it done regardless of what I had to say on the matter. (shows you how much she respected my opinion and why we are not together any longer.) Fortunately, we ended up having a beautiful little girl which ended that disagreement as I would have needed to obtain a court order to stop her from mutulating our infant boy and I was prepared to do so.

Furthermore, using statistics from third world countries which do not have proper sanitary practices and still refuse to use condoms because they feel it's a white mans plot to extinguish the African race does not properly reflect what is truly happening in the rest of the world and should be invalidated just because of those reasons. And an uncircumsized penis being 'ugly and gross' or 'he will be teased by the other boys in school' is not valid reasons to attack your child with a non necessary medical procedure. I don't understand how anyone could do this to their child without considering his wishes and not have remorse. Would you as a parent still do it if by law they were required to have an equal portion of skin removed from your own body? I think not.. And why? Because it is unnecessary and will cause you pain. You are making a decision for your male child that he may or may not want. I suggest that you wait till he has grown old enough to make his own educated decision on this matter. In the mean time, all you need to do is be a responsible parent and keep it clean till he is old enough to know how to clean it by himself. I strongly urge you not to physically assult and sexually mutulate your child in this way.

Reply

Circumcision should not be up to the parent but up to the owner of the penis, when they're an adult and able to make an informed decision. What right do I have to remove a part of my son's penis? He is not my property but another human that I am meant to protect. It's his body therefore it should be his choice! I'm not going to give the stats, there are already a few good repliescwith wonderful information but I am going to sayvtgat circumcision is barbaric and highly unnecessary. If we follow the idea that circ MAY prevent UTI's, HIV, STI's, etc then maybe I should have my breasts removed because my grandmother and great-grandmother died of breast cancer, after all it MAY keep me from dying of breast cancer! In fact, maybe my mom should have just had my breast tissue removed when I was born, that way I won't have to do it as an adult and I won't remember it or feel the pain... Yeah right!

Reply

And to think I was planning to prevent HIV by teaching all my children (not just my son) to use condoms during sex! Oh, wait. I still have to teach them to use condoms.

All of my children still have all the parts they were born with. I have no right to remove any of them.

Reply

Circumcision is right for no one.

Reply

Circumcision is rape. Period.

Reply

ParentDish has produced such a woefully shallow piece, parroting all the same tired nonsense that keep the circumcisers in business. What is glaringly lacking is the whole notion of whose body are grownups changing forever? Sovereignty over one's own body -- the right to keep all the structures and parts one came with -- is sacrosanct and a universal right. This piece ignores medical ethics. That the foreskin has been there from mankind's beginning and has NOT caused homo sapiens to become extinct shows it is meant to be like any body part. When women write these articles, they are oblivious to what it means for a male to have all the working parts. Let's stop abusing defenseless young males.

Reply

I'm sick of hearing about how boys *have* to be circumcised so they won't look different from their fathers or other boys. How much time does a boy spend looking at other mens' cocks? Seriously? Is THAT the best reason they can come up with? I'm curious, here. If a boy's father lost his arm in Iraq, are they going to cut off the baby's arm "so he looks like his father"?

Reply

What a disgusting article. You people should do your research before attempting to talk about something which you have no freaking idea about. This whole article is biased and poorly researched, not to mention ridiculously stupid.

The decision to circumcise for 'cosmetic' reasons should be up to the owner of the penis in question because there is absolutely NO good reason to circumcise otherwise. And what's this about "the procedure does cause the child pain" Well no kidding!!!! Has the person who wrote this asinine article ever witnessed a circumcision?! Sugar? Seriously?! lol Sugar? I would like to see an adult undergo a surgery removing the most sensitive part of their body while sucking on a sugar cube.....right....

For anyone reading this article and thinking about whether or not to circumcise their son, please do him a favor and leave him perfect. Plus the prepuce is an amazing, self cleaning piece of anatomy!

Intact is the new 'norm' in the US anyway, as it should be!

Reply

You're obviously being flooded with anti-circumcision trolls lol. They troll anyone who says something they don't like about circumcision. They have to troll to spread their propaganda because no one wants to visit their websites.

I personally think it's a pretty good article. Kudos, take care.

Reply

Ron, dont be mad because someone took your foreskin without your permission, and you will never be able to experience sex how it was intended. You can always look into restoration. Also this post is awful. Let your little boy chose when he is older if he wants his penis hacked up. I bet he wouldnt do it!!!!

Reply

Reading this i am offended that so many people are against it. My child is 8 now and I only know or have ever known 1 person who wasnt circumcised and he complained about it all the time. There was no debating with me because everybody had it done. The person that didnt suffered horribly with infections and said it hurt to pull the skin back to clean it. Now i cant say because i am not a boy but I did check one thing with the pediatrican before I had it done and that was to see what they used if anything for pain. I do not believe that new borns dont feel pain or as much pain as they claim. My pediatrican used local anaesthetic to toatlly numb the whole tip so he wouldnt feel anything. My son had no pain from it at all even after. He never cried once. For people like me when that is all you ever knew it is very rude to say that it is wrong. Also why they do it at birth is because they heal easier and it is just plain easier then when they get older. The guy I knew that wasn't actually asked about getting it done and they told him that they really didnt reccommend it because of how hard it would be.

Reply