Should Circumcision Become Public Health Policy?

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Norman L. of CA said <<<this is a MEN'S issue. Why is this in "On Women"? How come the whole thing is mainly an issue because it might impact WOMEN's health?>>>
i can understand how you feel buddy, but i think women have a central role to play in this debate. mothers are the fiercest advocates for their babies, and i doubt many would stand by and allow their newborn son to be mutilated if they thought it was harmful.
also, women have defended themselves from genital cutting through consciousness raising, so many have an intuitive sense of why this is wrong.
finally, i believe one of the most powerful biases perpetuating this medicalized assault on baby boys is coming from circumcised men, who harbour a subconscious rage instilled in them as infants, and so feel a need to have their personal wound inflicted on the next generation.
so i wouldn't alienate women from this debate. i think this article shows a willingness on thei9r part to explore the question properly.

sean 6:44AM September 02, 2009

Why is this in "On Women"? How come the whole thing is mainly an issue because it might impact WOMEN's health? I don't give a sh** what some woman thinks about it. (and not some honorary woman either, i.e. a male feminist)

Norman L. of CA 5:08AM September 02, 2009

'As the CDC's Web site states, the "final circumcision recommendations will be completely voluntary."'
And that is all Intactivists have ever asked. If an adult man wants to have the best part of his penis cut off, we might try to dissuade him, but in the end it's his decision. At least, it is if it hasn't been taken from him in childhood. "Completely" can only mean completely if the only person to volunteer is the man on the other end, the owner, the person who's going to have to live with the outcome for the rest of his life. And the outcome can (rarely but tragically and unnecessarily) be horrendous. (See http://www.circumstitions.com/Botched4.html#bell )
Nobody should consent to a circumcision who has not seen one being done: http://newborns.stanford.edu/Gomco.html (12 mins, Gomco clamp) http://newborns.stanford.edu/Mogen.html (5 3/4 mins, Mogen claim) both from Stanford University, not a hotbed of Intactivism.

Hugh7 4:24AM September 02, 2009

It isn't the case that the evidence isn't clear whether circumcision protects gay men. The evidence is quite crystal clear that it DOESN'T. It isn't the case that circumcised men are "just as likely" to transmit HIV to women as "uncircumcised" men. When the study on the latter was stopped, there was a clear trend developing towards an INCREASED incidence of HIV for women partners of circumcised men.
Why minimize and trivialize the negative and embrace and embellish the positive? Ultimately, circumcision doesn't help when all things are considered. And crucially for the implementation of any public health policy, the ethics of imposing this procedure on infants is questionable at best for a mere potential (i.e. speculative) benefit many years into the future.

David Wilton of CA 11:45PM September 01, 2009

Deborah Kotz sounds more dutiful than rational, calling circumcision a "controversial cultural practice" referring to it as a "snip" minimizing the barbarity and trauma inflicted on a child. To refer to circumcision as "controversial" without acknowledging why its controversial is dishonest. You are part of the dishonesty Ms. Kotz.
Let's call circumcision for what it is. Unwarranted genital surgery, genital reduction surgery, surgery without consent, sexual wounding, genital mutilation based on superstition, surgery without need looking for medical validation for the past 140 years, putting a child at surgical risk, risk for infection, botched circumcision, circumcision deaths. How do these things factor into your "women's health" equation Ms Kotz?
I am an intactivist, (no need for quotation marks) one of a rapidly growing number of people who have seen through the deception that has perpetrated the abuse of genital surgeries on children. We believe in the inherent right of EVERY child to their whole human body. Is that so difficult to understand?

James Loewen 11:14PM September 01, 2009

So then, whodareswings, are you willing to pay for surgical foreskin reconstruction for you sons? While it's not completely reversible, through surgery they can get back much of what you took from them. Since you forced circumcision on them, is it safe to assume you are willing to pay for the surgery to reverse the damage you caused? (It costs around $10,000 to $40,000 the last time I looked into it.)
You ARE willing to pay to undo the damage you caused, aren't you? It's safe to assume you wouldn't put your money over your sons, correct?

Thomas of AL 11:10PM September 01, 2009

I asked my 96 year old father why, if we're not Jewish, the men in our family are circumciced. He replied, "I don't know. But i remember when it was done to me. I was about nine and it hurt like hell."
This review is from: Circumcision: A History Of The World's Most Controversial Surgery ByMary Walker (Bethesda, Maryland)
This book has so many interesting facets that it's hard to do it justice in a brief review. For my money, though, the chapter on how circumcision entered modern Anglo-American medicine -- how it was transformed from a Jewish ritual into a routine medical procedure deemed suitable for all boys -- is the highlight. By explaining the intellectual and cultural context of medicine in the 1870s, Gollaher explains why circumcision came to seem so reasonable (and so powerful). He clearly opposes routine circumcision, though not in a tendentious way. It's the cumulative weight of available evidence. I am the mother of two boys who were circumcised in the hospital. I had no real concept of what was done to them. The pediatrician didn't sell the procedure very hard, but he did say that most parents had it done and that he didn't see much harm in it. After reading "Circumcision," I wish my husband and I had given it more thought. We probably would have made a different decision.

whodareswings of WA 10:57PM September 01, 2009

"there is no comparision between routine male circumcision and female genital mutilation"
-----
Um, k, yes it is comparable. Simply removing the clitoral hood is analogous to removing the male foreskin.
Perhaps you should educate yourself lest your closed-minded ignorance show through. The clitoral hood is no more "sacred" than the foreskin.

Vince of SC 10:45PM September 01, 2009

The health factors are not the issue here folks. This is what is known as a smoke screen. If health factors were the issue they would be sewing up every vagina in the country. Hey Deb, grow up. It is like me saying, "In the terms of men's health, It would be a great health policy to enforce a daily douche with a pipe brush and a cup of peroxide of all females over 6 weeks". I know why you wrote the article and it had absolutely nothing to do with health.

Your Daddy of AL 10:13PM September 01, 2009

Universal circumcision is a policy idea that is horribly misguided and misinformed.
Why would a health organization recommend a procedure that maims a person's genital organ?
Circumcision permanently and irreversibly removes critical parts of the penis, including the foreskin (packed with 20,000-70,000 erogenous nerve endings), the frenulum and the ridged bands. Circumcision also permanently dries the penis, reduces its size, and causes scarring and discoloration. By permanently externalizing the glans, circumcision removes the protection that is afforded by the foreskin from outside elements and from unwanted sensation.
Why are these awful consequences of circumcision never talked about in the media or recognized by the medical establishment? It is as though there is a conspiracy to hush up the truth, conceal the facts, and to deny forever that circumcision has no value whatsoever medically. Circumcision only results in tragic damage and loss.
The level of ignorance among Americans about male sexual anatomy in general and the foreskin in particular is extremely high. Some men don't even know whether they're circumcised or not. Many women have never seen an intact penis. All Americans seem to know is the circumcised penis and circumcised sex. Male infant circumcision has been practiced in America for many decades – those were the dark ages when almost nothing was known about what was being cut off and when it was really thought to be “just skin”.
Americans need to be re-educated about the functions of the foreskin and about the intact penis.
Male babies should be legally protected from forced modification of their genital organ.
Only a grown man should have the right to decide for himself whether he wants to be circumcised.
Universal circumcision should not become a public health policy.

Timothie Hall-Clark of NY 10:11PM September 01, 2009