Thursday, January 20, 2011

An Initiative to End Male Genital Mutilation

What a great initiative that is long overdue in this society:
If the San Diego–based advocacy group MGMbill.org has its way, locker rooms of the future will be a very different place. The group, founded in 2003, is dedicated to preventing the circumcision of newborns. (MGM is the acronym for male genital mutilation.) Last week, the group’s regional directors contacted some 2800 legislators in search of a sponsor for its bill, which would extend the 1996 prohibition on female genital cutting to males. The bill would make it illegal—punishable by up to 14 years in prison—for anyone to circumcise or assist in the removal of male genitalia (except when deemed medically necessary for the health of a child) of anyone under 18 years old. . . Intactivists, who prefer the term “male genital mutilation,” believe the removal of the foreskin is a straightforward human rights issue: we don’t allow parents to choose neglect or abuse, and thus we shouldn’t allow parents to choose circumcision.
The origins of mainstream circumcision practices in the US lie in the activities of Puritanical religious extremists. Today, people keep cutting off body parts of newborns without even stopping to consider why they are doing it and how it might make these individuals feel when they grow up.


In one of my favorite shows Queer As Folk, the main character named Brian passionately opposes the attempt to circumcise his newborn son. It's difficult to imagine a better way of putting it:
Lindsay: Can we please stop this?! (everyone falls silent) (to Brian) Why does it matter to you if Gus is circumcised?

Brian: It matters that he's been in this world less than a week and already there are people who won't accept him for the way he is. Who would even mutilate him rather than let him be the way he is. The way he was born. Well, I'm not going to let that happen.

29 comments:

Rimi said...

Since till about five minutes back I thought circumsicion was only performed on male Muslim and Jewish baby boys, I should probably not comment on the actual practice.

However, I will say this to the advocacy group, and since you support their goals, to you too, Clarissa. As you very likely know, entrenced beliefs about the body and sexuality are very persistent and quite unlikely to be stopped by laws. Folk beliefs become institutionalised in the mainstream, and then if the mainstream changes its mind, the practice merely goes underground.

This is what happened, for example, with some Sudanese immigrants, who used to previously get the procedure done in sterilised operation theatres by trained surgeons. Now it's done in basements with a kitchen knife dipped in hot water. The resistance, some ethnographers posit, has triggered sympathies for extremist notions of cultural preservation, and the trend has gone back towards infibulation instead of token cutting.

This is not even remotely to say that we do nothing and twiddle our thumbs while the world gets on with its gory business, but possible consequences should shape action-plans. If the law passes, then is there any long-term strategy this group or its supporters have to work with local law enforcement and child services to check on new-born boys to make sure they haven't been circumcised? Has at least an awareness campaign about the negative effects and illegality of circumsicion been planned?

My internet connection in India is slow and so I haven't the time to check the group's website out, but I'm guessing the answer is no.

Restoring Tally said...

@Rimi, you wonder if a ban against circumcision would drive the practice underground. Well, murder is illegal and only occurs in back alleys and hidden places. But no one would argue that we should legalize murder to allow it to be done in the open.

If we recognize that we are governed by laws, then let the law handle those who wish to break it. Last year the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued a policy statement advocating for allowing female genital cutting in the form of a nick to the clitoris. They wished to allow the practice in the US to accommodate a very small minority of immigrants who wished to cut the genitals of their daughters. The public immediately and strongly condemned the AAP for suggesting such a policy, and the AAP rescinded their policy statement.

The practice of male circumcision is becoming less favored in the US. In 2009 only 32% of newborn boys were circumcised. Even without a legal ban against genital cutting of minors, the practice will decrease to a low level, as it has in Canada, the UK, and Australia.

Female genital mutilation was practiced in the US until 1997, which is when the US finally outlawed it. The MGM Bill is intended to extend the same protection to boys that girls just recently acquired. Detection of violations of the ban will be similar to how child abuse is currently detected. Caregivers are required to report evidence of abuse to child services. The same should apply to evidence of genital mutilation, which is readily observable during required medical exams.

Clarissa said...

"Last year the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued a policy statement advocating for allowing female genital cutting in the form of a nick to the clitoris."

-Seriously?? I had no idea. I will research this and blog about it because such an atrocity is ridiculous.

It's great to see that people are trying to raise awareness about MGM. I hope this initiative attracts a lot of attention and the practice will, indeed, decrease, as you predict!

Anonymous said...

Clarissa, I'm really surprised that you are not bothered by the comparisons they make between male circumsicion and FMG. As a feminist you should take a stand on that.

Clarissa said...

Anonymous: I don't think it's up to me to decide how traumatic circumcision is for men. If there are men who say they hate it, were traumatized by it and wish it would never have been done to them, then we have to listen. If people say they feel mutilated, who am I to question their suffering?

If even one man is unhappy that this was done to him, then the practice should be banned. Let people decide for themselves if they want to be circumcised once they grow up.

As a feminist, I don't like it when people who don't have vaginas tell women what they should do with theirs. But if we are in favor of equality, then people who don't have penises shouldn't make similar judgments for those who do.

Restoring Tally said...

Regardless of the tissues being cut, FGM and MGM are related in that the bodily integrity and autonomy of children are being violated. Genital mutilation is a human rights violation that transcends gender.

Historically, the roots of FGM and MGM are very similar. And cultures that perform FGM cite the same reasons that we in the US cite for male circumcision (cleaner, healthier, makes sex better). It is only our cultural bias that makes some say that genital cutting is different based on the gender of the child.

Restoring Tally said...

"Last year the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued a policy statement advocating for allowing female genital cutting in the form of a nick to the clitoris."

A copy of the now retired AAP Policy Statement advocating female genital mutilation can be found at
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;125/5/1088

The AAP recognizes that FGM (which it renames FGC or female genital cutting) is currently illegal and cannot be performed. But the AAP advocates for changing the law to allow certain types of FGM:

"The American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement on newborn male circumcision expresses respect for parental decision-making and acknowledges the legitimacy of including cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions when making the choice of whether to surgically alter a male infant's genitals. Of course, parental decision-making is not without limits, and pediatricians must always resist decisions that are likely to cause harm to children. Most forms of FGC are decidedly harmful, and pediatricians should decline to perform them, even in the absence of any legal constraints. However, the ritual nick suggested by some pediatricians is not physically harmful and is much less extensive than routine newborn male genital cutting. There is reason to believe that offering such a compromise may build trust between hospitals and immigrant communities, save some girls from undergoing disfiguring and life-threatening procedures in their native countries, and play a role in the eventual eradication of FGC. It might be more effective if federal and state laws enabled pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a ritual nick as a possible compromise to avoid greater harm."

The outcry from intactivists and others was immediate and tremendous. The AAP Policy Statement was retired shortly after it was published on May 1, 2010.
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;126/1/177

The AAP wanted to allow limited FGM for cultural reasons. Like male circumcision, the AAP does not want to stop the practice of genital cutting of children for cultural, religious, and ethnic reasons.

PS: Other than being born in the US, I was not circumcised for cultural, religious, or ethnic reasons. I do not like being circumcised. I would have preferred to keep my body whole.

Clarissa said...

Thank you, Restoring Tally. Your input is highly appreciated.

el said...

Is there an exception for Jews and Muslims?

Because religious Jews had worse things happen to them in history than 14 years in jail for practicing their religion and didn't leave it. Do you really think Haridi Jews will stop? Will they all be sent to jail? Banning Jewish circumcision can also be seen as main culture trying to force Jews to stop being Jews or to leave USA to Israel, where they won't be persecuted, jailed for practicing their religion under the disguise of human rights.

Would you want your father/grandfather/ grand-grandfather jailed in Russia for it? If not, why let it happen now?

I have been living in Israel for many years, so my perspective is different from USA Christians for whom the law is intended.

Clarissa said...

I have already specified that I'm not talking about cases when it's done for religious reasons. I'm talking about all the non-religious circumcisions which are the absolute majority in the US.

As for Jewish circumcision, a friend of mine who is a practicing Jew, once witnessed it and was so traumatized that he could hardly speak. Many outdated religious practices get reformed, and I don't see much harm in that. And believe me, one doesn't stop being a Jew because of a piece of skin.

Rimi said...

Restoring Tally, I fear I must get personal. Spewing easily Googleable facts does not make your response to mine remotely useful. It's typical of the idiotic ilk to make irrational comparisons like, "Oooh if banning MGM or FGM can have backlashes on the target group, then should we make murder legal now?"

Frankly, it's on par with other irrationalities like, "Oooh if we allow homosexuals to have legally validated relationships, next people will want to marry their dogs!"

This rationale only works in the minds of the ignorant and deeply prejudiced, who, in this specific case, have decided all non-heterosexual relationships are 'unnatural', and can easily be equated with other 'unnatural' things. You might very well be a flaming liberal who espouses equal rights for all sexual orientation, and more power to you, but I'd prefer it if my interlocuters showed a little more rational thought behind their arguments.

And finally, I always find it amusing when an American takes the line of "we cannot possibly allow this gross bodily abuse in the name of culture to happen in the USA", as you do. Implied in such comments is the sentiment that these things might happen in the backs of beyond, but certainly not in good old USA. Which is odd, because the US mainstream reinforces and perpetrates the most appalling body and body image related violence on those that live within it than any other culture I've personally experienced. And it doesn't even have to wield a knife to do it. Which is probably why you don't care. The violence perpetrated by the US mainstream on its people -- and not merely by "a small group of immigrants" -- goes unnoticed because there are no tell-tale bloody knives or head-scarves. Of course, this doesn't mean Americans shouldn't point the finger elsewhere, but employing such dangerously un-self-aware people in the business of saving the world is truly frightening.

From an American born and raised -- especially American women, which perhaps excuses you -- I expect empathy and critical understanding of the difficulty of ridding a culture of their ingrained beliefs about the body simply by haranguing lawmakers. Clearly, all available faculties are far inferior to my expectations of them. So yes, by all meas go in all guns blazing to take down the bad guys and save the world. We all know how *that* narrative ends, but as we all also know: we learn from history, that we do not learn from history.

This discussion is now closed for me.

Tom Carter said...

This is ridiculous for several reasons.

First, to compare male circumcision to FGM is absurd. That requires pretty profound ignorance of the procedures involved and the effects of one or both.

Second, there are health benefits to circumcision, including reduced infections from the greater difficulty of maintaining cleanliness, reduced susceptibility to diseases including AIDS, etc.

Third, this is yet another nanny-state intrusion into people's lives and choices. If it's acceptable for religious reasons, why wouldn't it be acceptable for rational reasons?

Clarissa said...

Rimi, I respect your desire to leave the discussion, but I'd really like to know what you meant when you said "the US mainstream reinforces and perpetrates the most appalling body and body image related violence on those that live within it than any other culture I've personally experienced." I've thought and thought about it, and I still don't understand which body-related violence you are referring to.

aschram13 said...

Clarissa,
Thank for your decent stand on infant circumcision. I appreciate it even more, knowing that it comes from a lady. As a man, I can only imagine the horror of FGM. Too many people are not aware of the life-long physical and psychological damage caused by a botched circumcision, and there are more of them than is commonly admitted. The number of men trying non-surgical foreskin restoration is an eye opener, considering that the overwhelming majority of people have not even heard of the process.
For most American baby boys, there is no cultural, religious, ethnic or immediate medical reason for circumcision. If a foreskin was unnecessary or prone to transmit diseases, it would have been eliminated through evolution.
Thank you for letting me vent my frustration.

aschram13 said...

Clarissa,
Thank you for your decent stand on infant circumcision. I appreciate it even more, knowing that it comes from a lady, since it is difficult to put oneself into the other gender's understanding of personal details. Few individual realize or admit the physical and psychological damage caused by blotched circumcisions.
In the US, the majority of infant circumcisions are not for cultural, religious, ethnic, or immediate medical reason. And any logical thinking will show that should the foreskin be unnecessary or prone to transmit disease, it would have been eliminated through evolution.
Thank you for letting me vent my frustration.

Anonymous said...

"Circumcision:
An Evidence-Based Appraisal
Professor Brian J. Morris
www.circinfo.net

"The information herein is the most extensive and accurate in the world. Listed are about 1,000 references. Most can be found in any medical library or internet referencing service like PubMed.

"Circumcision represents a 'surgical vaccine...

" The public health benefits are enormous, and include protection from urinary tract infections, that are common over a lifetime, inferior genital hygiene, smegma, sexually transmitted HIV, oncogenic type of human papilloma virus, genital herpes, syphillis, chancroid, penile cancer, and possibly prostate cancer, phimoses, paraphimosis, thrush, and balanosthitis. In women circumcision of the male partner provides sustantial protection from cervical cancer, genital herpes, bacterial vaginosis (formerly called "gardnerella"), possibly chlamydia (that can cause pelvic inflamatory disease, infertility, and ectopic pregnacy), and other infections."

Which is why you'll never see an uncircumcised man in my bed.

sehkmet

Clarissa said...

In my culture men don't get circumcised. Ever. At all. And there are absolutely no documented medical cobsequences, issues, problems connected to that. None. At all. I mean, we aren't on the brink of exrinction, or anything like that. :-)

So don't believe this propaganda. But feel free to sleep with whomever you want, of course. :-) :-)

Anonymous said...

Sorry, I'm a scientist (chemist) I go with the peer reviewed literature. I consider overwhelming agreement by the scientific community to be more valid than anecdotal information. If there are errors in some research or conclusions, it will be found out. Science is self correcting. Results reported in journals must be repeatable by independent sources. I'd have to see the scientific data supporting you view. I've given mine. If there is new data that causes scientific consensus to change, I'll change my mind, that's how science works. You accept conclusions, from the data, there is no belief or involved. Just hard data.

sehkmet
(Having trouble with my Google account, don't like posting anonymously)

Clarissa said...

In my culture we also say: Don't trust statistics that you haven't falsified yourself. :-)

Just kidding!

Anonymous said...

Being falsifiable is one of the definitions of a scientific theory (something creationists don't understand).

"Circumcision lowers HIV risk substantially, 2 studies show.
CBC News, December 13, 2006
(from the Associated Press)

"Circumcising adult men may cut in half their risk of getting the AIDS virus through heterosexual intercourse, the US government said Wednesday, as it shut down two studies in Africa, testing the link.

"The US National Institutes of Health closed the studies in Kenya and Uganda early, when safety monitors took a look at initial results this week and spotted the protection. The studies' uncircumcised men are being offered the chance to undergo the procedure."

In medical studies, when initial results show pronounced benefits, the study is stopped because it is unethical to continuing to withhold the treatment/drug. The participants in the study who did not receive the treatment/drug are offered it immediately.

Continuing a tradition of not circumcising baby boys, in light of the scientific evidence, is dangerous. If anything circumcision should be required by law just as childhood vaccinations are.

Sweet dreams,
sehkmet

Clarissa said...

You would legislate cutting people's body parts at birth?? Your own source talks about adults, not babies. And in your own source the adults have a choice.

Are newborn babies expected to have a lot of sex? Or how are they supposed to spread all that HIV?

If people are not required by law to use condoms during sex (which would really work to prevent the spread of HIV), how does it make sense to force babies to be circumcised? Where is the logic, exactly?

I'm sorry but this simply doesn't make sense. Your own evidence does not support you.

Anonymous said...

Why circumcision is a biomedical imperative for the 21st century
Brian J. Morris

"Urinary tract infections are particularly common in infants, especially those under six months of age. Incidence is strikingly higher in uncircumcised boys...In febrile (feverish) infants, bacteruria is seen in 36% of uncircumcised boys and 1.6% of those who were circumcised, a 22.5-fold difference...UTIs occur in 19% of uncircumcised boys, but none in circumcised.

"The infection travels up the urinary tract to affect the kidney. Moreover, in infants, a UTI is more likely to result in renal injury and scarring. Pyonephritis (purulent infection of the kidneys) is seen in 34-70% of those with febrile UTI, where UTI is the cause of the fever in 21% uncirmcised boys, 2% circumcised boy and 5% in girls... An imaging study found that 50-86% of children admitted with febrile UIT and presumed pyelonephritis had renal parenchymal (tissue of an organ as opposed to connective or supporting tissues) defects. These persist, and a 27 year follow-up study found elevated risk of hypertension and end-stage renal disease in 10%, meaning ongoing morbidity and costs from an infant UTI.

Bacteria are present under the prepuce of 92% of boys aged 0-6. Moreover pathogenic fimbriated (branched finger like projections) strain of E. coli and Proteus mirablis can adhere to the prepuce...Prior to circumcision for medical reasons, uropathic bacteria were detected in 52% of boys, but 3 weeks afterwards none were found. In another study these figures were 64% and 10% respectively...Boys with vesicoureteral reflux (condition where urine flows back up the ureter and into the kidneys) are at risk of increased of UTI and thus renal damage. Since antibiotic prophylaxis is ineffective, circumcision is advocated."

Given these studies in addition to the HIV risk which begins when sexual activity does, often at quite young ages, circumcision is a prudent choice. It can be considered the equivalent to a vaccine. Parents who deny their children vaccines (like pertussis) are considered irresponsible and frequently barred from school.

This paper is backed by 128 references.

Cite your references, if they are more compelling than current scientific consensus, I would have good reason to change my mind about this. Otherwise I'm tired of posting carefully researched comments, when you have provided no data.

Oh, and men who have sex without informing their partner and not wearing a condom are committing a criminal act in this country.

sehkmet

Tony said...

First, the principle that validates comparisons of female and male genital cutting is simple: non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting person is wrong. Gender is irrelevant. The extent of the damage is irrelevant. The parents' religion is irrelevant*.

Of course, the most common forms of FGC are more damaging than the most common form of MGC. But that's a difference in degree, not kind. Both are harmful and violate the individuals rights.

Second, as for the science surrounding this, there is only one objective scientific fact in each case of circumcising a child: the child's health. If the child is healthy, no surgery is indicated on his penis, any more than it's indicated on his gall bladder, appendix, or spleen. All the rest cited in the "defense" of science is speculation.

sehkmet, you cite HIV. The studies looked at voluntary, adult circumcision rather than non-voluntary child circumcision. That's the critical ethical distinction. But the results are also useful because they are confined to female-to-male transmission in high-risk populations. That does not apply to Western nations where HIV is primarily transmitted among IV drug users and male-to-male sexual intercourse. Neither applies to circumcision's potential benefit in the United States.

There's also the matter of relative versus absolute risk. A 10X reduction in the risk of UTI isn't as impressive when stated as a 0.1% risk of UTI versus a 1.0% risk of UTI in the first year of life. The analysis for any claimed benefit must be reviewed free of the type of marketing used by Brian Morris.

And so on. All the potential medical benefits are achievable or treatable through non-surgical methods. Ethically, your position would support any parental intervention if it could be shown to achieve some subjective benefit preferred by parents, regardless of how absurd the intervention. Also relating to ethics, any perceived benefit involves trade-offs. Proxy consent requires different rules than consent. Does the individual want a reduced risk of female-to-male HIV transmission in high-risk populations in exchange for the nerve endings in his foreskin, for example? Does the individual value the reduced risk of [whatever] in exchange for the risk of surgical complications? You can't pretend that such a trade-off has an objective answer held by all individuals, or that the view of the child's parents on the question matters where no medical need exists.

* If a male wants to have himself circumcised for religion (or any reason), he's free to do so. He must not have it forced on him before he can choose, even if he likely will choose. Individual rights are worthless if they're honored solely on majority statistics.

Clarissa said...

The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP; 2009) state that "after extensive review of the literature" they "[do] not recommend that routine circumcision in infancy be performed".

The Fetus and Newborn Committee of the Canadian Paediatric Society posted "Circumcision: Information for Parents" in November 2004,[8] and "Neonatal circumcision revisited" in 1996. The 1996 position statement says that "circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed", and the 2004 advice to parents says it "does not recommend circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions."[9]

Clarissa said...

7.^ "Current College Position on Circumcision". Royal Australasian College of Physicians. 2009-08-27. http://racp.edu.au/download.cfm?DownloadFile=59AE2C7C-9F08-B344-21061157DF3636B9.
8.^ "Circumcision: Information for parents". Caring for kids. Canadian Paediatric Society. November 2004. Archived from the original on 2005-12-19. http://web.archive.org/web/20051219215229/http://www.caringforkids.cps.ca/babies/Circumcision.htm. Retrieved 2006-10-24. "Circumcision is a “non-therapeutic” procedure, which means it is not medically necessary. Parents who decide to circumcise their newborns often do so for religious, social or cultural reasons. To help make the decision about circumcision, parents should have information about risks and benefits. It is helpful to speak with your baby’s doctor. 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."
9.^ Fetus and Newborn Committee (March 1996). "Neonatal circumcision revisited". Canadian Medical Association Journal 154 (6): 769–780. PMID 8634956. PMC 1487803. http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/FN/fn96-01.htm. Retrieved 2006-07-02. “We undertook this literature review to consider whether the CPS should change its position on routine neonatal circumcision from that stated in 1982. The review led us to conclude the following. There is evidence that circumcision results in an approximately 12-fold reduction in the incidence of UTI during infancy. The overall incidence of UTI in male infants appears to be 1% to 2%. The incidence rate of the complications of circumcision reported in published articles varies, but it is generally in the order of 0.2% to 2%. Most complications are minor, but occasionally serious complications occur. There is a need for good epidemiological data on the incidence of the surgical complications of circumcision, of the later complications of circumcision and of problems associated with lack of circumcision. Evaluation of alternative methods of preventing UTI in infancy is required. More information on the effect of simple hygienic interventions is needed. Information is required on the incidence of circumcision that is truly needed in later childhood. There is evidence that circumcision results in a reduction in the incidence of penile cancer and of HIV transmission. However, there is inadequate information to recommend circumcision as a public health measure to prevent these diseases. When circumcision is performed, appropriate attention needs to be paid to pain relief. 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. When parents are making a decision about circumcision, they should be advised of the present state of medical knowledge about its benefits and harms. Their decision may ultimately be based on personal, religious or cultural factors.

Clarissa said...

7.^ "Current College Position on Circumcision". Royal Australasian College of Physicians. 2009-08-27. http://racp.edu.au/download.cfm?DownloadFile=59AE2C7C-9F08-B344-21061157DF3636B9.
8.^ "Circumcision: Information for parents". Caring for kids. Canadian Paediatric Society. November 2004. Archived from the original on 2005-12-19. http://web.archive.org/web/20051219215229/http://www.caringforkids.cps.ca/babies/Circumcision.htm. Retrieved 2006-10-24. "Circumcision is a “non-therapeutic” procedure, which means it is not medically necessary. Parents who decide to circumcise their newborns often do so for religious, social or cultural reasons. To help make the decision about circumcision, parents should have information about risks and benefits. It is helpful to speak with your baby’s doctor. 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."
9.^ Fetus and Newborn Committee (March 1996). "Neonatal circumcision revisited". Canadian Medical Association Journal 154 (6): 769–780. PMID 8634956. PMC 1487803. http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/FN/fn96-01.htm. Retrieved 2006-07-02. “We undertook this literature review to consider whether the CPS should change its position on routine neonatal circumcision from that stated in 1982. The review led us to conclude the following. There is evidence that circumcision results in an approximately 12-fold reduction in the incidence of UTI during infancy. The overall incidence of UTI in male infants appears to be 1% to 2%. The incidence rate of the complications of circumcision reported in published articles varies, but it is generally in the order of 0.2% to 2%. Most complications are minor, but occasionally serious complications occur. There is a need for good epidemiological data on the incidence of the surgical complications of circumcision, of the later complications of circumcision and of problems associated with lack of circumcision. Evaluation of alternative methods of preventing UTI in infancy is required. More information on the effect of simple hygienic interventions is needed. Information is required on the incidence of circumcision that is truly needed in later childhood. There is evidence that circumcision results in a reduction in the incidence of penile cancer and of HIV transmission. However, there is inadequate information to recommend circumcision as a public health measure to prevent these diseases. When circumcision is performed, appropriate attention needs to be paid to pain relief. 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. When parents are making a decision about circumcision, they should be advised of the present state of medical knowledge about its benefits and harms. Their decision may ultimately be based on personal, religious or cultural factors.

"Circumcision (Infant Male)". Resource manual. College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia.

Clarissa said...

Circumcision policy statement. American Academy of Pediatrics. Task Force on Circumcision.". Pediatrics 103 (3): 686–93. 1999. doi:10.1542/peds.103.3.686. PMID 10049981. "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.

Clarissa said...

Evey one of these links agrees: neo-natal circumcision is NOT recommended by doctors and scientists.

The article you provided, sekhmet, doesn't recommend it either. It recommends adult circumcision.

There are tons more sources, if anybody is interested.

Danny said...

I have a question for the people that are pulling out these studies that supposedly prove that circumcision does help prevent HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases/infection.

Is there any proof that circumcision would be more effective than proper genital hygiene and safe sex education?