Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Why I Am Against Routine Infant Circumcision

Fact:
Circumcision was not introduced into our culture until the late 1800s. At this time, people believed that masturbation caused a host of different illnesses. It was concluded that by removing the only moveable part of the penis (the foreskin), sensitivity would be reduced and the desire to masturbate would be minimized. Ironically, as it turns out, circumcised men masturbate more than males intact.

Fact:
One out of every 500 circumcisions results in a serious complication. About 4 out of 100 are either considered unsatisfactory or result in some sort of complication. One study was conducted that followed circumcised boys beyond the immediate post-operative period.  It concluded that complications occurred at an alarming rate of 55%.

Fact:
There are 23 medically advanced nations. The U.S. is the only nation which routinely circumcises nearly 63% of its newborn males. Our country represents less than 1/20th of the world population, yet it performs more than half of all infant circumcisions worldwide. If the foreskin is so prone to problems, why haven't other advanced nations adopted routine circumcision? One can't help but wonder why the U.S. is the only medically advanced nation that performs routine infant circumcisions without any medical indication.

Fact:
Circumcision denudes: Depending on the amount of skin cut off, circumcision robs a male of as much as 80 percent or more of his penile skin. Depending on the foreskin's length, cutting it off makes the penis as much as 25 percent or more shorter. Careful anatomical investigations have shown that circumcision cuts off more than 3 feet of veins, arteries, and capillaries, 240 feet of nerves, and more than 20,000 nerve endings.31 The foreskin's muscles, glands, mucous membrane, and epithelial tissue are destroyed, as well.

Fact:
Circumcision desensitizes: Circumcision desensitizes the penis radically. Foreskin amputation means severing the rich nerve network and all the nerve receptors in the foreskin itself. Circumcision almost always damages or destroys the frenulum. The loss of the protective foreskin desensitizes the glans. Because the membrane covering the permanently externalized glans is now subjected to constant abrasion and irritation, it keratinizes, becoming dry and tough. The nerve endings in the glans, which in the intact penis are just beneath the surface of the mucous membrane, are now buried by successive layers of keratinization. The denuded glans takes on a dull, grayish, sclerotic appearance.

Fact:
Circumcision disables: The amputation of so much penile skin permanently immobilizes whatever skin remains, preventing it from gliding freely over the shaft and glans. This loss of mobility destroys the mechanism by which the glans is normally stimulated. When the circumcised penis becomes erect, the immobilized remaining skin is stretched, sometimes so tightly that not enough skin is left to cover the erect shaft. Hair-bearing skin from the groin and scrotum is often pulled onto the shaft, where hair is not normally found. The surgically externalized mucous membrane of the glans has no sebaceous glands. Without the protection and emollients of the foreskin, it dries out, making it susceptible to cracking and bleeding.

Fact:
Circumcision is unhygienic and unhealthy: One of the most common myths about circumcision is that it makes the penis cleaner and easier to take care of. This is not true. Eyes without eyelids would not be cleaner; neither would a penis without its foreskin. The artificially externalized glans and meatus of the circumcised penis are constantly exposed to abrasion and dirt, making the circumcised penis, in fact, more unclean. The loss of the protective foreskin leaves the urinary tract vulnerable to invasion by bacterial and viral pathogens. The circumcision wound is larger than most people imagine. It is not just the circular point of union between the outer and inner layers of the remaining skin. Before a baby is circumcised, his foreskin must be torn from his glans, literally skinning it alive. This creates a large open area of raw, bleeding flesh, covered at best with a layer of undeveloped proto-mucosa. Germs can easily enter the damaged tissue and bloodstream through the raw glans and, even more easily, through the incision itself.
      Even after the wound has healed, the externalized glans and meatus are still forced into constant unnatural contact with urine, feces, chemically treated diapers, and other contaminants.
       Female partners of circumcised men do not report a lower rate of cervical cancer,nor does circumcision prevent penile cancer. A recent study shows that the penile cancer rate is higher in the US than in Denmark, where circumcision, except among Middle-Eastern immigrant workers, is almost unheard of. Indeed, researchers should investigate the possibility that circumcision has actually increased the rate of these diseases.
         Circumcision does not prevent acquisition or transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). In fact, the US has both the highest percentage of sexually active circumcised males in the Western world and the highest rates of sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS. Rigorously controlled prospective studies show that circumcised American men are at a greater risk for bacterial and viral STDs, especially gonorrhea, nongonoccal urethritis, human papilloma virus, herpes simplex virus type 2, and chlamydia.

Fact:
Circumcision violates patients' and human rights: No one has the right to cut off any part of someone else's genitals without that person's competent, fully informed consent. Since it is the infant who must bear the consequences, circumcision violates his legal rights both to refuse treatment and to seek alternative treatment. In 1995, the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Bioethics stated that only a competent patient can give patient consent or informed consent.67An infant is obviously too young to consent to anything. He must be protected from anyone who would take advantage of his defenselessness. The concept of informed parental permission allows for medical interventions in situations of clear and immediate medical necessity only, such as disease, trauma, or deformity. The human penis in its normal, uncircumcised state satisfies none of these requirements. Physicians have a duty to refuse to perform circumcision. They also must educate parents who, out of ignorance or misguidance, request this surgery for their sons. The healthcare professional's obligation is to protect the interests of the child. It is unethical in the extreme to force upon a child an amputation he almost certainly would never have chosen for himself.

FACT:NO HEALTH ORGANIZATION RECOMMENDS ROUTINE INFANT CIRCUMCISION, not even the AAP. Nor does the World Health Organization.

CONCLUSION:
Would you cut off the tip of your babies finger, just because everyone else does it? Circumcision is just as ridiculous!

5 comments:

  1. Em - This is why I'm all for circs.

    • For 1 in 500 circumcisions there may be either a little bleeding – easily stopped by pressure or, less commonly, requiring stitches (1 in 1000), the need for repeat surgery (1 in 1000), or a generalized infection that will require antibiotics (1 in 4000). Although there
    can be a local infection, often what seems like a local infection is actually part of the normal healing process.
    • Serious complications (requiring hospitalization) are rare – approximately 1 in 5000.
    • Mutilation or loss of the penis, and death, is virtually unheard of with circumcisions performed by a
    competent medical practitioner. Ensure your doctor is experienced.
    • Eliminates the risk of phimosis, which affects 1 in 10 older boys and men. This condition refers to a tight foreskin that cannot be pulled back fully, so making cleaning under it, and passing urine, difficult. Phimosis also greatly increases the risk of penile cancer,and is the cause of foreskin and catheter problems in nursing homes.
    • Reduces by 3-fold the risk of infl ammation and infection of the skin of the penis. One in 10 uncircumcised men get infl ammation of the head of the penis and foreskin. This rises to 1 in 3 if the uncircumcised man is diabetic. (Diabetic men also have other severe problems.) In contrast only 2% of
    circumcised men get this condition.
    • Over 10-fold decrease in risk of urinary tract infections in infants. Whereas risk of this is only 1 in
    500 for a circumcised boy, 1 in 50 uncircumcised male infants will get a urinary tract infection. This very
    painful condition is particularly dangerous in infancy, and in 40% of cases can lead to kidney infl ammation
    and disease; blood poisoning and meningitis can also result.
    • Over 20-fold decrease in risk of invasive penile cancer, which has a high fatality rate. One in 600 uncircumcised men get penile cancer, which often
    requires penile amputation.
    • Uncircumcised men have 1½ – 2 times the risk of prostate cancer, which aff ects 1 in 6.
    • Reduces by approximately 3-fold the risk of getting HIV (AIDS), during sex with an infected woman. HIV enters via the vulnerable inner lining of the foreskin of a healthy penis, but can also infect via sores anywhere
    on the penis (caused for example by genital herpes). In countries such as the USA that have a low prevalence
    of HIV the risk of a heterosexual man being infected with HIV sexually is generally low. His risk, especially
    if uncircumcised, will be much greater if he engages in unsafe sex with people of countries in which HIV abounds.
    • Circumcision also aff ords substantial protection against sexually transmitted infections such as
    papilloma (wart) virus, syphilis and chancroid.
    • Circumcision reduces by up to 5 times the risk of the man’s female partner being infected by chlamydia or getting cervical cancer (which is caused by human
    papillomavirus). The load of infectious bacteria and viruses that accumulate under the foreskin is delivered
    into the female genital tract during sex. Chlamydia has more than doubled over the past 5 years and can cause
    infertility (in both sexes), pelvic infl ammatory disease, and ectopic pregnancy.
    • If not circumcised soon after birth, up to 10% will later require one anyway for medical reasons.
    • Credible research shows that most women prefer the appearance of the circumcised penis. They also prefer it for sexual activity. Hygiene is one reason.
    • Most studies reveal no signifi cant diff erence in sensitivity between a circumcised and uncircumcised
    penis.

    ReplyDelete
  2. In 1975, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) stated in no uncertain terms that "there is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn." In 1983, the AAP and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) restated this position. In 1999 and again in 2005, the AAP again restated this position of equivocation

    Currently, the practice of newborn circumcision is very common. It has been estimated that 60%-75% of all males in the United States are circumcised. This number, of course, varies depending upon ethnicity and religious affiliation.

    Regarding newborn circumcision, most physicians today agree with the practice of informing parents of the risks and benefits of the procedure in an unbiased manner. Recently, however, several large studies revealed a 60% decrease in HIV transmission in circumcised males compared to uncircumcised males. This may ultimately influence some changes in recommendations in the near future


    Thats all I can get for now I have to go to work :) Like I said, we are both entitled to our own opinion :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. You realize you just said that the AAP doesn't agree with it? "There is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn." That means they don't think it is right. Also, a recent study shows that the penile cancer rate is higher in the US than in Denmark, where circumcision, except among Middle-Eastern immigrant workers, is almost unheard of. Even the AAP has said that they think any relation between penile cancer and circumcision is coincidental. As for HIV, "The report on a 2008 meta-analysis of 15 observational studies, including 53,567 gay and bisexual men from the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia, India, Taiwan, Peru and the Netherlands (52% circumcised), stated that the rate of HIV infection was non-significantly lower among men who were circumcised compared with those who were uncircumcised." So I am not sure where you are getting your facts, because the risks totaly outweigh any benefits of circumcision. Any you really can't argue with the fact that both the AAP and World Health Organization think it is unnecessary and wrong! Plus, ask ANY adult uncut man if they wished they were circumcised. You will not hear any of them say yes.

    ReplyDelete
  4. em - it didn't post the last of the comment, and i don't have time before work to look it up again. i got my facts through webmd link. i still stand behind my decision to circ. my boys, i don't regret it. like i told you earlier neither boy minded it. neither boy had any complications. neither cried before during or after either. even the days after, when i had to put petrolleum jelly on it so it wouldn't stick/dry out neither one cared. i don't believe that it hurts them, and neither one bleed...my oldest got it done in hospital my youngest got it done in clinic. as for medical insurance. i have the state healthcare, (medical assistance) and both boys were covered for it. now what about the religions who "require" circ's?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Lizz, I will post some stats/facts about religious circ when I get a chance.

    ReplyDelete