Advice On Circumcision
posted on 03/20/2009
My advice, and the advice of millions of men world-wide, is to choose circumcision for your new baby. Male infant circumcision has been proven to provide a 12 fold reduction in urinary tract infections, 22 fold reduction in invasive penile cancer, elimination of medical issues localized to the foreskin, provide a much less favorable environment for pathogens to create infections, greatly increases penile hygiene and greatly decreases chances of infection by various STDs including HIV (although it should be noted that a physical barrier such as a condom should still be used for greater primary & birth control purposes).
Consider these points:
Uncircumcised boys are about 12 times as likely to get serious UTIs as are circumcised infants. There are many, many, studies that have demonstrated that circumcision clearly decreases the risk of UTIs. Along with UTIs circumcision also drastically reduces the risk of kidney infections and other opportunistic infections that may cause serious & life-threatening illness if left untreated or under-treated.
Uncircumcised males have an increased risk for contracting STDs, HIV & HPV. The foreskin provides an incredibly wonderful environment for the care, feeding and reproductive cycles of sexually transmitted pathogens. Micro-tearing along the inner foreskin that may occur during sexual intercourse may introduce these pathogens to enter the body and start or continue to spread infections
Circumcision used to be a traumatic experience for an infant, but today with modern analgesics and pain management, infants often sleep through the entire procedure. Proper post-operative care, such as frequent diaper changes and a dab of Vaseline or other salve on the scar/suture to prevent adhesions, is all that is needed.
Dot not be frightened or disgusted by the propaganda videos uploaded to YouTube, Google video and the like that purport to show a traumatic circumcision. Most of these videos are either staged and/or significantly old. Modern circumcisions feature anesthesia and sucrose pacifiers to calm the infants. Gone are the 'circumstraint' that was used to hold the infant down as it was found that that alone would upset the infant more than the circumcision.
Studies have shown that circumcision status does not affect sensitivity. Although the foreskin may have many nerve endings, these are apparently used very little, or not at all. It is likely that the glans holds the key to sensitivity in the penis and the sliding of a foreskin, vagina, or or likewise smooth and moist surface over the glans will produce adequate sensations.
Your son will be in good company as circumcision rates in the US have not fallen very far in the past decade or more. The CDC reports that for 2007 the circumcision rate in the US was at 79%, but the rate may be higher as hospitals are under no law to report circumcisions and there are many reports of parents that decide on circumcision after leaving the hospital. Mohels, pediatricians, urologists, midwives and others that perform circumcisions do not report statistics.
Here are some links to sites with more useful & true information on male circumcision:
http://www.circinfo.net/summary.html
http://www.medicirc.org/meditopics/medicirc_topics.html
http://www.circumcisioninfo.com/circ_record.html
http://malecircumcision.org/
Comment on this article
You must be logged in to post comments.
Previous Comments
RollingDoughnut says:
(14d 11h 37min ago)
NotStyro neglects to include relevant considerations in his argument.
When touting the 12 fold reduction from circumcision, he mentions only relative risk while ignoring absolute risk of being affected by any of the ailments discussed. Circumcision has only been shown to reduce the the risk of UTIs in the first year of life. The risk is approximately 1% for intact boys, and most UTIs can be easily treated without surgery. According to <a href="http://adc.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/90/8/853">this study</a>, 111 infant boys must be circumcised to prevent 1 UTI and the risk of hemorrhage and infection from circumcision is approximately 2%. For comparison, we use less invasive treatments on UTIs in infant females, even though their UTI risk in the first year is approximately 3%.
Regarding STDs, the studies NotStyro relies on involved adult male volunteers, not infants. This is logical given the obvious ethical distinction in circumcising an adult volunteer and a non-consenting child. Children may be taught proper safe sex practices, including condoms and monogamy. If the male decides that he wants the additional benefit, which is minor in areas of low-HIV prevalence, he can choose circumcision for himself as an adult.
It's also worth noting that the mechanism for the reduction in HIV transmission risk is not yet understood and that this reduction has only been found in female-to-male transmission, the least common method involving males.
Modern analgesics and pain management are not always used, but even if they were used in 100% of infant circumcisions, they do not mitigate the ethical violation of performing unnecessary surgery on a non-consenting individual. Just because medical technology can make a procedure painless does not make it humane. Surgery by proxy consent requires need. Pain minimization must be considered once need is established. Infant males are healthy, including their foreskins. Circumcision is not indicated.
NotStyro provides no source of proof for his claim that circumcision videos on YouTube are "staged and/or significantly old," or that the circumstraint is no longer used when circumcising infants.
NotStyro makes only subjective claims about circumcision and sexual sensitivity. "...apparently used..." "It is likely that..." "...adequate sensations." These are his opinion, yet sexuality and what is valued is unique to each individual. Another male may not deem the loss of his foreskin as acceptable the way NotStyro does. Another male may not deem the change in sexual function as "adequate" as NotStyro finds it. Parents can't know what their sons will prefer.
Tally says:
(5d 3h 26min ago)
The author of this article does not speak for the majority of the fathers in the world, who have sons that are intact. Only in the United States, which has a culture of non-religious routine infant circumcision, is male infant circumcision still routinely practiced. The rate is dropping, though, in the US and it is approaching 50% left intact. The author's facts are biased, as are the links provided, which point to blatantly pro-circumcision sites.
Parents looking for medical journal references, American Cancer Society references, and more accurate information should check out http://advice.com/article/2009/10/08/Advice+on+Circumcision and also Google (or use another search engine) circumcision.