Strollerderby

I'm an "anti-circumcision activist" or "intactivist" if you will. And I will yell as loud as I need to until routine infant circumcision comes to an end. Thank goodness 16 states have the guts to stop funding medically-unnecessary surgery. Calling on all others!

Circumcision is the great American rip-off.  It is astonishing that a medical practice which began in the 19th century as a way to keep teenagers from masturbating grew into a must-do surgical procedure for newborn baby boys.  Parents who would never dream of cutting off their baby daughters' labia (to make them easier to bathe) or ask a doctor to pull out their babies' fingernails (to keep them from scratching themselves, or to keep dirt from accumulating) are convinced that their baby boy's  foreskin is a dangerous body part that must be removed immediately.  Over a million American newborns are circumcised every year.  The average $300 per circumcision is only the beginning; factor in the cost of complications and repairs, and you are looking at a billion dollar industry based on infant mutilation.

mmmm, let's see someone pays the Doctor(s) AND Hospital for an unnecessary procedure (routine infant circumcision) AND THEN they can $ELL your child's foreskin for ????? (whatever THEY want and/or please)!  Bet that makes the Most Common surgery performed lining many, many pockets VERY, VERY fat with green.  Greed - the American way....

Precisely WHAT do studies that say that "circumcision reduces HIV" with newborn children who are at ZERO RISK? Could someone explain to me how circumcision hasn't prevented HIV in DC? Dead circumcised AIDS victims don't lie. What a gratuitous infant circumcision plug. States need to stop wasting money on needless, worthless surgery, and direct it to where it's needed the most. The foreskin is NOT a birth defect or "extra skin." It is STANDARD EQUIPMENT that all men are born with. Stop wasting money violating the individual human rights of children!

I saw what you just did, deleting all the other comments. Just know that there are plenty of us pesky "activists" watching this. Have a good day.

Foreskins may be making a come back? Yes, but not because of the economy.

Circumcision rates have been on a steady decline for the last 30 years and we have been through economic peaks and valleys in that time. Americans have been recognizing what Dr. Freedman says as true. Circumcision is a luxury - FOR THE DOCTOR. The baby receives no benefit (and the risk of a severed glans, MRSA, etc.), yet a doctor who cuts enough of them can buy a nice luxury car or boat with the proceeds.

But hey, if a tanking economy makes some parents think twice about this lunacy, who am I to complain?

There's a cause and effect thing here.  It was possible to end Medicare coverage in those states because the circumcision rates were so low already.

It's hardly a "luxury" for the kid anyway.  I'd have paid $30,000 for my son to have been left intact.  If he decides he wants to get circumcised later, I'll pay for it then.  His body - his decision.  It's safer and less painful to wait anyway, and the results are cosmetically better.

I'm tired of circumcised men trying to justify cutting parts off other people's bodies.  Babies aren't going to be getting any STI's before they're old enough to decide for themselves whether or not they want part of their genitals cutting off.  It's their body; it should be their decision.

These latest studies are from Africa.  The Dickson study in New Zealand showed a slightly *higher* rate of STI's among circumcised men.

If we found out that cutting off part of a girl's genitals reduced her risk of contracting an STI, would that make it acceptable?  

The Stallings study in Tanzania showed exactly that.

If female circumcision had caught on in the USA (it was promoted in medical papers till at least 1959, and practised till the early 70's), and western researchers were now looking for benefits of female circumcision as enthusiastically as they are looking for benefits of male circumcision, we'd now be getting news articles about how female circumcision help prevent STI's.  It wouldn't mean that there aren't better ways to prevent STI's, and it wouldn't make it right.

News just in last week: A jury in Atlanta has awarded $1.8 million to a boy whose penis was severed in a botched circumcision five years ago. The Fulton County jury also awarded the boy's mother another $500,000.

You can find all these medical society quotes at their own websites:

Canadian Paediatric Society

"Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed."

"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

"After extensive review of the literature the Royal Australasian College of Physicians reaffirms that there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision."

(those last nine words are in bold on their website, and 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

"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."

There is at least one group of parents for whom the surgery isn't a luxury - and there may be more, this is just what I know: as a Jewish mother, a son of mine (and I don't have one) wouldn't be considered Jewish if we wouldn't have him circumcised.  He would forever be considered not to be part of a group that our family belongs to and values, because of a choice we made - although perhaps he could undergo the "ritual cut" required of adult male converts in Conservative & Orthodox circles? For many Jewish parents, I think this procedure is seen as a necessary step for their sons' inclusion in Jewish life.  

I'm not saying that I agree with this position - I'm not sure what I would do, faced with the choice, because I am generally concerned about surgical procedures where they're not medically called for.  But I do see the point of view here for these families - to some, who hold their religious views very dear, it's a step of huge ritual importance, not something they were "conned" into choosing, nor something that they're doing just to line doctor's pockets. (Anti-Semitic overtones of the whole doctors-make-money-on-this complaint aside.)

leahsmom, doctors essentially con people into choosing circumcision to earn money. They cite bogus health issues and non-existant look-like-daddy complexes to make their sale. That's not antisemitism. That's dishonesty.

The above argument has nothing to do with people of the Jewish faith. Most Jews hold a bris for their sons and the circumcision is done by a mohel, not a doctor in a hospital. Like you say, most Jews choose circumcision as an issue of faith, not because they've been lied to about medical benefits.

Religious circumcision and psuedo-medical circumcision are different issues with far different motivations.

There are faith traditions and cultures that practice circumcision but either don't have a mohel equivalent or prefer that the circumcision be done in a medical facility. I know that applies to Muslim families. So if a family who is required to circumcise their boys for religious reasons cannot afford to pay out of pocket for a hospital circumcision, I'm wondering what these parents might resort to in order to have it done. If I had a son, and hospital circumcision wasn't an option, I'd probably start looking for a mohel (some circumcise Gentile boys as well, for a fee), but they aren't everywhere. I've also known mohels who would not circumcise Gentile boys, but that was due to the fact that they were in very high demand. That said, it isn't a medical requirement, usually, so it's not entirely unreasonable for Medicaid not to cover it, but OTOH, Medicaid does cover other things that are not absolute medical necessities.

leahsmom - I see the antisemetic overtones to this whole so-called debate.  

It's a personal choice and leave it at that.  No reason to get all high and mighty or paranoid.  If you don't want the procedure, just say no thank you when the doctor asks.  

What is anti-semitic about telling the truth about circumcision?

Newborn circumcision has no place in modern medical practice. Doctors shouldn't be allowed to offer it. It is purely a religious ritual and should be treated as such. There's no need to invent medical mythology to go along with theology.

More information about Medicaid coverage of circumcision

www.coloradonocirc.org/.../Medicaid_and_Circumcision.pdf

I find it extremely disturbing that so many people care about this so much.

Many people, Jewish, Muslim, or otherwise are afraid to question circumcision because of the fear of being called "anti-semitic" or "anti-Muslim". This is unfortunate, because then the practice continues out of fear and coersion. All babies deserve protection, as they are all human beings.

jewsagainstcircumcision.org

jewishcircumcision.org

www.quran.org/khatne.htm

Jorge, I would say that doctors should be allowed to offer it because of their experience and training in surgery, including the use of analgesics. It may not be medically necessary, but doctors do more than what is strictly medically required. While mohels are known for skill and being gentle, if one doesn't have access to one, a doctor has the skills, access to hygienic conditions and pain relief measures that can prevent infection and complications. And Bunny, why do you find it disturbing? Parents considering circumcision must weigh the matter carefully.

And Caroline, the 3rd link is to a rather heterodox group, and most mainstream Muslims would shun their teachings, not just due to their view on circumcision.

Why should a doctor be allowed to sell cosmetic surgery in a hospital or a pediatric clinic? That's wrong. If a doctor wants to become a mohel and help religious clients, that is his business.

The analgesia point is somewhat moot point as most of what doctors give can barely be considered analgesia - sugar pacifiers, EMLA cream, and the like. Most doctors won't "waste" time on more effective pain relievers - they want wam, bam, $300+.

I find the passion with which people address this issue disturbing because:

1) I don't think *all* anti-circ activists are anti-semitic or anti-muslim, but I've seen ample indication that *some* of them are;

2) Most people have seen ample proof that circumcision doesn't affect the function of the penis for most children or adult males, and most circumcised males are perfectly happy with what they've got. But anti-circ activists compare male circumcision to female circumcision - which leaves women with non-functioning genitals they aren't happy with! It's ludicrous.

3) Our global economy is crumbling. Children are going hungry throughout the world, and even in America. Our health care system is dreadful and people are dying of preventable illnesses in the most wealthy country in the world. And yet some people have the time and the money to march on Washington for an issue that causes distress to... a very small minority of men.

I am not pro-circ. I am not anti-circ. I just think that there are far more outrageous things happening in the world, and the obsession with foreskin strikes me as a magnificent misplacement of priorities. I just can't imagine why on earth any sane person would take it seriously. I mean, don't you people have anything more important to worry about than your baby's penis having a little owwie? Other babies can't eat. Worry about that.

Jorge, mohels are Jewish. For Gentiles requesting a religious circumcision, it's either a doctor, or rather frightfully, a traditional practitioner whose skill and cleanliness may vary widely. While mohels do fall under the "traditional practitioner", they have earned a reputation for skill- sort of the difference between licensed or certified midwives and lay midwives. They may be equally skilled on an individual basis, but the latter cannot be vouched for as a group. And cosmetic surgery is offered in hospitals currently- perhaps you live in a small community? And a dorsal penile block can be sufficient- or do you consider anything less than general anesthesia to be ineffective?

someone's mom, if there is such a demand for non-Jewish ritual circumcision, then doctors who are into that sort of thing should start offering their services as such. As it stands now, doctors offer circumcision based on pseudoscience. If they offered faith-based circumcision only, then they would rise above the level of con men.

In any case, doctors are no guarantee of a "good" circumcision result - see the recent Georgia case where there was a $2.4 million judgment for glans amputation. A similar thing happened on the other side of my state last year.

How many doctors take the time to do a dorsal penile block? Those take a long time to work, upwards of 20 minutes. The doc wants to earn his $300+ long before.

How much cosmetic surgery is done on newborns in hospitals, aside from circumcision?

Bunny, you mention a crumbling economy. How much money is wasted by state Medicaid and private insurance on an unnecessary surgery and the resultant corrections and complications, like post surgical infection, meatal stenosis, adhessions, etc? There are plenty of financial reasons to oppose the practice.

Many state medicaids pay for circumcision but not glasses or dental care. Hey junior, we'll wack part of it off but if your teeth hurt or you can't see the blackboard, tough! Does that seem right to you?

Circumcision removes 50% of the penile skin system.  It also removes 20,000 fine-touch nerve receptors, accounting for 75% of the erogenous sensory tissue (or the 4 most sensitive areas) of the penis.  

It also removes the Ridged Band, disrupts the penile blood supply and ablates anti-viral Langerhans cells (recently shown to be an effective barrier against HIV and other STIs). This could be why non-circing Europe has lower rates of HIV and STIs.

To add insult to injury, it also removes the protective covering from the glans, externalizing what was intended by nature to be an internal organ.  So the 4,000 free corpuscles left in the glans (which are attuned to pain and pressure, not fine-touch) get buried under layers of keratinized tissue over a lifetime of exposure to clothing, chemicals and temperature extremes.

Perhaps most importantly, circumcision removes his most fundamental human rights.

Who would want to do that to a baby?  Only a very sick culture, for sure.

Shannon LC Cate: the states that don't cover it are California (1982), North Dakota, Oregon, Mississippi, Nevada, Washington, Missouri, Arizona, North Carolina, Montana, Utah, Florida, Maine, Louisiana, Idaho, and Minnesota.

leahsmom: it would be antisemitic to oppose Jewish circumcision and be neutral or supportive about Muslim or tribal or "medical" circumcision, but I've never heard of anybody who takes that position - in fact some Intactivists are prepared to make an exception for religion, but most - especially the Jewish Intactivists - say the individual rights of the person most directly involved are more important. Intactivists are all also opposed to female genital cutting too, and not because we're anti-African, and to involuntary gender (re)assignment of children, and not because we're anti- ... um, I can't think what prejudice that might be.

Bunny, only some women are unhappy about being circumcised. A group of educated circumcised Sierra Leonean women is campaigning for the procedure, and they are citing male circumcision as a precedent.

Sure there are more important things, and less important things too, that more people pay more attention to. This is really the argument of "let's talk about something else". And every cent not spent on infant circumcision can be spent on real infant health care.

For the record Doctors do not push circumcision to make money - they don't push it at all.  Since the mid-90's when asked to weigh in on it they all say there is no medical reason to get it done.  They do this because it is the American medical stance on it.

Also, just so both side of this argument are represented.

www.circinfo.net/index.html

Whatever people choose, I hope they research, consider and choose for themselves and their family - not just go with the opinion of the person screaming the loudest.

Marj,

Its kind of ironic that you say that doctors don't push it at all, then link the site of Dr. Brian Morris, one of the world's biggest proponents of routine, newborn circumcision. If that isn't pushing circumcision, I don't know what is.

Read between the lines. All of his claims are exaggerated and the results can better be achieved other ways. Tell "low risk" to the adult men who have no glans or the babies who bled to death. Circumcision promoters thrive on blind acceptance of their data.

Just because a doctor charges $300 for something does not mean he gets all $300 for it.  My friend's husband is a doctor and while his practice charges $300 for a circ.  He gets about $10.00....that's ten dollars.  Hardly worth his time.

Sheri, if your friend's husband is a doctor and only receives $10 per circumcision, I shudder to think of the possible reasons for why he does them, especially considering the malpractice risks. See the recent $2.4 million judgment in Georgia for glans amputation. (Of course, the kid deserved 10 times that for the flippant way we treat male genitals in this country.)

Well, Dr. Morris's website is simply informative - not what is said to parents in doctor's offices.  Check Kaiser Permanente's website for the official party line on it.  That website is merely one side of a hot button argument.  There are lots of other points of view.  I encourage everyone to do lots of research, and not make their decision based on what one guy said.

JorgeM, we gave birth at two different hospitals in Chicago, and at both of them, NON-circumsicion was pushed. I think that one of the "fact sheets" referred to circ as "mutilation", which I don't really consider a neutral term. So for whatever pro-circ pressure that there is, anti-circ pressure exists as well.

We still circumcised our boys, primarily for religious reasons.

ChiLaura, I'm pleasantly surprised that a Chicago hospital wasn't heavily pro-cutting. Times are changing, but its too bad you couldn't change with them.

Just so everyone is aware, Brian Morris is not a medical doctor, despite trying to come across as one. His book "In Favor of Circumcision" was reviewed by a medical doctor and called "a serious disservice to parents". For the review and colorful exchange between Morris and Dr. Donovan

www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php

"But anti-circ activists compare male circumcision to female circumcision - which leaves women with non-functioning genitals they aren't happy with! It's ludicrous."

Bunny,

There are more female genital mutilations performed worlwide than male circumcisions. The majority of them remove less tissue and fewer nerve endings than male circumcisions. Those surgeries leave women with functional, less sensitive genitals just like male circumcision. 95% of Indonesian women have had their Clitoris removed and the primary proponents of the surgery are WOMEN who evidently are happy with their mutilated genitals and insist that they be allowed to pass on the benefits by force. Male circumcision removes 75% of erogenous nerve endings in the penis including the 5 most sensitive specialized structures. It is my penis, my foreskin and my right to choose what's best for me!

www.thepatrioticvanguard.com/article.php3

There is no medical reason for doing this. The possibility of an intact male infant, toddler, child getting an STD is ZERO.

If a person (male or female)wants to mutilate their own genitals at the age of consent , then go for it.

Bottom line: The principle of taking a healthy, non-consenting individual and destroying his/her genitals in whole or in part is exactly the same.

It is a violation of human rights, plain and simple.

The degree of the destruction, the pain, whether it is remembered or not, whether the act was carried out in a sterile environment with the proper tools and anesthetic by a trained professional or not is IRRELEVANT.

We either choose to acknowledge the right of bodily integrity, or we do not. If this is accepted as a basic human right, then it automatically applies equally to all humans, regardless of sex, religion or cultural background. If denied as a right to one group, it is not a right at all, but a special privilege guaranteed to a protected class.

Adoption of male circumcision to fight HIV dangerous and unethical.

africasciencenews.org/.../index.php

The failure to provide Medicaid coverage for circumcision leaves the most vulnerable population even more vulnerable at a terrible time in our nation.  And, of course, this comes just when the medical evidence is growing that mandatory circumcision is the right public health option for America.

mandatorycircumcision.blogspot.com

Provoking Debate, this isn't Circlist. Take your fetish elsewhere.

Provoking debate and JorgeM seem to be at opposite extremes, which I find slightly amusing. There are some good reasons to circ, and some good reasons not to. Those who choose to have their boys circ'd for religious reasons will not be nearly as easily swayed as those who choose to do so for medical or hygiene reasons. Being judgmental or spreading misleading information will not help anyone make a good decision.

I agree with "someones mom" completely.  My experience is that the anti-circ folks, in the face of growing medical evidence of the advantages of circumcision, are getting hysterical.  Jorge, for example, accuses me of having a "fetish" because I believe the science leads us to the conclusion that the male, his female partner, and society as a whole would be better off if all males were circumcised.  That is hardly a fetish, unless you want to accuse the World Health Organization of holding a similar fetish.  Being judgmental or spreading misleading info, along with character assassination, does nothing to promote public health.  Let's have a civilized debate, not name-calling.

Provoking Debate,

Mandatory circumcision is opposite to the American ideals of freedom. There's no mandatory vaccination, public schooling, military service, or anything like that. Things can be strongly recommended, but not mandated. Any attempt to mandate circumcision would be met with lawsuits and/or violence. Choose a different choice of words than mandatory or you will conjure up the image of a Circlist pervert.

As far as the evidence goes, you can quote studies all you want, but if they don't match reality, they're worthless.

Example: STDs/HIV. The CIA World Factbook puts U.S. HIV prevalence at 6 times or more what it is in Western Europe. The U.S. cuts, they don't. Injectable street drugs are known to both areas. Western Europe and the United States are fairly comparable, so what protection is circumcision actually providing?

And I doubt that even you would make the claim that circumcision provides 100% protection. So given two choices:

a. get circumcised and wear a condom

b. wear a condom

Why would anyone choose anything but b?

UTIs: Girls are far more prone to UTIs then boys yet they are offered no protective surgery and given antibiotics if they get one. Its not considered a problem unless they reoccur with increased frequency. Why the desperation to prevent the rarer UTIs in boys, especially when they respond to antibiotics the same way as in girls? Where is the UTI epidemic among intact males in Mexico and Europe? Nonexistant.

My son is intact, age 5. No UTIs. My wife has had 2 in the past 5 years. What should we have cut off her?

Cancer: The American Cancer Society puts the penile cancer rate at 1 in 100,000 and the typical patient at age 67 or older. The cancer is treatable. Why the urgency to cut a baby boy? There's plenty of time for him to make his own informed decision. Furthermore, we could save many more boys by amputating their breast buds as the male breast cancer rate is much, much higher than the penile cancer rate. Labial cancer is also more common than penile cancer. We could spare girls the trouble by cutting them off, but wait, that's a crime.

Of course, the penile cancer risk in Denmark (no circumcision) is the same as in the cut United States.

HPV/Cervical Cancer: Gardisil. I believe it is in clinical trials for boys. Get your kid vaccinated. BTW, my sister-in-law has cervical cancer and being in the deep south with a proud circumcision tradition, only has been with cut males. What was that recent article? 25% of teenaged girls have HPV? Where's the circumcision protection?

So yeah, I reject your notion that there's a mounting body of medical evidence. Anything put forth is exaggerated if not completely unbelievable and any problems that occur can be treated or prevented with better methods.

Jorge,

If you have read my blog which I just started yesterday(mandatorycircumcision.blogspot.com), you will note that I do allow for some exceptions (just as we do for vaccinations).  My point is that the growing body of medical evidence makes it as clear as can be than male circumcision is good for the male, his partners, and society as a whole.  We would not have largely erradicated polio, small pox, and measles if large numbers of people had failed to be vaccinated. We cannot reduce HIV, HPV, STDs, etc., if large numbers of males remain uncircumcised. Nonetheless, I would allow for the religious exception, conscientious objection, and the very rare medical (e.g., hemophilia) exception to universal circumcision. Finally, the "American ideal of freedom" is not contrary to common sense health measures, and as long as we provide an ability for someone like you to keep your foreskin, what can possibly be the objection to reducing the tragic diseases the foreskin helps to perpetuate?

ProvokingDebate,

We don't need the African HIV trials or any other circumcision study. The United States is a big male circumcision lab experiment spanning 3 generations. I'm 30 and 90% of my generation is cut. The results are in. The United States has much higher STD and HIV rates than does Europe or Japan. Obviously, if there is any protective affect, it is minuscule at best. Real vaccines, on the other hand, actually have wiped out disease. Circumcision has failed at everything except generating billions of dollars in profits for health care providers.

STDs/HIV are diseases of behavior, unlike polio, measles, etc. If one gets an STD, its the result of a poor choice in behavior, with a few exceptions such as rape, being born to an infected mother, etc. We have very effective behavioral methods of preventing STDs right now - condom, STD testing, and monogamy. People need to adopt a personal policy of 100% condom usage until they and their partner can declare themselves monogamous and get tested. The United States is woefully lacking in the education required, which is the likely culprit in our astounding STD/HIV rates when compared with Europe.

And as a circumcised man, would you have unprotected sex with a person of unknown STD status? If that person called you the next day and informed you that they were infected, would you sleep easy that night?

Who are you to assign value to another man's foreskin? Who are you to assume that he would rather have this "STD protection" as opposed to simply practicing safe sex, which he'd have to do anyway? Its not right to make that choice for a baby. If an adult male wants to get circumcised for any reason, its his choice.

What do you think of the $2.4 million malpractice verdict in Georgia? I guess that kid will have great STD protection, considering that the damage to his genitals will probably make him a life long virgin.