Well, my teacher wanted controversy so I picked the most hush-hush 'hot button' topic I knew.
I enjoyed the research and really solidified my own view on the subject. Every day I am amazed more and more when it comes to the social norms that we as a society mainly leave unquestioned. I have to say that until a few years ago I did not question male circumcision but after researching I have difficulty separating the ethics of male circumcision from those of female circumcision. If one violates a person's right to body integrity don't both of them? Anyway, this is the conclusion I came to.
Circumcision: A violation of human rights
In the 19th Century the American medical establishment began utilizing a surgical procedure it deemed a cure for everything from epilepsy and fever to idiocy and masturbation (Gollaher DL. From Ritual to Science). To no one’s amazement this ‘cure’ did not cure anything. What is surprising, though, is that the American medical establishment of today still performs this surgery, only now the unconfirmed claims include preventing urinary tract infections, sexually transmitted diseases, cancer of the penis, prostate, and cervix, even HIV/AIDS (Mothering.com). Yet in light of all the false claims, in the year 2000 this procedure, a procedure with no demonstrated medical benefit, was completed 94 million times (infocirc.org). This common procedure is what is medically referred to as routine male infant circumcision.
Most people in the United States view circumcision as a choice that parents have the right to make when concerning their newly birthed baby boy. Some defend their right by stating social status quos, some revert to religious reasoning and some will simply state that it is no one’s business how they raise their son.
These popular arguments attempt to defend an action but fail to address one very important issue - that the lack of consent from the infant violates the basic human right to body integrity. As such, routine infant circumcision should be banned.
To fully understand what is at the core of this issue we first need to find out who is being circumcised. Worldwide only 10-15 percent of men are cut. The procedure is almost unheard of in Europe, South America and Non-Muslim Asia. In fact the vast majority of circumcised men throughout the world are Muslim (mothering.com). So why does the United States, with a comparatively low Muslim population, retain a circumcision rate of 34 percent? Statistics show that the United States is the only country in the world to circumcise newborn males for non-religious reasons (mothering.com). It would seem that if religion is not the driving cause of our high rate then the reasons must be medical… right? No. According to the medical definition of intervention, the term “indicated” applies to a treatment or intervention that is required because a particular condition is present. Due to the high risk of the procedure infant circumcision is only performed on healthy infants and is considered both “cosmetic” and “prophylactic” meaning that 0 percent of routine infant circumcisions are medically indicated (infocirc.org). When American parents are asked why they circumcised their baby boys the two most common answers are ‘So he will not be teased’ and ‘We want him to look like his father.’ Social concerns are more important than medical ones (Tiemstra JD. Factors in the circumcision decision).
The risks and consequences of the procedure are also rarely taken into consideration. Along with a reported death rate of 1 in 500,000 there is a complication rate of 1 in 500 (nocirc.org). Complications can range from staphylococcus infections to gangrene, uncontrollable bleeding and penile loss. Infant feeding patterns are also disrupted. Circumcised infants may refuse to nurse immediately after the procedure or at night leading to a failure to breast-feed and the infant may exhibit signs of trauma such as inconsolability, unexplained crying and lack of maternal-infant eye contact (Rickwood AMK, Kenny SE, Donnell SC. Towards evidence based circumcision of English boys). These repercussions can last for days or weeks but new studies are beginning to show that the perception centers of the neonate’s brain are permanently and adversely altered by the procedure, although these findings are very new and the medical community does not yet fully understand their implications. Dr. James Prescott suggests that circumcision can cause deeper and more disturbing levels of neurological damage (Lewis, Van. Nobel Laureates for Genital Integrity).
On the other hand, some parents have claimed that the practice must be painless, as their baby did not make a single whimper, in fact some claim that the child simply slept through the procedure. The reality is that the circumcision causes severe, persistent pain that many times results in shock - not a peaceful sleep. No matter how you look at it the fact remains that both the body and brains of these baby boys are being altered without their consent and often times without anesthesia.
In 1995, the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Bioethics stated that informed consent may only be given by a competent person. Infants, being unable to give permission, are included in the concept of informed parental decision, meaning that permission can be giving regarding the infant’s wellbeing in the case of immediate medical necessity only, such as disease, trauma, or disfigurement (mothering.com). The human penis in its natural state does not fall under any of these requirements. According to this committee’s statement obstetricians have a moral duty to refuse routine circumcision.
When a non-medically indicated circumcision is performed not only are the OB’s violating their ethical committee they are also going against the policy statements of health organizations around the world. In truth, no medical organization in the world recommends routine circumcision of male infants. The official position of the American Academy of Pediatrics is that “Existing scientific evidence … [is] not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.” In 2002, the American Academy of Family Physicians stated “Evidence from the literature is often conflicting or inconclusive… A physician performing a procedure for other than medical reasons on a non-consenting patient raises ethical concerns.” These two American health organizations join the World Health Organization, the British Medical Association, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, the Canadian Pediatric Society, the Australian Medical Association, and the Australasian Association of Pediatric Surgeons. Together they raise ethical concerns of and retract any support of therapeutic, neonatal circumcision (nocirc.org).
In spite of the mounting evidence that routine infant circumcision is unnecessary, immoral and dangerous, the practice continues. This we should not stand for. Denver is urged to follow the lead of San Francisco and propose a bill akin to the San Francisco Male Genital Mutilation Bill (SFMGM Bill). This bill states, “it is unlawful to circumcise, excise, cut, or mutilate the whole or any part of the foreskin, testicles, or penis of another person who has not attained the age of 18 years” The bill deems the mutilation of a minor a misdemeanor punishable by a fine that will not exceed $1,000 and or imprisonment that will not exceed one year. Exceptions are made if the operation is necessary to the physical health of the person on whom it is performed because of a clear, compelling, and immediate medical need with no less-destructive alternative treatment available (sfmgmbill.org). We are also urged to support San Francisco in their effort to end male genital mutilation please contact www.sfmgmbill.com to support their movement. To begin the effort in Colorado contact www.coloradonocirc.org and let them know that Colorado will not be know as a state that does not protect the basic human rights of our sons.
If a ban of routine infant circumcision was enacted we, as a community, would be providing babies with their best chance of establishing continuing and benefiting from nursing, maintaining each maternal infant bond as nature intended and most importantly giving our baby boys back their innate right of body integrity. For it is only when our male babies are afforded the same rights and protections as our female babies that our children will be allowed to live knowing that only they retain the right to permanently alter their bodies.
"Circumcision Fact Sheet." Circumcision Information Resource Centre. Web. 14 Feb. 2011. www.infocirc.org/factsheet
Circumcision Position Statements of Medical Societes in English-Speaking Countries. Nocirc.org. Colorado No Circ. Web. 12 Feb. 2011.
Fleiss, Paul M. "The Case Against Circumcision." Mothering: The Magazine of Natural Family Living. Web. 14 Feb. 2011.
Gollaher DL. From ritual to science: the medical transformation of circumcision in America. Journal of Social History 1994;28(1):5-36
Lewis, Van. "Nobel Laureates for Genital Integrity." Stop Infant Circumcision. Web. 14 Feb. 2011. www.stopinfantcircumcision.org/crick-wald.htm
"Male Genital Mutilation Bill." San Francisco MGM Bill. Web. 22 Feb. 2011.
Rickwood AMK, Kenny SE, Donnell SC. Towards evidence based circumcision of English boys: survey of trends in practice BMJ 2000;321:792-793
Tiemstra JD. Factors the circumcision decision. J Am Board Fam Pract 1999;12:16-20
