"I understand that this procedure will remove healthy and functioning tissue from my son's penis, and involves similar risk as other prophylactic or cosmetic surgeries, including infection, disfigurement, and death. I understand that the procedure may be performed without anaesthesia at the doctor's discretion. I understand that the doctor has recommended my son undergo circumcision because studies have shown a reduction in the risk for serious diseases in circumcised men; or else, that I have requested a circumcision be performed in observation of a deep and abiding religious or cultural belief which I reasonably believe my son will share when he would have been of age to consent himself."
Parents should have to sign a statement like this before it's performed. It should no longer be the default, and parents should understand that they don't have to be railroaded into the decision.
> studies have shown a reduction in the risk for serious diseases in circumcised men
What are those studies? It is very uncommon to cut off parts of children in Europe, Russia, South America and China (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_circumcision) and such serious deseases should be much more common there. So what are they? On this scale we should see a pattern.
Circumcision reduces susceptibility to AIDS by quite a large margin (60% in heterosexual relationships). I'm not sure about other diseases but there's probably an impact.
Looks like most medical organizations range from advising against circumcision, to considering making it illegal, with the notable exception of the US [1]. As for the protection against disease:
"Male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection among heterosexual men in sub-Saharan Africa [..] The effectiveness of using circumcision to prevent HIV in the developed world is unclear;" [2]
Since newborns are unlikely to have sex [3], there should be no harm in waiting until puberty, and getting the boy's input on what is an irreversible change.
Requiring a family to wait until a boy is past puberty to consider a circumcision would be harmful, because the procedure is more difficult to perform, and poses a more difficult (and memorable) recovery period.
Parents have autonomy to make medical decisions for their infant children, and many are forced to make significantly more difficult decisions than a routine circumcision.
I was curious about the CIRP site you linked to and the policy statements they are referencing. I double checked just the first referenced policy statement, which is from the Australian College of Paediatrics. [1]
Interestingly, they reference a statement from 1996 which is no longer the current position. Evidence for the medical benefits of circumcision have gotten stronger, and the procedure has gotten safer and more likely to be performed with anesthesia. The updated statement [2] while still not advocating for routine circumcision for all male children, is, in particular, missing the passage which CIRP specifically highlighted in the 1996 position.
This calls into question whether CIRP is interested in presenting a factual list of current statements, or if they have a particular agenda they are attempting to serve in presenting cherry-picked out-dated statements with a specific viewpoint.
There is no medical benefit to circumcision. There is risk of harm.
Parents do make medical choices -- these would be situations where there is a benefit to treatment and where there is medical consensus that the treatment is worthwhile.
That's not the case for circumcision where most doctors agree it shouldn't be performed other than for actual medical reasons like phimosis.
The WHO states, “There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%.”
That’s a quote from Wikipedia where the footnote references an abstract which does not include that statement.
Here’s what the abstract does say;
> Following the three randomized trials in Africa demonstrating the protective effects of male circumcision on HIV infection, studies have reported other benefits of circumcision including protection from certain STIs, including human papillomavirus and herpes simplex virus 2. With data accumulating on the public health benefits of circumcision and the endorsement of circumcision from WHO, investigators have begun to evaluate the feasibility, safety and cost of implementation of large-scale circumcision programs. Limitations of circumcision have also been explored.
Circumcision does nothing to protect against herpes, hepatitis, chancroid, HPV, Chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis etc.
So the child is being exposed to risk of death or disfigurement for a hypothetical benefit for one STI where there are existing better protections for that, and other STIs.
When you google for circumcision risk of death, on the one hand is CIRP claiming over 100 infant boys die each year from complications arising from circumcision, and in the other hand the CDC saying they looked at every single infant death in 2010 and could not find a single one related to circumcision.
It references an article, not just an abstract. The conclusion of said article reads:
The broader application of this procedure to other areas of the world with different population, infrastructure and disease characteristics warrants further investigation.
If the benefit exists, which is doubtful, it only exists for one STI and has no protective effect for the rest.
> I’m really not interested in ideological battle here.
You're defending zero-benefit mutilation of children, in the face of overwhelming medical advice. It's hard to see that as anything other than ideological.
> Interestingly, they reference a statement from 1996 which is no longer the current position.
They reference both current and historical statements, I assume on purpose to show how the position has evolved. For the case of Australia, the newest statement is on top, and the statements are clearly dated, so there is no room to confuse a newer one with an older one.
It takes very motivated reasoning to conclude they are biased just because they present a historical timeline.
I did not see the latest statement on their site! Did I miss it? I have no qualms at all with presenting the historical timeline, as long as the latest factual and science-based statement is included and given the most weight.
It appears the link to the most recent statement is broken (404) which could be why I missed it.
However, the way the timeline is presented also raises eyebrows;
> In September 2002, under the lead of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP), Paediatrics and Child Health Division, six major medical societies of Australasia developed a unified position statement on male circumcision. All six medical societies (...) have now corroborated the Canadian Paediatric Society, declaring that circumcision of newborn males should not be routinely performed. The new statement firmly declares: "There are no medical indications for routine male circumcision." This statement was slightly revised in September 2004. This statement was retired in 2010.
“All six have now corroborated...” is a peculiar way to describe historical statements which are no longer considered medically accurate.
That’s a particularly odd way to conclude that new studies have provided compelling evidence of important health benefits of circumcision in certain contexts.
The fact that many commenters here seem to be entirely unaware that there do exist some demonstrable medical benefits in terms of resistance to and transmission of STDs and STIs reflects this.
The studies (showing risks in reduction of HIV and other STIs) are cited frequently by doctors and are controversial with people who take issue with circumcision. I personally find the conclusions of those studies suspect, but I'm not a doctor nor an expert, and this is the stance that many of them hold.
It's not as horrible as you make it out to be. I was circumcised. In fact, I didn't even realize I was until I was much older, I just thought that's the way things were down there. Once I learned, I didn't care. Everything's fine. Everyone makes it out like it's torture; it's not. You can't even remember it.
I have no deep trauma, no lingering issues. I'm just a normal boring guy, kind of like most guys who are circumcised too.
Personally I've only known women and uncircumcised men to have a problem with. I've never met a circumcised man who cared.
Circumcised man here. It has not caused me any inconvenience. I find the tradition barbaric. I am philosophically opposed to the surgery on the grounds that it amounts to unnecessary cosmetic surgery on a non-consenting infant for the sake of tradition. Now you know a circumcised man that cares.
I agree that circumcision for the sake of traditional is essentially mutilation, and I definitely object to that. society is pretty secular these days though. I haven't talked to a lot of people about circumcision, but most of them (or their parents) just did it because it was the prevailing medical opinion at the time. if your doctor recommends a relatively common procedure for your child, you will probably go along with it unless you have a good reason to believe you know better.
That may be how you choose your positions on issues, but it's not universal. I think circumcision is wrong and would not circumcise my child, but I was excellently circumcised and don't miss any sensitivity I hypothetically would have had.
