Search

Actually, they were very typical people for that place and time, and would never have resisted a doctor's instruction that circumcision was good for the baby. My circumcision experience, by its very omnipresence in my life, has fueled my commitment to the struggle for true gender equality in our society. I have come to believe that the numbness in our penises resulting from circumcision here in the United States parallels the emotional and physical numbness that those in power need for us to have. [Extracted from the article]

Background: In 2017 Ploug and Holm argued that anonymizing individuals in the Danish circumcision registry was insufficient to protect these individuals from what they regard as the potential harms of being in the registry (overreaching social pressure, stigmatization, medicalization of a religious practice, discrimination and promoting polarized research).Discussion: We argue that Ploug and Holm's fears in each of the areas are misguided, not supported by the evidence, and could interfere with the gathering of accurate data. The extent of the risks and harms associated with ritual circumcision is not well known. The anonymized personal health data supplemented with the circumcision registry will enable more precise research into the medical consequences of ritual circumcision, and allow parents to make more fully informed decisions about circumcision with minimal, if any, adverse consequences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nontherapeutic circumcision (NTC) of male infants and boys is a common but misunderstood form of iatrogenic injury that causes harm by removing functional tissue that has known erogenous, protective, and immunological properties, regardless of whether the surgery generates complications. I argue that the loss of the foreskin itself should be counted, clinically and morally, as a harm in evaluating NTC; that a comparison of benefits and risks is not ethically sufficient in an analysis of a nontherapeutic procedure performed on patients unable to provide informed consent; and that circumcision violates clinicians' imperatives to respect patients' autonomy, to do good, to do no harm, and to be just. When due consideration is given to these values, the balance of factors suggests that NTC should be deferred until the affected person can perform his own cost-benefit analysis, applying his mature, informed preferences and values. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the ethical and legal aspects, and the children's rights issues, concerning non-therapeutic male circumcision, within the context of the debate between the association Attorneys for the Rights of the Child (ARC), the U.S. Centers for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC) and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) over the issue. The authors contend that the pain caused by circumcision makes it unethical, including the pain caused to the penis foreskin. The role that parents play in their sons' circumcisions is discussed.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recently released a policy statement and technical report on circumcision, in both of which the organisation suggests that the health benefits conferred by the surgical removal of the foreskin in infancy definitively outweigh the risks and complications associated with the procedure. While these new documents do not positively recommend neonatal circumcision, they do paradoxically conclude that its purported benefits 'justify access to this procedure for families who choose it,' claiming that whenever and for whatever reason it is performed, it should be covered by government health insurance. The policy statement and technical report suffer from several troubling deficiencies, ultimately undermining their credibility. These deficiencies include the exclusion of important topics and discussions, an incomplete and apparently partisan excursion through the medical literature, improper analysis of the available information, poorly documented and often inaccurate presentation of relevant findings, and conclusions that are not supported by the evidence given. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Every infant has a right to bodily integrity. Removing healthy tissue from an infant is only permissible if there is an immediate medical indication. In the case of infant male circumcision there is no evidence of an immediate need to perform the procedure. As a German court recently held, any benefit to circumcision can be obtained by delaying the procedure until the male is old enough to give his own fully informed consent. With the option of delaying circumcision providing all of the purported benefits, circumcising an infant is an unnecessary violation of his bodily integrity as well as an ethically invalid form of medical violence. Parental proxy 'consent' for newborn circumcision is invalid. Male circumcision also violates four core human rights documents -- the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention Against Torture. Social norm theory predicts that once the circumcision rate falls below a critical value, the social norms that currently distort our perception of the practice will dissolve and rates will quickly fall. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Genital integrity advocates struggle to safeguard all children from genital cutting. Gender equity activists promote true equality of men and women. Commonalities and differences between the two movements are very illuminating. Three words relevant to genital integrity are: exceptional, muddle, and discomfort. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The essay offers a critical examination of the tendency to segregate discussion of surgical alterations to the male and female genitals into separate compartments - the first known as circumcision, the second as genital mutilation, It is argued that this fundamental problem of definition underlies the considerable controversy surrounding these procedures when carried out on minors, and that it hinders objective discussion of the alleged benefits, harms and risks. The variable effects of male and female genital surgeries are explored, and a scale of damage for male circumcision to complement the World Health Organization's categorization of female genital mutilation is proposed. The origins of the double standard identified are placed in historical perspective, and a brief conclusion makes a plea for greater gender neutrality in the approach to this contentious issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, we offer a critical examination of the tendency to segregate discussion of surgical alterations to the male and female genitals into separate compartments--the first known as circumcision, the second as genital mutilation. We argue that this fundamental problem of definition underlies the considerable controversy surrounding these procedures when carried out on minors, and that it hinders objective discussion of the alleged benefits, harms, and risks. We explore the variable effects of male and female genital surgeries, and we propose a scale of damage for male circumcision to complement the World Health Organization's categorization of female genital mutilation. The origins of the double standard identified are placed in historical perspective, and in a brief conclusion we make a plea for greater gender neutrality in the approach to this contentious issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective of this study was to determine whether the justifications given for promoting mass circumcision as a preventive measure for HIV infection are reasonable and whether mass circumcision is a feasible preventive measure for HIV infection in developing countries. The medical literature concerning the practice of circumcision in the absence of medical indication was reviewed regarding its impact on HIV infection and related issues. The literature was analysed with careful attention to historical perspective. Our results show that the medical literature supporting mass circumcision for the prevention of HIV infection is inconsistent and based on observation studies. Even if the two ongoing randomised controlled trials in Africa show a protective benefit of circumcision, factors such as the unknown complication rate of the procedure, the permanent injury to the penis, human rights violations and the potential for veiled colonialism need to be taken into account. Based on the best estimates, mass circumcision would not be as cost-effective as other interventions that have been demonstrated to be effective. Even if effective, mass circumcision as a preventive measure for HIV in developed countries is difficult to justify. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective of this study was to determine whether the justifications given for promoting mass circumcision as a preventive measure for HIV infection are reasonable and whether mass circumcision is a feasible preventive measure for HIV infection in developing countries.The medical literature concerning the practice of circumcision in the absence of medical indication was reviewed regarding its impact on HIV infection and related issues. The literature was analysed with careful attention to historical perspective.Our results show that the medical literature supporting mass circumcision for the prevention of HIV infection is inconsistent and based on observation studies. Even if the two ongoing randomised controlled trials in Africa show a protective benefit of circumcision, factors such as the unknown complication rate of the procedure, the permanent injury to the penis, human rights violations and the potential for veiled colonialism need to be taken into account. Based on the best estimates, mass circumcision would not be as cost-effective as other interventions that have been demonstrated to be effective.Even if effective, mass circumcision as a preventive measure for HIV in developed countries is difficult to justify. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Infant male circumcision continues despite growing questions about its medical justification. As usually performed without analgesia or anaesthetic, circumcision is observably painful. It is likely that genital cutting has physical, sexual and psychological consequences too. Some studies link involuntary male circumcision with a range of negative emotions and even post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Some circumcised men have described their current feelings in the language of violation, torture, mutilation and sexual assault. In view of the acute as well as long-term risks from circumcision and the legal liabilities that might arise, it is timely for health professionals and scientists to re-examine the evidence on this issue and participate in the debate about the advisability of this surgical procedure on unconsenting minors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers the author's view on the defense of Allan J. Jacobs and Kavita Sha Arora, the authors of the article about infant male circumcision. The author states that the authors offer an impassioned defense but their article is short of convincing. The author mentions that the authors suggests that circumcision has lesser consequences and fails to qualify as issue of special importance.

Comments on the article on neonatal male circumcision. Argument on the conclusion that nontherapeutic circumcision of infant boy is a suitable matter for parental discretion; Disadvantages of the procedure; Comparison of circumcision with various forms of plastic and cosmetic surgery.