"...even assuming that circumcision could help to protect against HIV infection, it would not be necessary to carry it out on unconsenting infants. One could wait until the person was about to become sexually active and could decide for himself. " -Dr Margaret Somerville-
Do you believe that parents have the right to choose circumcision for a newborn?
If you consider that the statistics for women developing breast cancer (12.7%) are considerably higher than males developing penile cancer (.09%), do you think we should perform routine mastectomy on teenage girls?
What do you know about the procedure of circumcision?
What do you think are the pros and cons?
(Renee Hart) 9am class
27 comments:
I do believe that parents should have the right to choose whether or not their baby should be circumsized. I dont see why the parents dont have the right. They should have a big part into saying whether or not their baby should be circumsized. From what I have read about circumcision it looks like the doctor puts a clamp around the foreskin to cut off all supply of blood to it. After so many days the clamp and the foreskin fall off. I think the pros of this procedure are that there is less chance for an infection. There is more room for the penis to breathe. Circumcision prevents many diseases, such as HIV, urinary tract infections and penile cancer, and also helps protect their sexual partners from any diseases that he may have. I dont have anything against circumcision but someone might say that it might infringe upon someones human rights. The baby can't make a decision on whether or not he wants to be circumsized, so someone could argue that it would be a violation of human rights. No I don't think that circumcision could be compared to the piercing of an infants ear because there is more at stake with circumcision. If a baby isn't circumsized then it could contract potentially fatal diseases and penile cancer. I dont know about mastectomies being performed routinely but I think that if it is necessary for a woman to get it to save her life, then it should be performed. It shouldnt be performed just because the woman might get breast cancer.
Kirby Reifsteck (9:00)
Ok i dont know much about this topic...However I have been told that it is a lot easier to keep it clean in the future if the child is circumsized. I have also read that having the baby circumsized stops it from contracting diseases to be spread to any sexual partner he will have in the future.
Kristin Knowles 9:00
I don't even know what to think about the whole question. It all seems a little bit painful. But honestly, I think that parents could choose, but then again doesn't circumcision prevent diseases or something, so I ask this question, why would a parent ever choose not to have their child cicumcised. They wouldn't want their child to run a risk of infections, unless they are really cruel. And the masectomy, I don't really know what that is, but I assume that maybe the women as she got older, wouldn't want that.
Dustin Piercy (9:00)
How can circumcision be compared with routine masectomies? It's not like doctors are cutting off the whole thing-just a piece of skin that helps keep it cleaner and aides in lowering risk of infection. More than likely men who are circumcised are glad they had it done when they don't even remember...so why wait until they may or may not become sexually active? In no case should a female have to have a masectomy unless they have breast cancer. If so, I think girls would lose some of their femininity. From watching my mom go through that I know that that is the case for most women. There is really no purpose that I know of for a male to have the foreskin. It's been said that it may just have more "feeling".
Elizabeth Kerns
I think that since the child cannot, obviously make a dectison whether or not they want to have the circumcision done it could be interfering with a humans rights. I think that it may be a good idea if for the simple fact that it prevents diseases and certain types of cancer.I believe that parents should have the right to choose whether or not their baby should be circumsized.
Frankie Gaskill (9:00)
Personally, I am glad that I was circumcized as an infant. And I am sure that I wouldn't want to go throught the procedure now. I see no problem wih infants getting circumcized. I know that uncircumcized penises have to be rigorously cleaned regularly or risk getting an infection. You also have to take into account religious beliefs. Jews cirumsize their infants during a briss. This is an important religious ceremony. As for the comparison to a mastectomy, I dissagree with the point. A mastectomy is performed only after cancer is found. You cannot compare removing a small piece of skin with removing a breast. As for the actual procedure, I am completely ignorant. I am sure it is not too harsh as infants are very fragile. So yes, I believe that parents have the right to circumsize their infants.
Scott Kimball (9:00)
I honestly don't know anything about this subject. I have personally wondered a few times, but have never done research into it. I would ask my husband's opinion if I was pregnant with a boy in the future. I would also do more research into the disease prevention before making my decision.
Bobbi (9:00)
I think the baby's parents should decide whether or not circumcison should take place. I mean it's their child, and the decision should be theirs. I don't see why someone would chose not to have their baby circumsized, but everyone has their own views. I however think it's a good idea. Circumcison removes the foreskin and prevents dieases and infections. I believe it's better to have it done when their babies rather than when their older. I think women should only get a mastectomy if they are diagnosed with breast cancer. There is no logically reasoning for a woman to do this unless she has cancer. Chelse Lindenbaum (9:00)
When I first read this question, I really didn't have any opinion about it. After reading a little more about circumcision, I decided that I think the parents should choose whether or not their baby is circumcised. Since it lowers the risk of HIV, urinary tract infections and penile cancer I don't see why the parents wouldn't want to have their baby boy to be circumcised. I really don't think it can be compared to having a mastectomy. I think women should only get a mastectomy if they get breast cancer. With circumcision only the foreskin is getting removed not a whole body part.
Morgan MacFarlane (9:00)
I do believe parents should have the right to have their son circumsized because after all it is their child and all decisions otherwise are left up to them, so why should this topic be any different? I don't know anything about the procedure, but I do think that if the parents do choose to have it done, it should be done at birth, because it could be painful as the child gets older and the longer you wait. And if your child had less of a chance of developing disease wouldn't you want that for him just by having a simple procedure. And I don't think that every teenage girl should get a mastectomy just because their is a chance that they might develop breast cancer. But if they do, then I think that they should definitly do it, because it increases their chance of killing the cancer and getting rid of it.
Abby (9:00)
Just like abortion I think each individual has the right to decide whether they want to circumcise their son or sons. I think comparing a mastectomy to circumcision is like comparing apples and oranges. A mastectomy is completely cutting off the the womens breast, circumcision is cutting the forskin.
To be honest I do not feel I am educated enough to really say what the pros and cons of cicumcision are... but I do know a few people who had to be circumcised when they were adults and they said it was extremely painful.
Ingrid M.
(Renee's friend)
I also don't know a whole lot about this. But it makes sense that the parents should make the choice because they are the child's parents. That's what they do, especially since the baby isn't able to. I don't know why a parent would choose not to if it will decrease the chances of disease. I also don't think it can compare with a woman very much. A woman might get breast cancer, but she might not. To get a mastectomy would be a little extreme, especially compared to a small piece of skin. If a woman would get breast cancer, then she can take action. But otherwise, that's part of a woman and it would be very strange to do that now when there is no problem.
Hannah Dodd (9:00)
I believe parents should have the right to circumisize their infants, but if they chose not too, I would not think they are putting their child at severe risk for future medical problems. I am not very knowledgeable and the entire subject of circumcision in general, but I have always heard that it helps keep that area more hygenic throughout the person's life. But even if the child was not circumsized, if they practiced good hygiene in general, I do not believe they would be put at any more risk than any other child for medical problems. So if the parent believes that circumsizing their child would cause them unnecessary pain, then it is their right not to have the procedure done. (Renee's friend)
i believe it is the parents right to choose if they want their child circumsized, i mean really as a man in his early 20's or so...would you go through with it...would you choose to be circumsized? also circumcision helps the penis to breathe, and can prevent diseases and urinary tract infections. some people would say it is wrong to do such a thing to a baby..but in the end your really helping that child.
april higgens 9am class
I think parents should be able to choose. It's a very simple procedure with minimal risk that has been performed for thousands of years. Parents are able to choose to have their children's ears pierced and that is for purely cosmetic reasons. Parents are also able to make other medical decisions for their child so I really don't see how this is any different.
Amanda Fuqua
I really don't know if the parents have the right to circumsize their infant. A major pro of it is that it is a significant health issue, while preventing infections and slowing down the spread of AIDS. But then again, it's a violation of human rights. You've got to think about that boy when he gets older. He could really have some psychological harm on having this done to him. There's also probably going to be some risks along with have this procedure done. If it went wrong, it's not something that you can just shrug off. They'll be some infections and maybe even blood loss. Honestly, I really don't know about whether or not their parents should have a say so in this. I really don't know enough about it. That is great that it helps you with sexual diseases, but you've also got to look at if the operation goes wrong and how the infant is going to feel about it when he grows up.
Alyssa Surber (9:00)
The pictures that I've seen of circumcisions being performed scare me. I haven't done much research on it though, and since fear is not a great motive to base decisions on, all I can say is that the men I know who were not circumcised as infants are glad. They have not found their foreskins to be problems. I would want to do a lot more research on the subject before making this decision for another person. The general concensus seems to be that circumcision will keep you cleaner. I think parents should focus more on EDUCATING their children about personal hygine, keeping clean, and safe sex practices instead of hoping for a lack of foreskin to do the trick.
K.S. (Renee's friend)
I have changed my mind some on this topic. Before talking about it here (etc), I had taken it as a matter of course that boys would be circumcised. Now I have mixed feelings. I think that if people are happier with thier bodies as adults after being circumscised as children, than this should be taken into account. I can't really say I know the answer to that as I don't have the anatomy in question. If you believe that a parent has the right to teminate a preganancy (which I do), then it is fair that they should be able to make decisions immediately after the child's birth like circumcision, as the child will not remember and can't make decisions for themself. As for waiting till later on in life when a person can decide for themself, I am just not sure. Would it be more traumatic to go through that when you will remember for the rest of your life? Are the chances for infection and complication greater or lesser to perform on a teenager? I want some more info on this to say if that would be a better option. I definately believe that circumcision has much less to do with health or cleanliness than it does to do with tradition and cultural body image norms. This is an ancient practice and trying to change a cultural standard is a huge challenge. On the other hand, increased awareness of the downside of the practice will go a long way towards changing attitudes, especially if it has to do with protecting children. I think that I would circumsize my baby boy. But I do think I will pay much more attention to who is doing this and how it's done. After the trauma of birth, I worry less about the pain for the child (although I do think that this should absolutely be considred), than the end result. Too much can be taken off and I want to aviod this. I want to discuss the procedure and make sure that I am confident that the person doing it is farmilar with the issues and has the child's interest in mind.
~ CO
I'm glad that here in America parents have the right to choose foreskin/no foreskin for their babies. However, new parents should think the circumsicion decision through, long and hard, as it will surely have an effect on the lifes of their sons. People have been nippin the tip for centuries. I think circumcision came about for hygene reasons, but I wonder who was the first to say "you know, I think I'd be better off without this penis skin." Or maybe the first circumcision was a happy accident in some factory fiasco. Prolly not.
The point is, it's a super old tradition and because its been around so long we know that if performed corectly, there's nothing dangerous about having a baby's foreskin removed. Many religions are based largely on tradition, and circumcize their young because of that. And they should be free to do it. I just think its kind of wierd.
Education seems to be the most important issue here, not whether or not children should be circumsized or if parents have the right to choose. Of course, I think parents have the right to choose. Parents choose many things for their children that effect the rest of thier lives and these are some times not the choices that the child in the future would have wanted, but they were not able to make that decision at the time. But a problem arises when parents make uneducated decisions or ones based on a biased version of the facts. That seems to be the major issue with circumcision. Many people, my self included, simply do not know the straightforward unbiased facts surrounding circumcision and make decisions about it for their children with a skewed version of the truth. I think that all parents should have to receive some sort of education on the procedure, its risks, and benefits, so that if they do make that decision for their child they are doing it with all the facts and not just the warped view of society.
-Becca (Renee's Friend)
Without a doubt I think that the parents should have the right to choose whether or not their child is circumsized at birth. If they choose not to, then the child always has their right to become circumsized once they turn a certain age. Same thing with the mastectomy. Which is personally, something I would not like to have done, but some parents may. I think that deciding whether or not to get circumcision or a mastectomy upon a newborn child is the decision of the parents and in some cases should not be handled lightly.
Brittney (7:00)
I personally think that circumcision should be the child’s choice. I never thought twice about circumcision until my first son had it done. It was just the normal thing to do, according to everbody else. The nurse took him from me and two doors were closed behind them. Moments later, I heard my baby screaming. I was in a panic. They came out and told me I could go back to get him. I was appalled to walk in the room and see my baby strapped down to the table (like the one in the picture). His face was so red and he was trembling. He was fighting to catch his breath as he screamed. I was horrified. What had I done? How could I let someone hurt my child like that? I got him out of there as fast as I could and took him home. All I could say to him over and over was “I’m so sorry.” Before the procedure, he was such a quiet baby. Afterwards, he cried and cried. He was traumatized. A few days later, we had to take him to the emergency room because it had gotten infected. The next day, we had to take him back to the doctor because the plastic ring fell off. There is nothing like torturing a baby by shoving a plastic ring onto his freshly cut on, infected penis. I refused to get my second son circumcised and my husband supported that decision. I don’t know why people would want part of their son’s body cut off just so they can look like their dad, or because it’s cleaner. More people are actually choosing to not circumcise their boys. It is not cleaner unless you don't wash. People in different cultures perform similar procedures on girls. They sew up their vaginas and remove the clitoris. Americans are appalled by that, but it’s okay to mutilate our boys. Hmmm. I don’t get it. Those who argue the point of circumcision equaling less chances for STD's, are only trying to justify mutilating babies. Babies don't have sex, so why are STD's even an issue with infant circumcision? We are all at risk for getting infections, so do we chop off other body parts to avoid them? Despite the possible benefits and risks, circumcision is neither essential nor detrimental to a boy's health. The AAP and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) do not endorse the procedure as a way to prevent any of the medical conditions mentioned previously. The AAP also does not find sufficient evidence to medically recommend circumcision or argue against it. Boys enter this world the way God created them, Why do we want to change that?
Jennifer Wilson
There is so much misconception here it is hard to know where to start. About the only thing most of you got right is that you need to look into this quite a bit more.
The truth is that the US is the only industrialized country to non-religiously circumcise a small majority of their new born boys. This is not done in any other western country nearly all men in South and Central America, Europe, Non-Muslim Asia, and New Zealand are intact. Infant circumcision declined sharply in Australia in the 1980s and Canada in the 1990s. Somewhere between 80 and 85% of the worlds men are intact. No major medical authority even recommends routine infant circumcision:
The American Pediatrics Association:
Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.
The Royal Australaian College of Physicians:
After extensive review of the literature the RACP reaffirms that there is no medical indication for routine male circumcision.
The British Medical Association:
Unnecessarily invasive procedures should not be used where alternative, less invasive techniques, are equally efficient and available. It is important that doctors keep up to date and ensure that any decisions to undertake an invasive procedure are based on the best available evidence. Therefore, 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. ... The BMA is generally very supportive of allowing parents to make choices on behalf of their children, and believes that neither society nor doctors should interfere unjustifiably in the relationship between parents and their children. It is clear from the list of factors that are relevant to a child's best interests, however, that parental preference alone is not sufficient justification for performing a surgical procedure on a child.
Central Union for Child Welfare in Finland:
The CUCW unequivocally states that circumcision of boys is a violation of personal, bodily, and sexual integrity. It asserts that it is only acceptable when medically necessary, and should otherwise be prohibited by law.
Notice how the European organizations are quite a bit harsher in their evaluation. That is because in most of these countries it is considered child abuse. In fact, it is not uncommon for a European to think you are joking when you tell them what Americans do the their baby boys.
Does Circumcision Prevent:
Cleanliness? Huh? Do you people shower? In infants cleaning involves nothing a dip in the tub or a wipe like a finger. No scrubbing, no fancy ritual, never retraction. Many won't even be retractable until puberty. Intact penises are maintenance free. I don't know who came up with that.
UTI? In the best case there is perhaps a 1% risk reduction in the first 6 months but UTIs are easily treatable; in fact girls get many times more UTI then boys and they get treated non evasively.
Cancer? Please. In the first place penile cancer is the rarest form of male cancer. So rare in fact good statistics are hard to get. Penile cancer accounts for less than one half a percent of diagnoses and 1/10th of a percent of deaths. Your child has a better shot of dying from the circumcision then from cancer. Don't think it could happen? Neither did these parents: London 2007, Cleveland 1998, Ontario 2007 A statement from the American Cancer Society said: However, the penile cancer risk is low in some uncircumcised populations, and the practice of circumcision is strongly associated with socio-ethnic factors, which in turn are associated with lessened risk. The consensus among studies that have taken these other factors into account is circumcision is not of value in preventing cancer of the penis. There has never been a statistical link between circumcision and cervical cancer either plus there is a vaccine currently available, soon to be available for males too I hear.
How about STDs? Surely circumcision protects against that right? Wrong. This Australian study of over 10,000 individuals found: After correction for age, circumcision was unrelated to reporting STI, but appeared to protect against penile candidiasis. Incidentally, candidiasis is simply a yeast infection. The STD study that is routinely trotted out is the Fergusson study which followed only a mere 510 individuals. It was published before the Australian study and the results from the Fergusson study were essentially retracted since they couldn't be reckoned with the much larger Australian results.
HIV? Nope not really. What about those sensational headlines? Have you ever heard the saying, “The big print giveth, the small print taketh away.”? The thing is this 60% figure that keeps getting thrown around represents the relative risk reduction not the absolute risk reduction. The authors, press, and funders throw that around for one simple reason, it look far more impressive. For example in one of the studies the figures were 22 (1.5%) 47 (3.2%) over about 1400 which leads to a absolute risk reduction of less than 2%, and that was the high mark. Project that optimistic projection into the west and we are likely talking about tenths, perhaps even hundredths of a percent difference. This is quite possibly why simple observational studies failed to show any real correlation, even in Africa the data was all over the board.
There are actually several problems in Africa. In particular in most countries concurrent relationships are very common. Wife, girlfriend, girlfriend2, ect. And it's not just one way either the Wife and girlfriends often have a few on the side who are visited and rotated through perhaps every few weeks or so. Read the Invisible Cure Africa, The West, and The Fight Against AIDS by Helen Estein for more details. This is in contrast to most other societies where fairly long term serial monogamy is the norm. This means that impact in a western country would proabably be even less than the 1 or 2 orders of mangnitude I estimate in the previous paragraph.
Thing is though that while it is relatively, and by that mean once in a blue moon, common that condoms are used for encounters with prostitutes it is not at all common between those in the concurrent network. This is in part why HIV spreads so rapidly through Africa. And why western organizations (in July 2007) such as the Australian Federation of AIDS Organizations publish statements such as this:
For those who don’t want to click through some quotes include:
“Male circumcision has no role in the Australian HIV epidemic”
“African data on circumcision is context-specific and cannot be extrapolated to the Australian epidemic in any way.”
Oh and this one is my favorite:
“The USA has a growing heterosexual epidemic and very high rates of circumcision”
So the US, with a adult circumcision rate of perhaps 85%, has the highest prevalence in the first world; but whose counting? Most European countries, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand (where circumcision is unheard of) have rates 1/3 to 1/6 the US. The Netherlands for example, even with all that prostitution, the last time I checked had a rate of 0.2%. The whole issue really boils down to this:
A. You don't need a circumcision, but you need to always wear a condom and you ought to be choosy about your sex partners.
B. You can get a circumcision but you need to always wear a condom and you ought to be choosy about your sex partners.
The dominant factor in these options is a condom followed distantly by being choosy about your sex partners. Along side condoms and selectivity, circumcision is irrelevant. To consider circumcision is to consider a situation where you might try and forgo the condom for whatever reason and presume that since your circumcised it's fine. It shows that the neither the man nor the woman are thinking too hard. In a low HIV prevalence population this is a bad idea, in a pandemic zone this is suicidal. But those who think their circumcisions will protect them, spin the barrel, pull the trigger you only have to be wrong once.
Circumcision is an interesting thing like whack a mole people keep groping for some justification and the flimsy excuses that are put forth are usually quickly discredited or are so far down in the noise as to be essentially useless. If you've managed to read this far you should think twice about circumcising your future sons. I'll leave you with a link to Dr. Margaret Somerville the founding director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University, where she holds the Samuel Gale Chair in the Faculty of Law and is a professor in the Faculty of Medicine.
I'm so thanful my parents had me circumsized, but not because it prevents penile cancer. No, for me at least, it's for asthetic purposes. Quite honestly, I just think it looks better. In all seriousness though, parents should be allowed to choose whether their baby gets circumsized or not. A baby is not going to be able to weigh out the pros and cons of this situation, and it is the healthier choice in that it prevents a lot of diseases. Plus, it's a lot better to do it and get it out of the way, then wait ten years. Personally, as a completely coherent teenager, I would find this event utterly traumatizing.
Tristan Cogswell
yes, i believe that parents should have the right, for religious reasons. i don't know much about it besides cutting the foreskin or something like that.
Tiffany Fields 9:00
No parents should not be allowed to do this to their children unless it is for a clearly defined medical reason that cannot be handled in a less invasive way.
Circumcision is very rare in Europe yet for some reason they have lower rates of STDs including HIV. Circumcision prevents nothing there is nothing healthier about it. Readers should read Dr. Somerville's comments which started this thread. Even more interesting are her correspondences with the head of the Canadian Pediatrics Association explaining why infant male circumcision is technically aggravated criminal assault.
From her letter regarding infant male circumcision and elaborating on her analysis of it in her book, The Ethical Canary:
Second, I would like to explain my use—with which you appear to disagree—of the words criminal and unethical in relation to infant male circumcision. If you read the Ottawa Citizen article, you will see that I said that infant male circumcision undertaken for non-medical reasons was “technically criminal assault”. This is correct. All wounding of one person by another person is prima facie criminal assault (indeed, aggravated criminal assault), but it can become justified—that is, not illegal, not a crime—on certain conditions. The most common and important situation in which wounding is not a criminal assault, is when it is indicated as medically required surgery and it is undertaken with the informed consent of the person on whom it is carried out or, if this person is incompetent, of their legal representative (in the case of children, the parents). The difficulty with infant male circumcision is that when it is not medically indicated—the Canadian Paediatric Society, for instance, has stated it is not medically indicated as a routine procedure—medical justification is not present and, although adults can consent to have a non-therapeutic intervention carried out on themselves provided the intervention is not considered to be contrary to public policy, in general, they may not consent to having such interventions carried out on their children.
I dont think theres anything wrong with having your baby circumsized. From my knowledge, if you dont have you child circumsized then it is easy for it to become infected. That's pretty sick, it needs to be taken care of as soon as possible.
--Jill Reinhart (noon)
Post a Comment