Essay On Male Circumcision

Many are unaware of the origin and reality of male circumcision and are under the impression that it is a painless and necessary procedure. While providing an explanation of a routine circumcision, being performed on an infant, Dr. Paul M. Fleiss reveals the gruesome truth that “…his foreskin must be torn from his glans, literally skinning it alive.” Most people do not imagine this is the way that a circumcision is performed, nor are they are aware of how the procedure originated. Male circumcision began in the US during the Victorian Era, as a punishment for masturbation, since the practice desensitizes the penis. As time and society progress, more medically relevant reasons are provided for this unnecessary, and barbaric surgery. The routine circumcision of infants should be discontinued, considering the possible health benefits have been greatly exaggerated and do not warrant abolishing a male’s right to control his own body. A lack of education coupled

with perceived social pressures and advice from doctors, that stand to gain monetarily, have led to countless baby boys being circumcised, without medical need.
Routine infant circumcision violates basic human rights, which every person is entitled to. The United Nations themselves have addressed concerns with the procedure citing that “under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” (Italics) the following rights are held by all human beings; the right of “security of the person,” “freedom from inhuman, cruel, or degrading treatment,” and the right of “children to receive special protection” (qtd. by Milos & Macris). Surely the right to security of the person covers the right to keep their most private of parts intact. Furthermore, while some would dispute that a circumcision is neither cruel, inhuman, or degrading, that should be decided by the patient themselves. Some still argue that infants do not feel the pain of circumcision, and that some even sleep through it. In reality, Milos and Macris explain, it has been proven that infants do feel pain, at an even higher intensity than adults; and in fact the babies that appear to be sleeping have submitted to shock and have entered a “semi-comatose state.” Milo and Macris go on to point out that “the pain will intensify every time he urinates, defecates, has his diaper changed, or is held too tightly during the 10 days to two weeks it takes for the wound to heal.” As these infants are too young to speak up for themselves, much less provide consent for this unnecessary surgery, their rights should be protected, and not forfeited to the parents, as is currently the case. As Fleiss clarifies parents are allowed to grant permission for “medical interventions in situations of clear and immediate medical necessity only,” including “disease, trauma, or deformity.” “The human penis in its normal, uncircumcised state satisfies none of these requirements.” However, a large number of circumcision proponents have argued that circumcising an infant is comparable to vaccinating them against diseases, a choice that is left to the parents.

This is an irrational argument, as most vaccines protect against horrible diseases that have killed hundreds of thousands of people, and for which there are no other preventative measures. This is not the case with the diseases that circumcision is said to assist in preventing. Consequently, parents choosing to circumcise their child, are robbing him of his fundamental rights as a human being.

Routine infant circumcision is often thought of as prophylactic, and is said to be able to prevent a whole host of problems from poor hygiene to diseases, but these claims have been made without adequate evidence. Furthermore, these claims ignore the various protective functions the foreskin has in its intact state, which are removed when it is amputated. The foreskin acts much like the lips and eyelids, protecting the interior, more sensitive parts from being exposed to outside contaminants. Fleiss confirms, “just as the eyelids protect the eyes, the foreskin protects the glans and keeps its

surface soft, moist, and sensitive. It also maintains warmth, pH balance, and cleanliness.” Without the foreskin not only are the glans exposed to urine, feces and chemically treated diapers, but the antibodies that are normally secreted by the cells within the foreskin’s mucosal lining are missing. Further compacting this issue is the fact that there is now an open wound to contend with, which is susceptible to further infection. Interestingly, most parents worry more about basic hygiene of an intact penis, than the circumcision wound, which would be far more difficult to keep clean. Hygiene is no more an issue for an intact male than it would be for one who has been circumcised. Until the child’s foreskin retracts on its own, typically sometime between the age of five and reaching puberty, there is nothing more required than to rinse it with warm soap and water, as you would a finger. After the foreskin has retracted the child can be taught to retract the foreskin, rinse it with warm water, and replace it, which takes no more than a few seconds. Some parents are concerned that their children will develop smegma under the foreskin, but this concern can be easily addressed. The fact is that they will develop smegma, as all men and women do, and that this is a critical body function. As Fleiss points out, “its (smegma) antibacterial and antiviral properties keep the penis clean and healthy.” In addition to hygiene one of the chief concerns of parents are the diseases they have heard their child will be more suseptable to if left intact, yet these claims have been found to be greatly exaggerated. The most prevalent headlines calling for circumcision at this time claim that it can prevent AIDS. In actuality, the medical claim is that it may lower the risk of heterosexual males contracting HIV from infected partners. Nevertheless, the disease is not caused by having an intact foreskin, nor will removing it prevent the disease. Fleiss provides an interesting persepective on the notion that circumcision would prevent sexually transmitted diseases, “… the US has both the highest percentage of sexually active circumcised males in the Western World and the highest rates of sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS.” As with all of the diseases circumcision is tasked with protecting against, including cervical and penile cancer, it is significantly more important to lower the exposure rate by practicing safe sex methods. Furthermore, it must be taken into account that circumcision is not without danger, as Milos and Macris assert “circumcision, like all surgery, has inherent risks, which include hemorrhage, infection, mutilation, and death.” These complications are obvious and typically happen within the first few days of life, but there are other effects to consider as well. As Fleiss points out, scientific studies have consistently shown that the trauma and pain of circumcision can disrupt sleep and feeding patterns, in newborns. “In response to the lengthy bombardment of their neural pathways with unbearable pain,” the infants typically withdraw from their parents and desire only to sleep. This “semicoma” state can last for days or even weeks, which can be detrimental to feeding, especially if the mother desires to nurse her baby. Considering the tremendous risks, promoting proper hygiene and safe sex methods would be far more reasonable for preventing diseases and far less damaging than amputating a healthy and vital body part.
Often parents do not complete substantial research before agreeing to circumcise their sons, but rather trust the advice of their physicians, as well as family and friends. Often family and friends will offer their opinion, citing outdated notions of circumcision being necessary for hygienic or medical reasons. Others see circumcision as a tradition, and believe leaving a child intact would mean excluding him. Parents who have chosen circumcision in the past often declare that the son should look like his father, without considering the ridiculousness of this notion. Allowing for an elective surgery to have your child look like someone else can physically and emotionally damaging. If the child becomes curious later, a simple explanation of why the parents found it unnecessary to circumcise him would suffice, and provide a teachable moment regarding differences. When parents are bombarded with misinformation and the unwanted pressure of family and friends it can be difficult to perceive any other option. Parents often assume if their family and friends circumcised their children, most of the world must do the same. This often leads parents to worry that if left intact, their child would be an outcast, ridiculed in the locker room or later in their dating life. However, the majority of infants being born US today are uncircumcised, as Fleiss shares the current “neonatal circumcision rate in the western US has now fallen to 34.2 percent.” Outside of the social pressures, many parents look to their physicians for advice on whether or not their child should be circumcised, without considering how the doctor may benefit from performing the procedure. As unpleasant as the thought may be, doctors have a bottom line to consider and circumcisions, the most frequently performed routine surgery in the US, are big business. Milos and Macris share just how profitable this business can be, revealing that “physicians personally collect $230 million” per year to perform the procedure and the hospitals collect an additional “$250-500 million” more for supplies and the extended stays circumcised infants require. It is vital that parents seek out quality information, regarding circumcision, and not rely on the advice of others who are not well educated on the subject, or who could stand to benefit from their decision.
Birth should be a glorious celebration and made as gently a transition for the infant as possible; interrupting this with an unnecessary, painful, and terrifying procedure is cruel and should never be allowed. Amputating a healthy body part at birth in the hopes of preventing diseases, which could easily be prevented using safe sex measures is preposterous. Even more absurd is the notion that it is acceptable to forgo a child’s basic human rights in an attempt to make his appear more like his father or peers. This is why the practice of routinely circumcising infant boys should cease, and no other baby should be forced to suffer such barbaric mutilation.