12 years ago today, the US passed a law banning female genital mutilation, also known as female circumcision. To mark the anniversary, protesters marched in Washington DC to protest that male circumcision is still legal.
These activists call themselves "intactivists", and are pushing for an end to public funding for circumcision. So far, 16 states, including Washington State, have banned Medicaid funding for the purposes of circumcision. According to the International Coalition for Genital Integrity, state governments can save $1 million a year by cutting public funding for circumcision.
Circumcision is an increasingly controversial topic in the US. In 2006, 56% of male infants were circumcised in the US, meaning the foreskin is removed from the penis in an elective surgery, usually performed in the first 24 hours of life. This rate has been going down in the US. Outside the US, circumcision is not routinely practiced in any other Western industrialized country.
Circumcision is not a medically necessary procedure, and is usually performed because of religious reasons or out of family tradition. The American Academy of Pediatrics does not recommend the procedure, even taking into consideration potential health benefits. Recent research suggesting that circumcision helps protect against HIV has been contradicted by other research, adding to the confusion for parents making decisions about circumcision. For many parents, however, it is remains an important procedure.
The debate is highly charged, not surprising for a very intimate and personal issue. According to Brian J. Morris, a professor of molecular medical sciences in Australia, anti-circumcision activists "are just ignorant do-gooders with a misplaced sence of political correctness, who get sucked into these organizations by believing the rubbish posted on their websites." On the other side, Van Lewis, an "intactivist" told the Washington Post, "We're living in denial as a nation. Of what we've done to ourselves."
Ultimately, the decision on whether to circumcise a child is one parents must make with their doctors and families. It is just the beginning of many difficult choices parents will make over the course of their child's lifetime.
To read more:
Medicaid Defunding of Non-therapeutic Infant Circumcision
WebMD: Circumcision- Topic Overview
'Intactivists' cut to the chase about circumcision issue
Comments
According to the New York Times, male circumcision also helps reduce the incidence of HPV and herpes simplex. www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/health/27std.html
1) I'm tired of circumcised men trying to justify cutting parts off other people's bodies. Babies aren't going to be getting any STI's before they're old enough to decide for themselves whether or not they want part of their genitals cutting off. It's their body; it should be their decision.
2) These latest studies are from Africa. The Dickson study in New Zealand showed a slightly *higher* rate of STI's among circumcised men:
3) If we found out that cutting off part of a girl's genitals reduced her risk of contracting an STI, would that make it acceptable? The Stallings study in Tanzania showed exactly that.
If female circumcision had caught on in the USA (it was promoted in medical papers till at least 1959, and practised till the early 70's), and western researchers were now looking for benefits of female circumcision as enthusiastically as they are looking for benefits of male circumcision, we'd now be getting news articles about how female circumcision help prevent STI's. It wouldn't mean that there aren't better ways to prevent STI's, and it wouldn't make it right.
News just in today: A jury in Atlanta has awarded $1.8 million to a boy whose penis was severed in a botched circumcision five years ago. The Fulton County jury also awarded the boy's mother another $500,000.
There are nothing but liars promoting this crime!
The sooner this ancient perversion is done away with the better.
It's relevant to present pros and cons. It's huge leap to then say parents must make a decision.
It's HIS healthy body. Infants don't have sex. There's no emergency. It's the PENIS OWNER'S decision.
Darren: The study you quote is fraudulent.
The adult male circumcision rate in The US is 80% to 85% and the HPV infection rate is estimated at 70%. If circumcision had any protective effect at all, these numbers can not coexist. The vectors of transmission would be broken suficiently that the infection would be rare among Americans. The contradiction in the HIV studies is even greater. If circumcision had the protective effect claimed, HIV would be conspiciously absent from The US along the lines of polio or ebola.
.
A first New Zealand study found differences between of STI between circumcised and intact men a second much larger study found STI with the split 23.4% circ and 23.5% “uncircumcised”. If you look on the web the second big real study got little press. This Uganda study with the low % difference is all over the media. The 30% or whatever is from about 10% risk to about 8% risk. A recent US cohort study published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases showed only the total number of lifetime sexual partners affected the risk of new (incident) HPV infections and there was no difference in the risk of new (incident) HPV between circumcised and natural men.
In May of 2008 a medical survey showed Uncircumcised (natural) Fared Better as Circumcision appeared to have an effect on rates of genital warts:
* 4 ½% of circumcised men reported having genital warts
* 2.4% of uncircumcised men reported having genital warts-- again in the US.
How do they make such a big deal out of the Uganda Study? Don’t we have data that shows ripping and cutting baby genitals doesn't avoid new HPV infections! Doesn’t the mostly cut USA have quite a lot of HPV?
It is like wisdom teeth- the sooner it is taken care of the better. If it is medically necessary then I am all for it. One consideration is a less sensitive penis would result in a more pleasing encounter for your sexual partner- I think you know what I mean. Another consideration is many women find an uncut penis gross so you may have some convincing to do and some women find it REALLY gross. Everyone has their likes and dislikes. Finally, use a urologist to snip the penis for god's sake.
kissmygrits,
1. How is it ethical to alter one person's body to please another, future person's perceived sexual pleasure? Breast implants for girls to please her future partner uses the exact same faulty thought process.
What if the male finds a partner who prefers intact men? Those women exist, even in America, just like men exist who prefer smaller and/or natural breasts. It's always possible for him to have himself circumcised later. He can't undo what is done to him.
2. If it's clear that circumcision changes/reduces the male's sexual experience, who other than the male himself is qualified to decide what change/reduction is acceptable to him?
A number of Studies other than Africa are showing the same type of results. See below for a few examples.
————————————–
Kaiser Daily HIV/AIDS Report
Science & Medicine | Study Looks at Male Circumcision as HIV Prevention Among Black
Men in Baltimore
[Dec 19, 2008]
HIV risk appears to be lower among U.S. black men who have been circumcised (up to 51%) and
are considered at high risk of contracting the virus than among black men who have
not been circumcised, according to a study published on Wednesday in the Journal of
Infectious Diseases, Reuters reports. Two other studies in the journal also examine
the benefits of male circumcision to prevent the spread of disease and infection.
For one of the studies, CDC researcher Lee Warner and colleagues looked at black men
living in Baltimore and found that 10% of those who were at high risk of HIV and were
circumcised had the virus, compared with 22% of those who were not circumcised.
According to the report, “Circumcision was associated with substantially reduced
HIV risk in patients with known HIV exposure, suggesting that results of other
studies demonstrating reduced HIV risk for circumcision among heterosexual men
likely can be generalized to the U.S. context.”
————————————-
Circumcision protects against genital wart virus
Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:36pm
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - A study of nearly 1000 men in three countries has yielded
more evidence that circumcision helps protect against infection with human
papillomavirus.
“Interventions such as circumcision may provide a low-cost method to reduce human
papillomavirus infection,” Dr. Anna R. Giuliano, from the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer
Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida, and colleagues conclude in a report
in the International Journal of Cancer.
Using data from the Human papillomavirus In Men (HIM) study group, the investigators
determined factors associated with human papillomavirus infection in 988 men, ages
18 to 70 years, living in Brazil, Mexico or the United States.
Human papillomavirus infection was strongly related to sexual behavior and
circumcision, the investigators found.
These findings, they point out, mirror those of a previous study in a mixed ethnic
group of men from Tucson, Arizona, and are similar to what others have reported in
studies conducted in Spain, Columbia, Brazil, the Philippines, Thailand, Mexico and
Denmark, the team notes
A study from Australia showed protection for some gay males..
—————–
The Sydney Morning Herald
Circumcision ‘can protect gays from HIV’
September 29, 2008 - 11:27PM
Circumcision can help protect gay men from contracting the virus that causes HIV/AIDS,
researchers in Australia have found.
“We’ve shown for the first time that men who predominantly take on the insertive role in
sex are less likely to contract HIV if they’ve been circumcised,” David Templeton, from
the University of New South Wales, told an international gathering in Perth.
The Sydney-based researcher said his team studied 1,426 HIV-negative men, two-thirds of
whom were circumcised, and tracked their HIV infection over four years.
While circumcision did not reduce the HIV risk overall, the study found men who
predominantly took the insertive role had an 85-per-cent reduced risk of contracting HIV if
they were circumcised.
"Ultimately, the decision on whether to circumcise a child is one parents must make with their doctors and families."
Why must they? In most of the Western world, it's simply not offered. The rest of the English-speaking world tried it, found it did no good, and has virtually given it up. In New Zealand, you'll be hard-pressed to find a doctor who will agree to do it.
Darren, it's not enough to say that circumcision "helps to reduce" this or that disease. How much does it help? The medical measure is the Number Needed to Treat. The NNT for HSV-2 in the latest African study (where 38% of candidates were excluded because they had herpes already) is 40. For penile cancer it's over 1000. That's a lot of babies circumcised in vain.
Ron and Hugh7,
I wanted to reply to your question about why parents ultimately must decide on whether to circumcise their baby boys. Because the procedure is still so common in the US, any new parents of a baby boy will be asked what they want to do about circumcision. Because of this, parents will have to decide how to respond to the questions. To suggest that parents will not be asked these questions in most US hospitals isn't accurate. For that reason, I said parents must decide. Thus, deciding NOT to circumcise in the US is an active decision, and in fact, is the decision I would encourage, personally. In other countries, parents are not asked, and therefore they do not have to decide, but here, they will be expected to.
Infant male circumcision is NOT going to affect the HPV or HIV rates or any other sexual transmitted disease rates. They don't have sex & if when they are teens they were educated about sex & not just told to abstain from it, that would reduce the sexual transmission rates. EDUCATE NOT CUT!!!
His body is his private property. His private property is his right, not yours. Let him make the informed decision, not you.
Beware the likening of foreskins to WMDs!!!
The amount of tissue removed in typical Male Genital Mutilation (MGM) vs. typical Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is IRRELEVANT from a Human Rights perspective! Even the merest pin-prick that draws blood from a female's genitalia is illegal in the USA; whereas male circumcision continues unrestricted. That violates both Articles 19 and 29 of the United Nations' Convention on the Rights of the Child, viz., security of the person, and freedom from sexual (and other) discrimination: Boys must be protected equally under the law!
Not only that, but the so-called protective advantages of male circumcision (MGM) are preposterous because they are so slight and irrelevant compared to the regular use of condoms! Add that on top of the facts that common STDs can be treated with antibiotics, and that babies aren't going to be 'sleeping around' until they're much older---at which time they would also be able to make an informed medical decision about maintaining their genital integrity and sexual responsibility.
The USA has one of the highest HIV infection rates in the world, and the male population has been routinely circumcised for nearly 100 years, whereas Europe, where circumcision is extremely rare, has some of the lowest HIV transmission rates.
I hope that everyone, especially the original poster, checks their facts before recommending or promoting circumcision, generally.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!