Circumcision Debate Continues

This article is prompted by a reader's comments on my article about the Ten Commandments against circumcision which can be read here

In that article I argued against circumcising the male infant because the penis is immature and parents do not have the right to remove their infant's body parts without the child's informed consent. The reader's comments can be read in detail at the above site.

My response is as follows:

I appreciate readers reading and commenting on my articles. I usually try to respond within one week but due to work pressures I am not able to do that all the time. I wish to thank readers for reading and commenting on my articles even when we do not agree or see the problem similarly. I feel honoured and privileged that many readers read and comment on my articles. Many student nurses, patients and carers have read and commented on my articles because they have a genuine interest in the matter.

My feelings are in agreement with the readers initial assessment i.e. circumcision should be the choice of her son when he becomes an adult. UTIs are rare in boys and men. The readers experience and her son's experience cannot e justifiably used as grounds for circumcising the all male infants of the world. The reader's son is more and exception rather than a true representative sample. Millions of circumcisions have been done and they do not show any benefit. Billions of males are not circumcised and they do not suffer from frequent UTIs. Circumcision is not the answer to preventing the reader's son's UTIs. The reader's son needs specific medical care. A mother should play mother and not play doctor.

Research by independent bodies like the World Health Organization has shown that infections are not prevented by circumcisions. In reader's son's case the infections could be due to a host of other reasons. I do not know the reader or her son. I am not a doctor and I would suggest that the individual seeks medical advices rather that consider circumcising the world's male infants so that they do not get UTIs. I will be publishing an article on preventing UTIs soon. For the time being readers may wish to look at my article which I have just published about Recurrent UTIs in women which can be read here

The male penis does not need to be cleaned after voiding each and every time. Urine is sterile. Men normally shake off the last drop and whatever is left gets "dried off" with the under wear. Aiming for 100 % sterility is highly undesirable. The normal flora should be allowed to grow and thrive. The normal flora is a better defence than a bacteria free skin. It is nature's way of protecting the highly specialized tissues. Remember we have E. coli in our rectum and they have important functions.

Circumcision causes keratinisation and diminished sensitivity of the glans penis. How would readers feel if their parents circumcised them because the preacher said it was the best thing. How would you feel if your grown up son disliked circumcision and blamed you for the keratinized glans, lack of sexual pleasure etc.

Keratinisied glans penis reduces erotic sexual satisfaction.

In infants a doctor cannot diagnose phimosis by just looking at the immature penis. In the immature penis the foreskin protrudes forward because the penis is going to grow. I do not have any difficulty if a child is circumcised because he has phimosis. It is a medical condition in which circumcision is indicated. I disagree with circumcising all boys because some preachers say so. I agree with circumcising infants and adults who have phimosis. This is an abnormal medical condition for which the standard treatment is circumcision.

The following are one reader's comments, "The issue of male babies experiencing medical problems from the procedure isn't an issue of the procedure but an issue of culpability of the medical staff. Using tools on an infant's head to assist in a difficult birth sounds painful to me as well". I strongly disagree with your assertion that the Medical "staff are culpable." You cannot hold medical staff responsible when you ask them to perform a procedure which is not medically indicated. There is a flaw in your argument.

"Using tools on an infant's head to assist in a difficult birth sounds painful too". This is a different situation. Here the use of the tools is indicated because it is a difficult situation. If you read carefully, between the lines, you have given the answer yourself. Thank You.

"The decision for Canada to stop performing circumcisions had more to do with the fear of malpractice suits". Yes this is a legitimate fear. Why should the parents of a child have the right to decide how he can have sex or which part of his body can be removed. This argument would allow parents to remove a child's thumb if they did not like the look of it. I agree that this is not an identical situation.

As a matter of fact I am Canadian and am familiar with Canadian rules and regulations. They are amongst the fairest in the world. You may not want to live in many countries of the world where the individual does not have any say or choice in many matters.

I do not agree with the insurance companies. I do not feel circumcision is a cosmetic procedure. My position is that it is more extreme. It is “genital mutilation”. Parents, Preachers, churches, religious institutions, and doctors who perform circumcisions should be accountable in courts of law.

The reader's concluding sentence, "I have no doubt that if a search was done through insurance archives one could find an article extolling the virtues and the medical necessity of the procedure". I have not come to my conclusions by reading one article which had a slant against circumcisions. My views are based on extensive research, balanced reading, work experiences which extend four continents over a period of thirty years. It is still continuing.