58

My wife and I will be having a son in about a month and we are still deciding if we should have him circumcised.

There does not seem to be a strong medical opinion on the matter but we are concerned about potential social issues associated with him being different than the other boys.

Can anyone suggest resources that might help us better understand the pros and cons of circumcision?

Thank you.

DQdlM
  • 1,707
  • 2
  • 16
  • 26
  • 12
    I don't have anything constructive to add beyond the answers below, but I felt I should add another bit of anecdotal evidence that being "different" as an uncircumcised male wasn't an issue. I was dealing with the school locker rooms in a suburban area as a child, and starting to date in a much more rural and conservative area - it hardly came up, and when it did it was mostly just a mild curiosity. I'm a definite vote in the don't do it category. – Saiboogu May 13 '11 at 13:59
  • 3
    I thought parents don't have their sons circumcised in US anymore (at least some medical book I read about 15 years ago stated that 'circumcise-by-default' was an outdated practice). I'm not circumcised and I like that. – Andrei Андрей Листочкин May 13 '11 at 14:44
  • 5
    @Andrew It still happens a lot, but you are correct in that the 'circumcise-by-default' mentality is outdated. The AAP recommends that parents evaluate unbiased information on the subject and decide what is best for the child. While they recognize that there are studies indicating potential medical benefit, those benefits are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.

    http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;103/3/686

     –  May 13 '11 at 15:54
  • 12
    FWIW, I am circumcised and had my son circumcised as well, mainly out of a sense of tradition and a fear of answering the "why am I not like Daddy" questions. There may have also been an element of "If my father had it done on me, and I don't have it done on my son, I'm calling my father a bad father." In retrospect, I wish I had not circumcised my son. There's not really any GREAT reason to do it, and when in doubt, go with not cutting off part of your (or your son's) body – Kevin May 13 '11 at 19:06
  • 3
    My older brother was a victim of the 'circumcise by default' era (1960's). My mother had a c-section with him, and the pediatrician on hand asked my mother if she was Catholic. She replied, "No.". They took my brother out of the room and when they brought him back, he'd been cut. My father (who WAS Catholic) was FURIOUS - as was his side of the family (all staunch Roman Catholics). She never signed paperwork authorizing the snip, nor was she asked if she'd like him snipped. – Darwy May 15 '11 at 15:53
  • 22
    I had a medical circumcision at ten. It hurts like bloody for a week every time you pee. No cream in the world will help. Circumcising your child is child abuse, fully on par with spanking your child everytime you change his diapers for a week. Sorry for stating it that strongly, but there is no way I can state it less strongly without being inaccurate. Don't do it. Full stop. – Lennart Regebro May 15 '11 at 19:14
  • @lennart rather than comments I expanded my position into an answer below. – Jeff Atwood Jun 13 '11 at 03:02
  • 1
    If anyone can point to studies with publicly available data, that would be of interest. Many medical journals have disappointing statistical acumen, and I'd prefer to analyze the data myself. – Iterator Aug 02 '11 at 02:42
  • 2
    I'm not going to try and convince those who think it's wrong to circumsice their son, because no matter what I'd say, you'd still refuse to do it. Fine. But let's be clear about something. Yes, the baby goes through a lot of pain, but it's relatively brief. And for those who try and say that it 'permanently scars' your baby, I don't see any evidence that it actually does. Spanking your kid is something you can do on a regular basis to intimidate your kid. Giving your son a circumcision is a one time thing. – Barry Hammer Jan 31 '12 at 12:54
  • @LennartRegebro: You say it's child abuse, but isn't it better to have the circumcision as a baby and not remember the pain than to have it later and live with the trauma for the rest of your life? So wouldn't it then be child abuse to avoid circumcising a baby boy? –  Mar 16 '12 at 20:20
  • 8
    @BarryHammer Actually, it absolutely does "permanently scar" the baby. I still have scars. As in, actual, physical scar tissue. And it is hardly a one-time thing, since that child will forever after be circumcised, as it can't be undone. –  Jan 17 '13 at 21:10
  • 1
    Related: Are there any health benefits to male circumcision? at Health SE – kenorb Apr 24 '15 at 01:54
  • 1
    @BarryHammer All circumcised men have a scar. And saying it's a "one time thing" isn't a valid reason - of course it's a one time thing, once you remove it, you can't remove it again! – pacoverflow Oct 29 '16 at 00:36
  • 2
    @SteveTaylor It's highly unlikely he would need a circumcision later in life if he didn't have it done as a baby. Also, I don't buy the "won't remember the pain" argument - otherwise a rapist could argue it's OK to use rohypnol since the woman won't remember it. – pacoverflow Oct 29 '16 at 00:44

7 Answers7

59

This was a difficult decision for us, as well.

I was convinced that circumcision was the wrong choice for us (despite my upbringing teaching me that all boys should be circumcised), but my wife was hesitant, for exactly the same reason you cited.

I did some research, and we were surprised to find that circumcision rates were much lower than we had expected. In our area, the doctors we asked said that it was roughly 50% of the male babies. It turns out that this is not too far from the national average in the US.

We came up with a list of pros and cons for circumcision, and eventually decided to not have our son circumcised. Here is the list that we came up with:

For circumcision:

  • Less chance of a feeling of being "different" (while not much of a margin, it is still true that most men in our area are circumcised).
  • Easier hygiene. By all accounts, the extra effort required to maintain an uncircumcised penis versus a circumcised is minimal, and amounts to only a few extra seconds of effort a day (and no extra effort prior to the foreskin being naturally retractable).
  • Won't have to explain why he "looks different than daddy", should that ever come up (I am, to my regret, circumcised).
  • Religion. Some religions require that all males be circumcised. Personally, I had no problem putting aside my religious heritage when it came to this matter.
  • Some studies indicate that there is a reduced risk of catching the HIV virus for circumcised men. This was another point that my wife considered as a strong argument in favor at first, but eventually we decided that we would rather our son learn to have safe sex, instead of relying upon a slightly lessened risk for HIV from unprotected sex.

Against circumcision:

  • Despite the claims, circumcision is painful, stressful, and traumatic to an infant. Even the best methods of anesthesia are only partially effective.

  • Once done, it cannot be undone.

  • There is a risk of infection and other complications.

  • Poorly performed circumcisions can leave scarring.

  • Religion. Some religions are opposed to circumcision.

In the end, we decided to leave him uncircumcised, with the understanding that if he decides he does want to be circumcised, he can always opt for the procedure later.

  • 2
    +1 for a thorough treatment of concerns on both sides. In our case, I was against circumcision and my husband for it: in the end, I relented because we lived at the time in an area with near-100% circumcision rates, and rife with religious violence. My husband felt that he'd lived fine with circumcision, and that lack thereof was a more visible sign (say in school locker rooms) of difference than (theoretically concealable) religious beliefs. Were we living elsewhere, we may have made a different choice. – HedgeMage May 13 '11 at 02:19
  • 4
    +1. My wife and I made similar analysis and decided to circumcise our son(s) -- for her, the possible health benefits were paramount. I think that it's important to discount the hysterics on either side that state that circumcising (or not) will ruin your child's life. – JSBձոգչ May 13 '11 at 13:13
  • @Beofett thanks for your answer - that is a similar list to what we have come up with and it is good to hear other's experiences – DQdlM May 13 '11 at 15:12
  • 2
    @JSBangs: Were you really worried about your baby getting AIDS before they're old enough to make the decision for themselves? :p – Brendan Long May 23 '11 at 03:41
  • 4
    The "less chance of feeling different argument" should be in both columns: as the rate approaches 50%, a circumcised kid is as different from his mates as an uncircumcised one. – luispedro May 29 '11 at 17:25
  • 10
    One thing I've never understood - if you are 'to your regret, circumcised' why on earth would you consider it for your son? – Darwy Jun 04 '11 at 23:16
  • 1
    @Darwy The consideration was all on my wife's part. I was firmly opposed to it, but I didn't want to approach it as "no, I forbid it". I thought it was more reasonable to perform an honest evaluation in the hopes that I could convince her fairly to see things my way. –  Jun 05 '11 at 01:22
  • 13
    Easier hygiene is not a valid reason. You ignore an intact foreskin, with instructions to the boy after his foreskin is retractable to occasionally wash with only water. It takes less effort than brushing one's teeth or wiping one's bottom! – Ready To Learn Jun 12 '11 at 18:39
  • @Ready To Learn - The fact that it does, as you freely acknowledge, require some amount of extra effort does make it a valid thing to consider. For parents who have no experience with what is involved in an uncircumcised penis, it is absolutely worthwhile to investigate what is required, even if it is, relatively speaking, a minimal effort. All-in-all, I weigh it to be just as important a consideration as any of the other "for" reasons I listed (which means not very important at all, from my personal perspective). –  Jun 12 '11 at 19:09
  • 14
    I understand where you're coming from but I still think it's a non-argument. If someone was considering whether to remove his daughter's labia, would "it's easier hygiene" have any weight at all, even if true? Parents do need proper foreskin hygiene education because our culture is so ignorant in this area, but that is separate from reasons for and against circumcision. – Ready To Learn Jun 12 '11 at 19:23
  • 1
    @Ready To Learn - So, going with your removal of labia scenario, hygiene wouldn't be a valid reason, but "so she looked like the other girls" and "so she looked like mommy" would be valid? Again, easier hygiene is just as valid as "so he looks like other kids/daddy", and if those particular reasons aren't sufficient justification to go with circumcision for you, fine, that's your choice (and I happen to agree with you). However, this list is not tailored to you, but rather a general list of what uncertain parents might want to consider. –  Jun 12 '11 at 22:46
  • 3
    I guess that's fair enough. I see what you mean. I guess the problem I'm having is that listing those things (hygiene, conformance) as reasons seems so improper given people don't seem to be able to put them in perspective with what that supposed benefit actually costs. I guess hygiene is a reason to circumcise. But it's just as weak an argument as "I'm going to knock out all my kid's teeth so he won't ever have to go to the dentist." Somehow, listing it seems improper. – Ready To Learn Jun 12 '11 at 22:54
  • @Ready - I'd rather people look at the individual reasons and weigh the pros vs. the cons, however balanced or imbalanced, instead of just blindly making a decision without putting thought into it. However, I have edited my answer to expand on the hygiene topic a bit, as well as to add in religious concerns that might be relevant. –  Jun 12 '11 at 23:19
  • That's exactly what I would like, people making a decision based on true understanding, not just blindly! – Ready To Learn Jun 13 '11 at 02:45
  • 2
    +1 - I have two boys that we decided not to circumcise for exactly the same reasons. All the healthcare professionals we have talked to have applauded this decision as well. – JNK Jan 17 '13 at 21:32
  • This being the highest voted answer and enumerating pros and cons, it would be of great benefit for it to also mention that the procedure amputates a very significant portion of the erogenous nerve endings as well as a part of the erectile reflex, and leaves the glans permanently exposed, leading to gradual desensitization of what was normally delicate mucosal tissue. As a victim of this procedure I have personally experienced sexual issues because of it, and feel quite violated for having been denied informed consent. – Deep Thought Aug 30 '20 at 07:08
  • OK why is there the point :"Won't have to explain why he "looks different than daddy", should that ever come up (I am, to my regret, circumcised)." I don't think this question would(should maybe) ever come up when the child has the intellect to think this. – napstablook Jul 22 '21 at 09:45
58

I personally saw no benefit to circumcising my son.

My reasoning:

Being Different

There's three schools of reasoning often used here. 1: "The son should look like the father." and 2: "Locker room teasing" and 3: girls don't like a guy with a foreskin

  1. The son isn't going to resemble the father (size wise, hair wise, etc) until he's 15+ and at that point, are they really going to care?

  2. Locker room teasing - all you have to say is, "Dude, stop staring at my junk" out loud towards the person and I guarantee the interest will rapidly disappear.

  3. Girls and foreskins: As a female I can say that the presence (or absence) of a foreskin wasn't a priority for me. It was more a question of the proper usage and how long. My personal opinion: if there's a girl out there that doesn't want to be intimate with my son because he has a foreskin, then he didn't need to be having sex with her anyway.

Hygiene

Having a foreskin isn't difficult to keep clean. A stroke back, wash around the head and rinse. Done. You'll spend more time trying to teach him to dry between his toes thoroughly than you will worrying about smegma. My son is 3 and already knows that that portion of his anatomy is fun to play with in his bath.

Until the foreskin retracts on its own, you don't have to do anything to it - it won't be 'dirty' since it's attached to the head of the penis in the manner your fingernail is attached to your finger. It's fused.

When it does retract on its own (anywhere between the ages of 2-10), then it needs to be cleaned daily in the shower (or bath).

STD's: HIV, HPV

The studies linking circumcision and HIV infection are flawed in a number of ways. I would prefer to teach my son to be responsible and use barrier birth control (condoms) rather than rely on a medical procedure and a false sense of security.

HPV has been likened to a 'sexual cold' due to its prevalence. Again - with the proper use of condoms the presence (or absence) of a foreskin is irrelevant. Certainly HPV can be transmitted on areas which the condom doesn't cover (base of the shaft, scrotum, etc) but then - again - the presence or absence of a foreskin is irrelevant.

Penile cancer

Recent research is also discovering HPV's role in penile cancer.

Penile Cancer rates Dk, Frish, et al.

A Danish Study determined that the falling rate of penile cancers in Denmark could not be a result of the circumcision rate. In fact, the penile cancer rates of Denmark (where 1.5% of the population is circumcised) are similar to rates in the US, where the circumcision rate is MUCH higher.

Circumcision is a surgery and therefore carries real risks: blood loss, scarring, disfigurement and/or amputations have occurred.

Consent: an infant can't possibly consent to a surgical procedure such as this. Once it's gone - it's gone (there exists methods for foreskin restoration, but the damage is done). I wouldn't pierce my daughter's ears until she was old enough to ask for them (and understand the ramifications of having pierced ears - cleaning, etc), and I wouldn't cut my son. If when he's 15+ and he wants to be circumcised, then I will arrange to have it done for him. He'll be old enough to understand what he's doing to his body and how it'll affect it - and it'll have been HIS choice.

I know you asked for the benefits of circumcision, but in my opinion there aren't any. Assuming no disfiguration of the foreskin/urethra, circumcision shouldn't be necessary.

Community
  • 1
Darwy
  • 3,502
  • 18
  • 13
  • 11
    I am British, and have a foreskin, most of us do. In America, where I spent a good 3 years in the 80's, I found women were curious about my penis, and not in a bad way. I'd always suggest surgery was avoided, if not necessary. I personally wouldn't subject my child to non necessary cosmetic invasive surgery. There are always risks in surgery as Darwy has outlined. I just don't get why people do this to their kids anymore... – Hairy May 13 '11 at 10:00
  • 2
    In America its more normal to be circumcised, I am but did not do it to either of my sons as I would rather something like that be their choice. Though who knows if they will decide. – MichaelF May 13 '11 at 12:02
  • 14
    I'd disagree that it's more 'normal'. The act of cutting off a perfectly good piece of skin isn't 'normal' by any means. Is it done often? Yes. Is it normal? That's another question entirely. – Darwy May 13 '11 at 12:09
  • 5
    Normal means common, not rational, so technically it is normal in the US. Although it is just as normal to not do it in the US (despite popular perception): about 44% intact vs. 56% cut in 2006, with a marked trend towards fewer circumcisions overall. However, I agree with you 110% that there aren't really any good reasons to cut. Unfortunately, in the US the medical community strongly advocated for it in the 70's, despite poor research which has since been discredited. –  May 13 '11 at 12:34
  • @Darwny thanks for your input - in particular the info from the Danish study and the hygiene info. – DQdlM May 13 '11 at 15:16
  • 5
    @Darwy I wish you were my mother. I'm 15, and my parents circumcised me. I would've preferred it MUCH more if I was consciously involved in such an irreversible decision related to my body. – Chris Mar 22 '13 at 08:47
  • Semantics aside, the normality argument might mean something (very little IMHO) if 90pct of boys were cut, but with 50-50 it's clearly baseless. – Ivana Nov 06 '19 at 15:58
27

Circumcision removes a huge portion of the most sensitive erogenous skin a boy has. What possible reason could one have for doing that unless for religion? (As far as I know this means Jews and Muslims only, and, specifically, not Christians.)

The arguments about hygiene are flat wrong. The foreskin, even after the synechiae attaching it to the glans have all released, houses what is more an internal organ than an external one, just like in a female. Use of soap on the glans or foreskin, just like its use inside a female's outer genitals, is more likely to cause an infection than anything else. Urine is sterile, and just like in a female, helps wash out the foreskin. Any other washing should be done with plain water.

Also, an intact foreskin may be attached and unretractable even up to age 18. If sexual activity is desired and it is still not fully retractable, some cream and gentle stretching will do the job. Forceful retracting is a source of pain and infections. Leave the penis alone, just like you leave a girl's genitals alone, and you will have fewer problems.

Frankly, the belief that circumcision has any material health benefits is just plain wrong.

Last, an intact foreskin provides a kind of mechanical lubrication that eliminates the need for artificial lubrication. Why would you destroy that? In my experience most circumcision proponents have NO CLUE how this actually works and thus can see no benefit to having a foreskin.

I find it sad that parents are cutting off an organ they do not understand the function of.

Ready To Learn
  • 1,982
  • 12
  • 16
  • 1
    Technically speaking circumcision is an Abrahamic covenant; therefore also performed in the Muslim faith. – Darwy Jun 12 '11 at 18:03
  • Technically most American Protestant-Christians (that is to say non-Catholics) still adhere to the Abrahamic covenants regarding circumcision as well. At least, through when my generation was born. – jcolebrand Jun 12 '11 at 19:02
  • @jco It's undeniable that most did so, but this hardly defines proper Christian behavior. When is following the tenets of a different religion proper for any religion? That is, formerly Judaism and adherence to the law was the precursor to Christianity and retrospectively proper; now, adherence to the Judaic law is anti-Christian and anti-Christ. Paul calls circumcision "mutilation" and argues strongly against it having any religious benefit to Christians (and some harm if done for religion). So if Christians do it it's not because of their religion. – Ready To Learn Jun 12 '11 at 19:13
  • @ReadyToLearn I was not aware of Paul's condemnation. I wish the original text of Paul's words were given on that page with a complete delineation of the derivation of the intent of the statement. Reading Gill's interpretation (which seems to me most accurate) it has nothing to do with circumcision. So, I still disagree with your sentiment. – jcolebrand Jun 12 '11 at 19:36
  • @ReadyToLearn I have long wondered why the Christian's adhered to an old covenant when they had a new covenant that they delineated as such. However, given that most Christians do not have an understanding of what "Testament" means, then I don't hold that they co-mingle the beliefs and external symbolism of their beliefs based on two different covenants. Additionally, living a Godly life by following the non-conflicting commandments does not, to me, contradict the commands given in the New Testament, the New Covenant. So again, you don't convince me that this is a BAD practice, (cont) – jcolebrand Jun 12 '11 at 19:38
  • (cont) you only convince me that it is not required by Christian teachings. However, lest we divert a discussion on circumcision to be one of faith and of the key underpinnings of the random citizen, let us not venture on to that conversation here and now. Suffice to say that we have two diverging opinions rooted in a central place, with two different understandings of "proper". – jcolebrand Jun 12 '11 at 19:38
  • @jcole do you have a preferred place where you discuss religious topics? I'd be happy to engage you on this, just not here in the comments on my answer. – Ready To Learn Jun 13 '11 at 02:47
  • 5
    There's a lot of opinion here with precious little scientific data backing it. While I'll be the first to admit that the circumcision data is at best mixed -- meaning neither pro or con are particularly strong -- to say that "Frankly, the belief that circumcision has any material health benefits is just plain wrong" is, ironically, wrong.. per The American Academy of Pediatrics "existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision" – Jeff Atwood Jun 13 '11 at 04:07
  • 3
    also per http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/clinical/clinicalrecs/guidelines/Circumcison.html "No valid evidence to date, however, supports the notion that being circumcised affects sexual sensation or satisfaction." – Jeff Atwood Jun 13 '11 at 04:12
  • Your tone sounds well informed. Can you add references to back up your statements? That would increase your credibility. – Torben Gundtofte-Bruun Jun 13 '11 at 05:36
  • @jeff, @tor I will endeavor to repair my answer by adding references. Please understand it may be the work of days or weeks. I will tag you again when ready for the next critique. :) – Ready To Learn Jun 13 '11 at 05:45
  • -1 this has no evidence and is also straying from the subject matter a lot - they're not asking how genetalia should be washed. – Tim Apr 13 '15 at 21:29
  • 1
    @Tim He was not asking directly but he needed to know, precisely because people will tell him that circumcision is needed in order to avoid infections. So I educate on the way to avoid those infections (not retracting, not using soap) and thereby take away a spurious reason for circumcision, thus addressing the societal gross ignorance of intact foreskin care, helping him navigate the "pros and cons" exactly as requested. – Ready To Learn Oct 08 '16 at 09:24
14

Absolutely not.

For females, anything "circumcision" is binned under female genital mutilation. In many countries FGM is banned.

As to the "benefits" (such as reduced STI/HIV transmission rates) I would suggest using condoms and carefully selecting sex parters instead.

You can watch this video to see the procedure (warning: shows entire medical procedure).

Adam Lear
  • 101
  • 6
bobobobo
  • 2,134
  • 2
  • 15
  • 21
  • I think your answer would be better if you can get your point across without resorting to the (assumed) shock factor of a video clip. I will not downvote the answer just because of the link, but it stops me from upvoting. (I haven't seen the clip but I guess it contains what you say.) – Torben Gundtofte-Bruun Jan 03 '12 at 07:44
  • 5
    @Torben the clip is a very important part of the answer. The majority of people have never seen a circumcision before, so they don't really know what's involved. – bobobobo Jan 04 '12 at 19:30
  • 1
    -1. So-called female circumcision is different than male circumcision simply because the parts are completely different. In male circumcision, the parts that give sexual pleasure are not removed. –  Mar 16 '12 at 20:29
  • 3
    @SteveTaylor Not totally removed, but some of them are removed. You should already know this. – bobobobo May 06 '12 at 18:24
  • 9
    @SteveTaylor Incorrect. Circumcision removes much of the ridged band (NSFW: penis picture). The band "contains more Meissner's corpuscles than does the smooth mucosa and exhibits features of specialized sensory mucosa. ... The amount of tissue loss estimated in the present study is more than most parents envisage from pre-operative counselling. Circumcision also ablates junctional mucosa that appears to be an important component of the overall sensory mechanism of the human penis." – Ready To Learn Jan 01 '13 at 19:24
  • @SteveTaylor I don't think female circumcision is a fair comparison. If you compare male and female genital mutilation as a whole, just about any form of FGM is banned, even the forms which are equivalent to male circumcision. – Hugo Jun 15 '17 at 08:36
  • 1
    @TorbenGundtofte-Bruun The video having shock factor is exactly why it's necessary. People don't realize how traumatic it is. I was on the fence/indifferent about the issue, until I watched a video with the original sound (not music to silence the screaming) – Alexander Jan 23 '18 at 21:09
13

I was once* invited to a friend's son's bris (Jewish ritual circumcision). I was already in the "why?" camp about circumcising my then-theoretical sons, but witnessing one put me firmly into the "no [expletive] way" camp. The mohel used a topical anesthetic, but that was still one very very unhappy baby. My elder son is now 6, has an entirely age-appropriate interest in comparative anatomy, and has never once asked why I look different, and if he did I'd tell him.

*Actually twice, but the second time we intentionally arrived after the main event.

ceo
  • 239
  • 1
  • 2
11

The only one reason to circumcise another male is on qualified medical advice

I believe that the only reason to circumcise is if a qualified doctor advises it and that the operation should be performed in a hospital/health centre by qualified professionals using proper techniques, sterile tools, anaesthetic and pain-relief medication for after care.

The religious or cultural belief of a parent or relative is no grounds for justification, in my opinion. Would you also get your son a tattoo? How about a tongue piercing?

Jeff Atwood
  • 4,084
  • 4
  • 25
  • 28
JBRWilkinson
  • 4,262
  • 1
  • 28
  • 35
  • If you'd like to present scientific data, fine, but posting explicit videos to make your point is not acceptable behavior. Anything prefaced by "warning: contains blood, nudity, and may be upsetting" simply isn't appropriate here. Let's stick to the science. Thanks! – Jeff Atwood Jun 16 '11 at 19:44
  • 1
    Point taken, but please post your comment at the same time as editing my post. – JBRWilkinson Jun 20 '11 at 14:06
  • 4
    @Atwood I personally cannot see how a parent being informed by watching an actual circumcision procedure would be somehow "not science". The fact is, we're discussing cutting off part of the penis, so a video of the penis in that procedure just makes sense, and is appropriate here (if discussing a medical procedure to penises is okay, but we can't see that medical procedure to decide as parents, then you're the bonkers one). I get that you don't want people to be swayed by emotional appeals because you take the side of circumcision (let me guess, you circumcised your son?). But chill out. – Ready To Learn Apr 06 '17 at 18:22
8

Since this has come up in the news again, I'd like to present evidence in favor of allowing the choice to circumcise or not.

First, I don't think anyone these days would advocate a blanket policy of "all male children should be circumcised", and I am certainly not. Overall I agree with the official position of the American Academy of Pediatrics:

Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child

I do not think the evidence is compelling in either direction, but I believe there are "enough" mild medical benefits to circumcision that I support it for my child, at least. But I would certainly not fault any other parents for deciding otherwise. It is hardly a life threatening or even important decision in the big scheme of things. At best it is minor, on the scale of the deciding to keep your appendix or pierce your ears.

The Wikipedia page Medical Analysis of Circumcision has tons of great citations. Specifically the ones I found compelling in my decisionmaking are:

Ewings and Bowie performed a case-control study of 159 cases of prostate cancer, and found a reduced rate among circumcised men (odds ratio 0.62). The authors noted: "...some statistically significant associations were found, although these can only be viewed as hypothesis generating in this context."

A 1988 New Zealand study of penile problems by Fergusson et al., in a birth cohort of more than 500 children from birth to 8 years of age found that by 8 years, circumcised children had a rate of 11.1 problems per 100 children, and uncircumcised children had a rate of 18.8 per 100. The majority of these problems were for penile inflammation including balanitis, meatitis, and inflammation of the prepuce.

Three studies that have found that boys with foreskins tend to have higher rates of various infections and inflammations of the penis than those who are circumcised:

  • Fakjian, N; S Hunter, GW Cole and J Miller (August 1990). "An argument for circumcision. Prevention of balanitis in the adult". Arch Dermatol 126 (8): 1046–7.
  • Herzog, LW; SR Alvarez (March 1986). "The frequency of foreskin problems in uncircumcised children". Am J Dis Child 140 (3): 254-6.
  • O’Farrel, Nigel; Maria Quigley and Paul Fox (August 2005). "Association between the intact foreskin and inferior standards of male genital hygiene behaviour: a cross-sectional study". International Journal of STD & AIDS 16 (8): 556-588.

Singh-Grewal (2005) performed a meta-analysis of 12 studies (one randomised controlled trial, four cohort studies, and seven case–control studies) looking at the effect of circumcision on the risk of urinary tract infection (UTI) in boys. Circumcision was associated with a reduced risk of UTI (OR = 0.13; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.20; p<0.001).

According to the American Medical Association, "There is little doubt that the uncircumcised infant is at higher risk for urinary tract infection (UTI)."

Researchers from the Imperial College School of Medicine, Chelsea & Westminster Hospital, London, England reported the results of their study of 357 patients referred for genital skin disease. Most cases of inflammatory dermatoses were diagnosed in uncircumcised men, suggesting that circumcision protects against inflammatory dermatoses.

On Wednesday, March 28, 2007, the World Health Organisation (WHO) and UNAIDS issued joint recommendations concerning male circumcision and HIV/AIDS.[159] These recommendations are: Male circumcision should now be recognized as an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention. Promoting male circumcision should be recognized as an additional, important strategy for the prevention of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men.

So for me, I want my child to have the best chance of not having these problems associated with foreskins, even if the incidences are quite rare.

Also, having this procedure completed at day 2 of your life when you won't remember it, and as a part of all the other crazy-ass things that happen when you're born (and obviously performed with anasthetic in any case) is preferable to the risk, however small, that you might need a medical circumcision later at an age where you will remember the procedure and the recovery.

Jeff Atwood
  • 4,084
  • 4
  • 25
  • 28
  • 11
    your answer is well cited and thorough, but I have to disagree with the final conclusion. Its an irreversible change to someone's body - who are we to force it upon our children for such incredibly minor benefit? Also, and this falls in the realm of opinion, but I can't imagine doing such a thing to an infant who can't grasp what is happening. At a later age it may not be comfortable, but the child/adult can make an informed decision based on benefits and deal with the discomfort like any other elective surgical procedure. – Saiboogu Jun 13 '11 at 13:50
  • 1
    I'm curious how many of those statistics reflect the results of inadequate hygiene. At least one of the cited references is specifically looking at the hygiene angle ("Association between the intact foreskin and inferior standards of male genital hygiene behaviour: a cross-sectional study"). –  Jun 13 '11 at 14:27
  • 3
    @sai it's irreversible like piercing of ears is irreversible.. it's a very minor cosmetic change to the human body for the benefits cited above. There are tons of "unnatural" things we do to our bodies in the name of medical science, so it just depends if you agree with the studies cited above about the benefits or not. IMHO it's really not a big deal either way. – Jeff Atwood Jun 13 '11 at 21:07
  • 8
    you call it a minor cosmetic change to the body, but the foreskin is nearly 15 square inches in the adult male - I wouldn't personally consider that a 'minor' cosmetic change. – Darwy Jun 27 '11 at 10:40
  • Thanks for the answer. Several of these sources appear to have fairly weak statistical acumen, unfortunately. Despite that, your final argument is well taken: I want my child to have the best chance of not having these problems associated with foreskins, *even* if the incidences are quite rare. (Emphasis added.) – Iterator Aug 02 '11 at 02:59
  • 8
    Those who make the argument that removing an organ results in fewer diseases to that organ (thus removal is beneficial) completely overlook the utter irony: the "health" benefits apply because the organ is gone, not because the organ is itself a risk. Did you know that if you remove your child's hands he will never burn them on the stove, either? There is a gigantic and unwarranted presupposition here: the foreskin is useless or even harmful, like an appendix--a prejudgment is made that its "ectomy" is acceptable. Only then does the "amputate" argument start to sound like sense. – Ready To Learn Jan 01 '13 at 19:27
  • @Darwy: "15 square inches"? On an infant, it's less than a square centimeter. – Daniel Jan 17 '13 at 17:08
  • 3
    I take issue with the fact that the answer states that it is "hardly life threatening", when in fact there were at least a dozen news stories spread all over social media of newborn boys in America who died as a direct result of the procedure. I don't know how many died in total, I'm sure some did not make the news, but I'd venture to guess at least a few dozen. – user24720 Oct 08 '16 at 03:23
  • @Daniel You didn't read very well. The amount of skin he's referring to is that found in the adult male who is intact. That one square centimeter (or whatever it is) grows into 15 square inches. – Ready To Learn Feb 09 '17 at 02:43
  • 5
    All this euphemistic talk about aesthetics, "cosmetic" surgery, potential medical benefits would apply to any number of mutilations that would not infringe functionality at all, such as cutting off earlobes, the right nipple in males, the foremost phalanx of the pinky on the non-dominant hand,... Be my guest thinking of other things to cut off. Almost all the potential medical benefits can be gotten with far less permanent tools or only apply once the person becomes sexually active, and are best left in the decision of the person you whose genitals you want to cut. – G. Bach Apr 06 '17 at 14:19
  • 1
    @ReadyToLearn Actually, even the appendix has a very important biological purpose. It acts as a reservoir for symbiotic microbes in the case that bowel contents are flushed or oral antibiotics are used. It's not vital, but even it has a useful function in maintaining a stable microbiome. – forest Apr 25 '19 at 08:01