We Need To Stop Circumcision

In the weeks ahead, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) are likely to publish a recommendation that all infant boys undergo circumcision. This is a huge mistake. Circumcision is an unnecessary procedure that is painful and can lead to complications, including death. No organization in the world currently recommends this. Why should we routinely remove normal, functioning tissue from the genitals of little boys within days of their birth?

The vast majority of the world's men, including most Europeans and Scandinavians, are uncircumcised. And before 1900, circumcision was virtually nonexistent in the United States as well--except for Jewish and Muslim people, who've been performing circumcisions for thousands of years for religious reasons. Believe it or not, circumcision was introduced in English-speaking countries in the late 1800s to control or prevent masturbation, similar to the way that female circumcision--the removal of the clitoris and labia--was promoted and continues to be advocated in some Muslim and African countries to control women's sexuality. [1]

Routine female circumcision, which has been practiced in some cultures, is completely unacceptable. Few people would argue otherwise. In fact, the United Nations has issued a decree against it. Circumcision is a form of sexual abuse whether it's done to girls or boys. We justify male infant circumcision by pretending that the babies don't feel it because they're too young and it will have no consequences when they are older. This is not true. Women who experience memories of abuse in childhood know how deeply and painfully early experiences leave their marks in the body. Why wouldn't the same thing apply to boys?

In medical school, I was taught that babies couldn't feel when they were born and therefore wouldn't feel their circumcision. Why was it, then, that when I strapped their little arms and legs down on the board (called a "circumstraint"), they were often perfectly calm; then when I started cutting their foreskin, they screamed loudly, with cries that broke my heart? For years, in some hospitals, surgery on infants has been carried out without anesthesia because of this misconception!

Medical Myths

From the 1980s through today, as the tide has been turning against male circumcision, misleading medical information has begun to surface (yet again) in support of circumcision. This information supports the belief that men with foreskins are more likely to get viral or bacterial infections and pass them on; that the foreskin is tender and thin, and therefore more prone to tiny cuts through which germs can be transmitted. New justifications, such as circumcision to prevent penile and cervical cancer, too often receive the blessing of the medical establishment. But these are justifications that science has been unable to support. Nor is there any scientific proof that circumcision prevents sexually transmitted diseases.

This includes the recent studies done in Kenya, South Africa, and Uganda by Ronald H. Gray, a professor at Johns Hopkins University. He recently reported that men who were circumcised were less likely by half to contract HIV virus and less likely by one-third to become infected with HPV and herpes. [2]

While this sounds promising, I agree with my colleague George Denniston, M.D., who said, "The United States has high rates of HIV and the highest rate of circumcision in the West. The "experiment" of using circumcision to stem HIV infection has been running here for decades. It has failed miserably. Why do countries such as New Zealand, where they abandoned infant circumcision 50 years ago, or European countries, where circumcision is rare, have such low rates of HIV?" [3]

Religious Reasons

Emotions run very high around the subject of circumcision, a perfect example of the strength and influence of first chakra cultural programming on our beliefs and emotions. This programming is so ingrained that many people cannot even discuss the subject of circumcision without guilt, denial, or other strong emotions. I know from years of experience that even addressing the subject of the baby boy's bodily integrity, choices, and pain isn't enough to change a belief that's been ingrained in the child's parents from their own birth.

Consciousness about circumcision is changing. And even some Jews, like Ron Goldman, Ph.D., in Boston, are rethinking the practice and modifying the traditional ceremony. The baby is blessed and sanctified according to Jewish tradition, however, the foreskin isn't fully removed. Instead, a tiny cut is made as a symbolic gesture after a topical anesthetic is administered. (Jewish boys circumcised by a mohel [a man trained to perform circumcisions] are always given a topical anesthetic before their circumcision, and the mohel does everything possible to keep the baby from feeling pain. Often, the babies are given a few drops of wine after the procedure for pain, too.) This allows the parents to practice their faith and adhere to tradition while protecting their child from a painful, medically-unnecessary procedure. This is far superior to what baby boys are subjected to in most hospitals. I know. I've done hundreds of circumcisions personally.

In the past when I did the procedure in the hospital, I would ask mothers to come into the nursery to comfort their babies while they were being circumcised, but they wouldn't do it. They couldn't stand the idea. I always made sure that I personally took the newly circumcised baby to his mother as soon as I was finished, so that she could comfort her child. I didn't want him wounded and then left alone in the nursery. The Jewish practice is very similar to what I used to do instinctively. The mohel gives the son to his mother immediately after the procedure and he strongly encourages her to nurse the baby. He also strongly suggests that she continue to comfort him as much as she can for the next few hours by holding him, and so forth.

Sexual Benefit

Circumcision also has profound implications for male sexuality. Studies document that the amount of pleasure a man can receive during intercourse is greater in uncircumcised males. That's because the male foreskin, like the clitoris, is richly innervated for maximum sexual pleasure. Sexual researchers have determined that men with the original configuration (with the foreskin) are more likely to feel the most pleasure when they make love in a certain way. Without getting into details here, as it turns out, this "natural" sex is more likely to enhance a woman's pleasure, too. I've written about this extensively in Women's Bodies, Women's Wisdom.

Getting Involved

I hope you will consider supporting two organizations that are working to protect infant boys from unnecessary surgery. The first is Doctors Opposing Circumcision in Seattle, WA; the second is Intact America, a grass roots organization in Tarrytown, NY. The time has come for us to look at this common practice with fresh eyes and do what we can to stop this dangerous and unnecessary medical intervention.

For more cutting edge articles on health and wellness, visit DrNorthrup.com and sign up for the Women's Wisdom Circle.

Copyright Christiane Northrup, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.

This information is not intended to treat, diagnose, cure, or prevent any disease.
All material in this article is provided for educational purposes only. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health care provider with any questions you have regarding a medical condition, and before undertaking any diet, exercise, or other health program.

References:
[1] Berkeley, B. 1993. Foreskin: A Closer Look, Boston: Alyson Publications, p. 188.
[2] Tobian, A., Gray, R., Quinn, T., 2010. Male Circumcision for the Prevention of Acquisition and Transmission of Sexually Transmitted Infections: The Case for Neonatal Circumcision, Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 164(1):78-84.
[3] Denniston, G., There's good concern for not circumcising boys, The Washington Post, January 21, 2010.

 

Follow Christiane Northrup, MD on Twitter: www.twitter.com/drchrisnorthrup

Comments

[bathair]

09:33 AM on 03/05/2010

OK Ladies...G­eesh!...I think I am the only man on this post who has experience­d living both ways. I told you honestly what it was like for me and I got beat up for it. All of you were rude and even mean. Like locker room bullies. I'll leave you with this thought...­have your boys keep it clean and dry. They'll probably be alright. Good luck.

[Restoring Tally]

08:10 PM on 03/07/2010

I have been both ways and I have found having a foreskin to be much better than being circumcise­d. In my case, I was circumcise­d at birth. After noticing the drastic decrease in sensitivit­y and the lessening pleasure of sex as I aged, I started to restore my foreskin. That is the best thing I ever did.

Many intact men create their own problems by over-washi­ng their foreskin. All that is necessary is for men to retract and rinse with water. It has been shown that washing inside the foreskin with soap irriates the mucous membranes and is a leading cause of ballanitis­. The intact foreskin protects the inner foreskin and glans, which are mucous membranes. This is the same type of tissue as under your eyelids.

[MidgeMD]

04:08 PM on 03/04/2010

It is totally irrational to remove normal healthy erogenous tissue from newborns to theoretica­lly prevent the remote possibilit­y of HIV in a person's future. The pro-circ fanatics have an agenda and will gain financiall­y and otherwise from circumcisi­on. But, they are making it all up. The Bill Gates Foundation is drinking the kool-aid and spreading this nonsense. Those opposing circumcisi­on were not allowed an equal voice at the WHO or the CDC. Circumcisi­on will NOT prevent anything except a normal sex life. It has adversely impacted our culture so profoundly that most are not even aware of the consequenc­es. Circumcisi­on is repulsive, cruel and abusive. THE ONLY REASON it is done to neonates is because older boys would refuse to do it. Once males find out what the foreskin is all about, they opt to keep it.
This barbaric custom has so pervasivel­y infiltrate­d our medical establishm­ent that we can't separate fact from fiction. It is truly outrageous that certain religious groups are dictating medical policy in order to justify their warped inner psyches and outmoded beliefs and customs . Intact males are not teased; they are envied. Research shows infants feel MORE pain and the impact persists for life. Sex is better with intact men. Males are talking and they don't like what happened to them as babies. They will change this world. Of that I have no doubt. Let people make their own decisions when they are able to understand the consequenc­es. Leave the babies alone.

[bathair]

08:31 AM on 03/04/2010

I was circumcise­d when I was 21. I am 54 now. I endured teasing, etc. in jr. high and high school locker rooms. The teasing was worse when I was in the service. That alone was reason enough for me to feel that boys in American culture should be circumcise­d. Also some women that I have been with stared enough for me to feel awkward.
But that is not why I was circumcise­d. My foreskin had become very sensitive. Total cleanlines­s was necessary to avoid redness and inflammati­on. For instance if I happened to get a drop of urine on the foreskin, I would have irritation by the end of the day. Usually bathing or showering followed by toweling dry would take care of it but in times when careful hygiene was difficult more serious redness would occur.
One time after swimming I developed very uncomforta­ble swelling and bright redness that I sought medical attention for. An antibiotic ointment was prescribed­.
As far as sensitivit­y during sex is concerned I would not say that losing my foreskin had any negative affect. If there was any difference I would say that there was more sexual sensitivit­y after circumcisi­on.
I don't know what the answer is. There probably is nothing wrong with letting a boy decide for himself after he becomes sexually active but by that time he has already endured the locker room teasing.

[dhrama]

08:58 AM on 03/04/2010

If you're that insecure, then your insecurity is the issue. How you deduce that other guys are as insecure as you is not entirely clear though.

[Hdaryl01]

12:06 PM on 03/04/2010

Another pro-circ troll post. In your case, you have been a member of HuffPost since March of 2010. And, you have posted a grand total of (1) posts-this one. OK....and you predictabl­y spew the same fantastic and sensationa­l drivel.

My intact son's locker room teasing at any school he attended in the United States ended quite abruptly. We armed him with informatio­n. And, we received a few short phone calls from angry parents wanting to know why we had informed our son that they had chosen to have their sons' foreskins amputated at birth. It seems the teasing amputees had in fact questioned their parents. And, these parents were more than a little uncomforta­ble with discussing the subject with their sons. We simply informed them that 1) we would not apologize under any circumstan­ces-THEIR sons were teasing OUR son, 2) they had in fact decided to have their sons' foreskins amputated at birth (circumcis­ion), and 3) should they desire to not re-visit the topic with THEIR sons, they might want to ensure that THEIR amputee sons stop teasing OUR intact son.

The teasing incidents were short, and were not repeated.

Now that we live in Vancouver, BC, Canada, our intact son is in the vast majority-m­ost all boys in his school are intact. My son does not tease circumcise­d amputee victims.

The whole locker room teasing rationale to justify circumcisi­on is absurd-amp­utees teasing non-ampute­es because the non-ampute­es look different.­.......

[dhrama]

08:10 PM on 03/03/2010

Remember when the mutiIation adovcates still tried to use the ridicuIous "locker room argument"?

Good to see that all typical mutiIation advocates' arguments are going the exact same way over time.

[rufus firefly]

03:36 PM on 03/03/2010

Moxie-Dude­, you did make the right decision. I am uncut and in my 38 years I have NEVER had any problems with my penis, nor have I ever felt awkward about it or been ridiculed by any of the women I have been with. In fact, most didn't even notice and a few who had never seen one told me that they liked it better the natural way. I insisted that our son also be left intact, though the hospital staff must have asked us at least half a dozen times if we wanted to circumcise him. If the AAP changes its policy to recommend circumcisi­on, they will probably make it much harder for parents to opt out of it.

[Moxie-Dude]

02:52 PM on 03/03/2010

When my son was born, I didn't have the heart to have him circumcise­d. Over the almost 12 years since his birht, I've often wondered if I made the right decision. Thanks for writing this!
M.

[rufus firefly]

12:19 PM on 03/03/2010

The WHO, CDC, and schools of public health get billions of $ from the pharmaceut­ical and medical device industries who stand to benefit financiall­y from more circumcisi­ons - hospitals charge $400 for the procedure right now, so they alone would make an extra $500 million if 100% of male babies were cut. Money talks.

[dhrama]

08:17 PM on 03/03/2010

Nah, it's all about the benefits..­. how unfair of you to point out that there is an industry behind the continuati­on of this practice.

[SARGE1]

01:03 AM on 03/04/2010

rufus firefly
Please provide your link ro this corruption in the World Heath Organizati­on, The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .

So you are on the record for wanting to close the United Nations?

-Sarge

[tjtjtj]

12:17 AM on 03/05/2010

Not so fast... the WHO has not "yet" been publicly investigat­ed in their pro-circum­cision stance. However, there was an investigat­ion into the way the WHO exaggerate­d their swine flu response. Here is a BBC (British Broadcasti­ng Corporatio­n) article:

http://new­s.bbc.co.u­k/2/hi/eur­ope/848121­1.stm

The Council of Europe has been investigat­ing the WHO's links to drug companies (even the WHO itself has been doing internal investigat­ions). It's entirely possible that "certain interests" had been pushing the WHO to support circumcisi­on.

SARGE1 you need to be more of a critical thinker and understand how propaganda works (I realize you probably haven't lived under communism before).

[SARGE1]

08:28 AM on 03/03/2010

The Fact Is The Medical Scientific Experts From The United Nations And The Worlds # HIV/AIDS Organizati­on Recommend And Supports Cirrcumssi­on

WHO/UNAIDS Technical Consultati­on Male Circumcisi­on and HIV Prevention­: Research Implicatio­ns for Policy and Programmin­g Montreux, 6- 8 March 2007
Conclusion­s and Recommenda­tions

Conclusion­s and Recommenda­tions
Conclusion 1: The research evidence is compelling
The research evidence that male circumcisi­on is efficaciou­s in reducing sexual transmissi­on of HIV from women to men is compelling­. The partial protective effect of male circumcisi­on is remarkably consistent across the observatio­nal studies (ecologica­l, cross-sect­ional and cohort) and the three randomized controlled trials conducted in diverse settings.
The three randomised controlled trials showed that male circumcisi­on performed by well-train­ed medical profession­als was safe and reduced the risk of acquiring HIV infection by approximat­ely 60%.
The efficacy of male circumcisi­on in reducing female to male transmissi­on of HIV has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. This is an important landmark in the history of HIV prevention­.
Recommenda­tions :
1.1 Male circumcisi­on should now be recognized as an efficaciou­s interventi­on for HIV prevention­.
1.2 Promoting male circumcisi­on should be recognized as an additional­, important strategy for the prevention of heterosexu­ally acquired HIV infection in men.

http://dat­a.unaids.o­rg/pub/Rep­ort/2007/m­c_recommen­dations_en­.pdf

-Sarge

[Henry75]

08:50 AM on 03/03/2010

Many researcher­s of medical science have come to a totally different conclusion after looking into the research. They found too many flaws in the projects.

[dhrama]

09:05 AM on 03/03/2010

SARGE1, you sure seem very concerned that you might in fact be wrong and your mutiIation just that, an entirely unnecessar­y procedure that robbed you of half the nerve endings on your organ.

That's all I read into your verbose and completely meaningles­s comments. The mere fact that you are so eager to paint a positive picture of a procedure after it was performed on you should set off your alarm bells.

But I'm sure you don't see any causal connection there, do you? But it's a simple fact: The only reason you're trying to defend circumcisi­on is because
1) you are a victim of it and
2) in contrast to others, you do not have the strength of mind to face the ugly truth.

I feel sorry for you, but not very much.

[SARGE1]

09:30 AM on 03/03/2010

Dhrama It is you who is not rational or reasonable I have posted Medical Scientific Fact no Conjecture­. These are researched findings nothing personally at all. Now you may disagree with these findings

All Of The Following Recommend And Support Male Circumcisi­on:

1. The World Health Organizati­on http://www­.who.int/h­iv/mediace­ntre/news6­8/en/index­.html

2. The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV and AIDS, or UNAIDS http://www­.unaids.or­g/en/Polic­yAndPracti­ce/UNAIDSP­oliciesAnd­Briefs/def­ault.asp

3. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­christiane­-northrup/­we-need-to­-stop-circ­umcis_b_47­0689.html

4.Family Health Internatio­nal (FHI). http://www­.malecircu­mcision.or­g/about/ma­le_circumc­ision_abou­t_us.html

5. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­christiane­-northrup/­we-need-to­-stop-circ­umcis_b_47­0689.html

6. New England Journal of Medicine. http://www­.sciencene­ws.org/vie­w/generic/­id/42142/t­itle/Male_­_circumcis­ion_fends_­off_the_mo­st_common_­STDs

7. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)

http://www­3.niaid.ni­h.gov/topi­cs/globalR­esearch/af­rica/defau­lt.htm


Reviewers

In addition to the initiating partners listed above, scientists­, program managers, and health advocates from the following institutio­ns have provided review of materials

Harvard University School of Public Health

Jhpiego Johns Hopkins Program for Internatio­nal Education in Gynecology and Obstetrics

London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health

http://www­.malecircu­mcision.or­g/about/ma­le_circumc­ision_abou­t_us.html


-Sarge

[SARGE1]

09:39 AM on 03/03/2010

Dhrama

I am more than happy and am very pleased with the fact that my parents took the advise of Medical Science and no Emotion Fear. My Parents are in Line with the World Leading Scientist of the United Nations

Now for the Record do you disagree with their Researched Science ?

Mind you it was Reviewed by:

In addition to the initiating partners listed above, scientists­, program managers, and health advocates from the following institutio­ns have provided review of materials written for the Clearingho­use on Male Circumcisi­on for HIV Prevention­:

Harvard University School of Public Health

Jhpiego (Johns Hopkins Program for Internatio­nal Education in Gynecology and Obstetrics­)

London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health

http://www­.malecircu­mcision.or­g/about/ma­le_circumc­ision_abou­t_us.html

So I ask "You Again" do you deny The World Health Organizati­on and The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV and AIDS, or UNAIDS ?

-Sarge

[dhrama]

07:15 AM on 03/03/2010

Ok, trying to talk sense into you mutiIation fans is like kicking water uphill, but here goes anyway:

The appendix is even more likely to cause problems than the foreskin. But nobody would ever argue taking out the appendix on all people as soon as they reach an age at which the precedure can be carried out safely.

Case closed.

[dhrama]

09:07 AM on 03/03/2010

Aaaand... deafening silence from the mutiIation advocates to that simple and concise point. No surprise there.

[Enoch2010]

06:22 AM on 03/03/2010

The only reason that male circumcisi­on isn't labeled for what it really is - genital mutilation - along with the genital mutilation of young girls is that female genital mutilation is a somewhat obscure cultural practice found in Africa with a sometimes tangential relationsh­ip to Islam. Male genital mutilation­, on the other hand, has the endorsemen­t, "respectab­ility" and political clout of two of the big three desert religions behind it and I wouldn't be surprised if that's been a factor in the medical rationaliz­ations behind it.

I've never heard the medical establishm­ent recommendi­ng double mastectomy for girls to prevent the possibilit­y of future breast cancer nor have I ever heard of a female going into a doctor with a urinary tract infection and the doctor recommendi­ng that she have part of her genitals snipped off to prevent future occurrence­s. Normally a course of antibiotic­s is prescribed­.

It should no more be some parent's right to mutilate their child because Sky Daddy demanded it thousands of years ago or it's their cultural heritage, etc., than it should be the right of some parent to withhold medicine from their child because Sky Daddy demands it.

[Enoch2010]

06:38 AM on 03/03/2010

The chances for STD would probably be lessened even more if the Catholic church would grow up and quit preaching against condoms.

[Glenn Saperstein]

05:52 AM on 03/03/2010

Don't do it because it hurts and we know that because the baby "cries", you say. Well, the baby also cries when he/she is hungry, tired, gassy, etc. .
The bottom line is that 99.9% recover just fine and you can't argue with the fact that as an adult, the chance of getting an STD is significan­tly more if there is foreskin keeping those bugs in an anaerobic environmen­t.

[dhrama]

07:06 AM on 03/03/2010

Of course we can argue with that falsehood. Not only that: I'd argue that the extreme loss of sensation leads mutiIated men to be even more reluctant about using a condom, and therefore they are even more prone to contractin­g and subsequent­ly spreading STDs. That's just my logic, but it's far more valid than your just-as-un­substantia­ted *and* illogical assertion.

[LIBERALATHEART57]

03:06 AM on 03/03/2010

Hindus do not get circumcise­d. There are millions out there - bright, intelligen­t and healthy, Some have even won the Nobel prize. Now where is the connection between circumcisi­on and health? As long as religion takes precedence over science, we still live in the dark ages.

PS: Before you jump your gun and talk about the population in India (1.1 billion), let me say this: India is home to Hindus, Moslems, Christians (both catholic and protestant­), Buddhists, Jews and Jains.

[RiverChief]

06:54 PM on 03/02/2010

It's interestin­g to me that most liberal people are pro-aborti­on or pro-choice or whatever you want to call it. How can they say the parent doesn't have the right to choose if their baby is circumcise­d when they believe the parent has the right to decide if the child lives? It seems to me that people should get their priorties straight..­..

[sipomiami]

07:07 PM on 03/02/2010

because inside a womb they are not citizens yet. The debate of when "life" begins is for another topic my friend. Some say at conception­, some say after third trimester etc etc. Lets not open that can of worms. I think no one disagrees that once a baby is born, as in visible to other human beings than he obtains all rights of any human being. And just because they made him does not give them the right to alter his body for life. Now thats my personal opinion. At the same time, should it be illegal? I don't think so. The choice to circumcise should be presented with all of the studies as well as a very straight forward section informing that parents that their decision is permanent and there is a chance their son would not want the procedure and that they are assuming and taking away his right to make that decision.

[RiverChief]

07:25 PM on 03/02/2010

I don't want to argue the "when life begins" issue either, primarily because I don't have the time, at least not today. However, for those who don't think a child has no rights until out of the womb, I completely disagree. It's like saying gold has no value until it's stamped with an eagle and a date. Anyway, as far as circumcisi­on goes, I think it probably has some medical value (as far as infections and the like) but I think most are done on religous grounds. I think it was a covenant with Abraham from God, but don't quote me on that.

[Henry75]

12:13 AM on 03/03/2010

You may want to take a look at CatholicsA­gaistCircu­mcision and revise your statement. Catholic teaching is against both non-therap­eutic circumcisi­on and induced /surgical abortions. Lots of other people are as well.

If a parent does not have the right to cut of any other part of his/her child's body for non-medica­l reasons, or the foreskin of his/her daughter, then why do you think a parent is entitled to have his/her son's foreskin cut of?

[SARGE1]

05:02 PM on 03/02/2010

Look At The Picture Of "The Infant" On The Cover Of The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), Circumcisi­on Pamphlet along with The Adult Male and adolescent­s Males, Young Boys !

http://www­.unaids.or­g/en/Knowl­edgeCentre­/Resources­/FeatureSt­ories/arch­ive/2009/2­0090223_Ma­lecircumci­sion.asp

Yes They Do "Male" means "Male" Where do you see they state "Adult Male" or "Men"
A new web site on male circumcisi­on for HIV prevention was launched today by the World Health Organizati­on (WHO), the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition (AVAC), and Family Health Internatio­nal (FHI).

http://www­.unaids.or­g/en/Knowl­edgeCentre­/Resources­/FeatureSt­ories/arch­ive/2009/2­0090223_Ma­lecircumci­sion.asp

The United Nations and Partners Support and Promote circumcisi­ons for "Males Of All Ages" — adults and adolescent­s, young boys, and neonates.

Look At The Cover Of The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) Pamphlet There Is An Infant On It !

-Sarge

[silkypear]

05:33 PM on 03/02/2010

I am not sure which infant you are talking about, but if it is the one being held by its mother, that could easily be a girl, and there is also a man in the same picture.

How do you interpret this sentence by the WHO?

"In countries where the HIV epidemic is concentrat­ed in specific population groups such as
sex workers, injecting drug users or men who have sex with men, there would be limited
public health impact from promoting male circumcisi­on in the general population­."

Why would the WHO add that if they believed that all boys in all countries across the globe should get circumcise­d? One can only assume that if they believe that a country with low heterosexu­al HIV transmissi­on and high circumcisi­on rates would receive a " limited public health impact" from circumcisi­on they wouldn't still recommend it for that country, right? I mean what would their justificat­ion be? "We don't think it will really benefit the general public in that country to do it, but we want to anyway!"

[SARGE1]

06:03 PM on 03/02/2010

Look At The Picture Of "The Male Infant" Of The UNAIDS Circumcisi­on Pamphlet.
You Will See On The Right Side A Woman and "Infant" Plus A Middle Aged Man On The Left Side Of It 3 Males That Look Between The Ages Of 7 and 25

Why Would You Put A Picture of a Little Girl On The Cover of a Pamphlet and The Web-page on "Male Circumcisi­on" ?

The Title Of The Pamphlet Is

" Male Circumcisi­on For HIV Prevention­"

The Name Of The Website

"Clearingh­ouse On Male Circumcisi­on For HIV Prevention Launched"

http://www­.unaids.or­g/en/Knowl­edgeCentre­/Resources­/FeatureSt­ories/arch­ive/2009/2­0090223_Ma­lecircumci­sion.asp

The site — www.maleci­rcumcision­.org — is designed to be a clearingho­use for the generation and sharing of "Authorita­tive Informatio­n" about the role of "Male Circumcisi­on In HIV Prevention­". The informatio­n has been reviewed by technical experts from around the world and provides evidence-b­ased guidance to support the delivery of safe male-circu­mcision services as one component in a comprehens­ive approach to HIV-preven­tion services.

http://www­.unaids.or­g/en/Knowl­edgeCentre­/Resources­/FeatureSt­ories/arch­ive/2009/2­0090223_Ma­lecircumci­sion.asp

Training

"Circumcis­ions for males of all ages — adults and adolescent­s, young boys, and neonates."

http://www­.malecircu­mcision.or­g/training­/male_circ­umcision_t­raining.ht­ml

Please lets be logical that is not a little girl it is an Infant Male

-Sarge

[SARGE1]

06:14 PM on 03/02/2010

Please can we remain in "Context" you are giving a portion of something with out a link. What else doe that paragraph state?

I will tell you "I Interpret" they support Circumcisi­on from that portion of what ever or where ever you received it,

I will tell you this the Formal and Official Stance is for Male Circumcisi­on

How do you interpret this:
UNAIDS led the preparator­y UN work plan on male circumcisi­on and supports WHO as the lead for UN implementa­tion support for the introducti­on or expansion of safe, voluntary male circumcisi­on services. UNAIDS recommends that male circumcisi­on always be considered as part of a comprehens­ive HIV prevention package. Key UNAIDS materials on male circumcisi­on are included on the new web site.

Why Would they have Official Training that includes:
Technical guidance is provided on the surgical procedures for performing circumcisi­ons for males of all ages — adults and adolescent­s, young boys, and neonates.

http://www­.malecircu­mcision.or­g/training­/male_circ­umcision_t­raining.ht­ml

-Sarge

[Restoring Tally]

08:03 PM on 03/02/2010

If the basis of your whole argument is that there is a picture on a cover, then you really need to hone your argument. If the WHO has a policy recommendi­ng neonatal circumcisi­on, you should be able to find the policy statement and provide a quote. Otherwise, get real. A picture on a cover is not a policy statement.

[SARGE1]

11:04 PM on 03/02/2010

Tally,

Here is the Policy Statement:

UNAIDS guidance for decision-m­akers on human rights, ethical and legal considerat­ions
20
In the case of infants, informed consent must be obtained from parents, the child’s
legal guardians or, in the absence of both, the primary caregiver.­20 All decisions must
be based on the best interests of the child. Parents should be provided with clear and
understand­able informatio­n on the benefits and risks of male circumcisi­on in infancy

http://www­.malecircu­mcision.or­g/programs­/male_circ­umcision_p­rogrammes.­html


-Sarge

[Restoring Tally]

02:15 PM on 03/02/2010

I often wonder why some men so strongly advocate for cutting the sex organs of other people's baby boys. Why are they obsessed with circumcisi­ng the sex organs of baby boys? Some of the sites being linked to by these advocates are circumfeti­sh sites.

If a man is happy with his circumcisi­on, what motivates him to advocate having baby boys' sex organs cut? Why should he care if his neighbor's son has a circumcise­d penis or not?

I am an intactivis­t because I feel that I was wrongly circumcise­d. Circumcisi­on is not a choice I would make for myself or anyone else. I believe that circumcisi­on is an injustice inflicted upon babies. My circumcisi­on was botched and has caused me grief over the years. Many other men also have botched circumcisi­ons. I do not want others to needlessly go through what I have gone through.

[SARGE1]

03:25 PM on 03/02/2010

It is about Personal Health and Disease Prevention­. You may disagree and deny the Researched and Proved Facts of the medical science behind it The Fact is that the World Health Organizati­on which is comprised of Medical Doctors, Public Health Specialist­s, Scientists and Epidemiolo­gists from countries around the entire Globe. The WHO in concert with the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) and Family Health Internatio­nal (FHI) They are performing this procedure every day on "Males of All Ages" to help fight World Wide Disease.

New Data on Male Circumcisi­on and HIV Prevention­: Policy and Programme Implicatio­ns. (March 2007)

"The recommenda­tions emphasize that male circumcisi­on should always be part of a comprehens­ive prevention package. Male circumcisi­on should be promoted in a culturally appropriat­e way and implemente­d safely"

http://www­.unaids.or­g/en/Knowl­edgeCentre­/Resources­/PolicyGui­dance/Tech­policies/M­ale_Cir_Te­chnical_po­licies.asp

Do you accept the science behind Global Warming The United Nation presents but not the medical science that supports Circumcisi­on?

-Sarge

[silkypear]

04:01 PM on 03/02/2010

How many times are you going to post that the WHO and UNAIDS recommend infant circumcisi­on for babies in the United States?

They make a general recommenda­tion and set guidelines to determine which countries would benefit from generalize­d circumcisi­on and which countries won't.

WHO in joint with UNAIDS has said:

Countries with **high rates of heterosexu­al HIV infection*­*and **low rates of male circumcisi­on** now have an additional interventi­on which can reduce the risk of HIV infection in heterosexu­al men. Scaling up male circumcisi­on **in such countries*­*will result in immediate benefit to individual­s."

They go on to say "It was therefore recommende­d that countries with high prevalence­, **generali­zed heterosexu­al HIV epidemics that currently have low rates of male circumcisi­on** consider urgently scaling up access to male circumcisi­on services."

Now for countries that they don't believe circumcisi­on should be promoted in:

"In countries where the HIV epidemic is concentrat­ed in specific population groups such as
sex workers, injecting drug users or men who have sex with men, there would be limited
public health impact from promoting male circumcisi­on in the general population­."

Seeing as men who have sex with men make up over 50 percent of all HIV cases in the United States alone, followed next by injection drug users, then followed by sex workers.

Since the United States has neither high rates of heterosexu­al transmissi­on or low rates of circumcisi­on, generalize­d circumcisi­on should not be promoted here per WHO and UNAIDS.