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
Joshua Stanton: Making Male Circumcision Humane: A Jewish Moral Imperative
Christiane Northrup, MD: The Pill Turns 50: Taking Stock
Lisa Derrick: 'Foreskin Man' Comic Book Attacks Circumcision
Circumcision - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Circumcision -- familydoctor.org
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.
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.
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.
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........
Good to see that all typical mutiIation advocates' arguments are going the exact same way over time.
M.
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
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).
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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!"
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
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
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
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.
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
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.