Routine Infant Circumcision - Essay Example

Grade 17 November To Cut or Not to Cut- Routine infant circumcision Circumcision has been considered to be areligious necessity for males in Islam and Judaism. Ironically, it is also considered to be the world’s most contentious surgery. It is usually to be done within 48 hours of the baby’s birth or at the most within 10 days of birth. Until the 1970s, circumcision was considered to be a religious custom and parents’ permission was not mandatory for circumcising male infants. David Gollaher argues that circumcision doesn’t make a boy a Jewish or a Muslim. His birth itself makes him a Jewish or a Muslim; depending on the family he has taken birth into (Gollaher 24). However, in recent years, the ethics of an unnecessary surgical procedure which essentially disfigures normal male anatomy and may, in fact, create sexual problems down the road for an otherwise healthy male, has groups across the country lobbying to get the procedure outlawed (Fleiss et al 364). Even though a prominent group of pediatricians believes that the advantages of circumcision are more numbered than the risks involved, the American Academy of Pediatrics believes that the medical gains of circumcision are not up to that extent that the risks involved may be overlooked and it (circumcision) may be recommended (Somerville 20). According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, “the topic cuts across many paradigms in your life – cultural, religious, ethnic, family tradition, aesthetic. We are not in a position to make recommendations on those paradigms” (Freedman). Moreover, in countries like Canada a physician might land himself in legal problems if he/she undertakes the circumcision of a child even though it is with the consent of the child’s parents (Somerville 34). Some scholars believe that the reasons behind the circumcision practice are different than being religious. Like for example David Gollaher claims that male circumcision has its origins from the practice of castration done on male attendants of the ‘harems’ in order to keep them inoffensive and harmless. The main aim was to preserve the chastity of the female inmates of the ‘harem’. Gradually, the castration was transformed to circumcision and it became a practice which some people wrapped in a religious cover. Gollaher further claims that girls were circumcised in order to diminish their sexual urge on puberty. This again was done in order to keep their chastity intact. Due to this very reason, there still are areas where girl circumcision is practiced as a custom (Gollaher 194). But Abusharaf does not agree with this view. According to him, such actions cannot guarantee chastity. It is the upbringing and the will power of the girl that will reflect in her actions (her chastity). Moreover, it is against the teachings of Christianity to harm or tyrannize one’s body in order to achieve certain virtues (Abusharaf 184). The parents’ decision regarding circumcision of their children should be regarded as final. Parents may consult their doctors for proper advice. They should properly understand the pros and cons of circumcision and only then should they decide about circumcision. As compared to the 1970s and 1980s, when the rate of circumcision was about 80 percent, by the year 2010, the rate had drastically fallen down to 55 percent. It is worth mentioning here that some studies have warned that such lower rates of circumcision might lead to elevated rates of sexually transmitted diseases. It is astonishing to note the findings of the study that within the next 10 years or so, such infections might cost the exchequer of the United States health department billions of dollars (Freedman). Some people have opposed the practice of circumcision simply due to the reason that it mutilates an important male organ and decreases sexual sensation. Freedman strongly refutes such claims as being baseless and inadequately studied.There are certain common problems, even though of lesser importance, that may arise due to circumcision. Such problems are bleeding, obstruction of the urethra (the opening), infection and irritation at the area of circumcision. There are some serious problems as well but they rarely occur. Such problems are: urethra being damaged, profuse bleeding that may necessitate stitches, and/or a permanent scar. The developed countries have a mixed percentage of people who vouch for and practice circumcision. The western European countries have less incidences of circumcision as compared to United States and Australia. In the United States the incidences are more owing to the circumcision practice being followed by the more dominant Christians and Jewish ethnicities. A map of the United States at Appendix 1 depicts the percentage of circumcisions in different states. In the United States circumcision is practiced due to health reasons rather than religious beliefs. Almost 75% American males, until recently, were circumcised soon after birth due to the said reason. But a recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) claimed that after about ten years of increased cases of circumcision, such incidents have started to decline now (Melnick). In Australia, even though the incidences are frequent, the same are decreasing gradually (Hutson 238). During the Second World War almost all the Australian males were circumcised due to the experiences of Australian doctors involved in the war. Today the situation is that almost 100% Australian males who are more than 45 years of age are circumcised. As such, they cannot imagine a male without circumcision. Due to their sentiments they want their sons to be like them and opt for circumcision though it’s a different matter whether the boys also want to be circumcised or not. This is because in the schools the scenario is different. Only about 30% students are circumcised and the boys would like to be like their friends rather than their fathers (Hutson 240). The American Academy of Pediatrics is not consistent in regard to circumcision of boys but as far as girls are concerned, the academy is firm in its opinion that female infants should not be circumcised (Hutson 238). If we think logically, it is unfair on the part of governments that circumcision of girls is not allowed and that of boys is not opposed. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms forbids inequity on the basis of sex. According to the Charter, there should be no such laws that protect a particular gender and neglect the other. People who are against the provision of circumcision laws pertaining to boys and girls argue that it is unfair to protect the ‘right to security of the person’ of female infants but not of male infants. Such people also argue that it is totally unconstitutional (Somerville 217). These people are right because both the genders have equal rights and both have the same feelings of pain and equality. There are people who argue that female circumcision is dangerous whereas male circumcision is beneficial. But according to Abusharaf, such claims are made by people who want to abolish the practice of female circumcision. They don’t have any particular reason in favor of that (Abusharaf 48). On the other hand, according to international studies on HIV-AIDS, there has been a reduction of 60% in HIV transmission in circumcised males. Even though it is a religious practice, recent studies have proved that there is a scientific explanation for this practice as well. Actually it prevents phimosis (stiffness of the foreskin that thwarts retraction) and balantis (soreness of the penis cranium). Circumcision is also helpful in averting HIV/AIDS virus (Hutson 240). According to recommendations made by World Health Organization, “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” (WHO). Supporters of circumcision believe that this protection against possible infection is enough to warrant the procedure. Anti-circumcision counterparts point out that the risk of these infections is very low and that the procedure does not protect babies from infections as they can still get them regardless of being circumcised or not. The rate of infection from the circumcision procedure is the same as the rate of infection from a urinary tract infection (UTI). Such infections are successfully treated with low-level antibiotics, which outweigh having an invasive and deforming medical procedure. Even so, the supposed benefits only exist in the infant’s first year and some studies find no statistical differences in UTI rates between circumcised infants and non-circumcised infants. The American Cancer Society also states that proper washing of the foreskin and penis virtually eliminates infections. Even in Africa, one of the studies by the National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization supports the circumcision of male infants as a way to prevent the risks of HIV/AIDS. A recent four-year study with two study groups of circumcised and uncircumcised adult males was halted as the results were showing that the group of men who were circumcised had a 60% lower rate of HIV-AIDS infection as compared to the control group of uncircumcised men. Researchers found the evidence so overwhelming that circumcision was a deterrent to infection, that the study then stopped and the researchers offered free and low cost circumcision to all participants because allowing the control group to go uncircumcised was unethical. It is theorized that the nooks and crannies of the 15 square inches of foreskin might provide safer harbor for the HIV virus. This being the case, the NIH has still not recommended routine infant circumcision in the United States because HIV is not pandemic and does not warrant ‘unnecessary surgery’. The American Cancer Society no longer comes down on the side of pro-circumcision as a preventative measure for HIV-AIDS or HPV (human papilloma virus) which can be a precursor to reproductive cancers in men and women. Instead, the ACS recommends careful hygiene, condom usage, and HPV vaccines for men and women (WHO). Another factor emphasized by Fleiss in his study, is that the ultra-sensitive double layer of tissue of the foreskin contains 50% of the erogenous tissue of the penis. After removal of the foreskin, a toughening process called keratinisation occurs, leaving the glans of the penis less sensitive. Of course a man circumcised at birth would note no difference, but adult men who have had later circumcisions note that there is a loss of sensation akin to touching with a glove on or seeing without color (Fleiss et al 364). In conclusion, it is understood that even though circumcision has some medical benefits, the pain and agony that an infant has to go through is not worth it. Moreover, the percentage of infants, boys and grownups that are expected to benefit from it is very nominal. We all know that even though circumcision is a minor operation but there are risks involved. Such risks should be evaluated in comparison to the benefits and then any decision should be taken. Religious beliefs should be followed but not at the cost of any risk to anyone. Considering the other side of circumcision, the findings of the studies mentioned earlier in this paper (regarding the expenses to treat the sexually transmitted diseases due to decline in the rate of circumcision) are astounding. After all, the money being spent by the exchequer is our money and we should ensure that it is spent on more important things. Our actions should not lead to unnecessary expenses. Moreover, if unfortunately anyone, who hasn’t undergone circumcision surgery, gets infected by the any of the deadly sexually transmitted diseases, the cost, the agony, the pain, and the sufferings will be much more than what will be experienced during the circumcision surgery. While considering their decision on circumcising their children, parents should consider all these aspects. Even if a person doesn’t believe in religious practices, the medical aspects and the future risks should be considered. There should not be anything personal or religious in such decisions. One should be very practical and foresee the future repercussions of his/her actions in the larger interest of the society that he/she lives in. Works Cited Abusharaf, Rogaia M. Female Circumcision: Multicultural Perspectives. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007. Print. Fleiss, Paul M., F. Hodges, and Van Howe. “Immunological functions of the human prepuce.” Sexually transmitted infections 74.5 (1998): 364-367. Web. 17 Nov. 2012. Freedman, Andrew. Circumcision benefits are significant, pediatricians say. Pediatrics, Sep. 2012. Web. 19 Nov. 2012. Gollaher, David L. Circumcision: A history of the world’s most controversial surgery. New York: Basic Books, 2000. Print. Hutson, John M. “Circumcision: A surgeon’s perspective.” Symposium on Circumcision 30.3 (2004): 238-240. Journal of Medical Ethics. Web. 17 Nov. 2012. Melnick, Meredith. CDC: Why are US Circumcision rates declining? Health & Family, Sept. 2011. Web. 17 Nov. 2012. Somerville, Margaret. The Ethical Canary. Toronto: Penguin Group, 2000. Print. WHO. New data on male circumcision and HIV prevention: Policy and program implications. WHO/UNAIDS Technical Consultation on Male Circumcision and HIV Prevention, Mar. 2007. Web. 17 Nov. 2012. Appendix 1 Source: http://mgmbill.org/statistics.htm Read More