SENTIENT TIMES December 2002/January 2003

Circumcision Is A Human Rights Issue

By Pamela Jorrick

In some cultures, female genital circumcision is an age-old tradition. The ritual removing of the clitoris of a young, un-consenting girl, although a local custom where practiced, is generally considered barbaric in western countries. Female genital mutilation is not only socially unacceptable, but also a federal crime in the United States.

But what about our own painful cultural practices forced on newborns? Americans routinely remove the healthy foreskin of almost 63% of their newborn baby boys for no medical reason. Defenders of the practice try to differentiate between male and female circumcisions. It is easy to judge a foreign culture’s practices, but much more difficult to objectively evaluate your own. In fact, many of the arguments for male and female circumcision are similar. Proponents of either procedure say that uncircumcised genitals are unclean and unpleasant to look at, that circumcision will benefit the victims future sexual partner and that it is normal. In both cases the procedure removes healthy tissue from an un-consenting child’s body for cultural purposes with no medical basis.

Routine male infant circumcision was introduced into the United States through England who long ago abandoned the practice. It was popularized as a means to curb masturbation in boys in medical textbooks as recently as the 1970‘s although it didn’t work. The radical practice of circumcising all newborn males was instituted without public comment or debate and amounted to a compulsory practice. Until a series of lawsuits in the 1970’s hospitals did not even have to obtain parental consent to perform this surgery.

The most prevalent myth about the uncircumcised penis today is probably that it is unclean and difficult to take care of if left intact. The foreskin is in fact specifically designed to protect the health of the penis similar to the way the eyelids protect the eyes. A child’s foreskin is self-cleansing and attached to the glans (head of the penis) for several years protecting it from germs and bacteria. Infant circumcision leaves a raw open wound that is exposed to frequent contact with urine and feces. The separation occurs in it’s own time as nature intended. In the Annals of the Academy of Medicine, H.L. Tan described the process this way, “The foreskin can be likened to a rosebud … It will only blossom when the time is right. No one opens a rosebud to make it blossom.” It is likewise inadvisable to forcibly retract the foreskin to clean it as that can not only cause pain and damage, but can destroy the beneficial bacteria that protect the penis, leading to irritation and infection. Antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as lysozyme (also found in tears and breastmilk) are produced by the glands in the foreskin.

The foreskin maintains optimal temp-erature, pH balance and cleanliness while keeping the surface of the penis soft, moist and sensitive. Anatomical studies have shown that circumcision removes more than 20,000 nerve endings. The foreskin has a richer variety and higher concentration of these specialized sensitive nerve endings than any other part of the penis.

Circumcision can be a religious matter. Some parents however are finding new ways to create loving and non-violent ceremonies that honor their faith and their child.

Other prevalent myths regarding circumcision focus on health care, cancer, and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). A recent study shows that the penile cancer rate is higher in the U.S. than in Denmark where circumcision is almost unheard of. Female partners of circumcised men do not have a lower risk of cervical cancer either according to a study in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. And as for STDs, the U.S. has the highest rate of AIDS and the highest rate of circumcised males in the western world. Prospective studies on circumcised American men show that they may be at a higher risk for bacterial and viral STDs.

The U.S. is the only one of 23 advanced medical nations to routinely circumcise such a large percentage of it’s baby boys. The procedure has never become popular in Europe, Asia, South or Central America. With less than 1/20 of the world’s population, the U.S. performs half of all circumcisions worldwide. In fact, 82% of males worldwide are not circumcised. If problems with the foreskin are really so common, wouldn’t the rest of the medically advanced nations be routinely circumcising their boys? The fact that in the global community only 18% of males are circumcised also poses a question to parents who are concerned their sons will be “different” if left intact. Even within the U.S., popularity of the procedure varies by region. In the mid-west the circumcision rate is near 80% whereas in the west, the rate is only 34%.

The American Academy of Pediatrics does not recommend infant circumcision and states that “the procedure is not essential to a child’s well being.” Is it ethical to perform what is essentially cosmetic surgery on an un-consenting minor? Many private insurance companies no longer cover the procedure recognizing it as elective surgery without medical value. Is it even the role of a health care professional to perform a surgery removing healthy tissue with no medical benefits only to support societal agendas? Doctors Opposing Circumcision thinks it is not. According to “Human Rights and Ethical Medical Practice” by James W. Prescott, PhD, Marilyn Fayre Milos, RN, and George C. Denniston, MD, “Circum-cision is a needless act of violence upon a resisting and non-consenting newborn infant or child. The pain and trauma of the procedure cannot be adequately ameliorated by anesthesia or analgesia, and the suffering can continue long after the painkiller has worn off.”

There is always risk in any medical procedure. The surgical complication rate of circumcision is 1 in 500. This includes uncontrollable bleeding and fatal infections. An open wound provides easy access for harmful organisms to enter the newborns fragile body. Reports include gangrene following circumcision and babies who have had all or part of their penis cut off during the surgery. The reported death rate in infant circumcision is 1 in 500,000.

The trauma of circumcision can also disrupt a child’s behavioral development and sleep patterns. It has been shown in a number of studies to disrupt the mother/infant bond during the critical newborn period, and can interfere with establishing breastfeeding. In a study at Washington School of Medicine, most babies would not nurse after they were circumcised, and those who did would not look into their mothers eyes. A basic fundamental trust in the parent as protector was broken.

Circumcised fathers may have mixed feelings about leaving their sons intact, but it is a parents first and foremost respon-sibility to protect their child from harm. Even men who are satisfied with their own circumcision owe to it their children to keep their genitals in a natural and intact state until they are old enough to make an informed decision about their own bodies. Is it really our right to subject our child to a painful surgery and cut off a part of their genitals without their consent for no medical reason? Most males who are given the choice keep their foreskins and are happy with their wholeness. But once a child is circumcised, it cannot be undone. A part of them is gone forever, and they had no choice in the matter.

Pamela Jorrick is a mother, wife, writer and doula. She lives in Humboldt County, California and maintains a website at www.MamasNature.com.

SENTIENT TIMES
PO Box 1330 Ashland, OR 97520
PHONE (541) 512-1084 • FAX (541) 512-1085
dmokma@jeffnet.org