Fitness and Health Tips Today

4 Comments

1. Mark Anthony says:

   December 27, 2009 at 3:36 pm

   Pros and Cons of Circumcision http://fitnesshealthtoday.com/pros-and-cons-of-circumcision/
2. Restoring Tally says:

   December 27, 2009 at 5:11 pm

   Your list is inaccurate and incomplete. As for the pros, a circumcised penis is no easier to clean then an intact penis. In fact, for a baby, extra care is required for a circumcised penis than one that is intact. Here is some info on caring for the penis.

   Sexually transmitted diseases are a problem for adults. Babies don’t have sex. By the time the baby boy grows up and becomes sexually active there may be vaccines or cures for the various STDs. No need for drastic surgery of the boy’s sex organ at birth.

   As for penile cancer, the American Cancer Society does not recommend circumcision as a cancer preventative.

   You also missed a few cons. First, there are the complications from circumcision, which includes bridges and adhesions caused by when the circumcision wound adheres to the glans. Then there are the too tight circumcisions that cause painful erections. Don’t forget the uneven circumcisions that cause the erect penis to curve.

   Circumcision removes the foreskin, which provides important functions for sex and it protects the glans. Over time, the glans keratinizes and loses sensitivity. By the time I was in my mid-40s I was no longer enjoying sex. I am restoring my foreskin and have regained both the gliding function of the foreskin and the sensitivity I should have. Together, sex is good for me and my wife. We no longer need to use lube, and she does not get sore from sex.
3. Sheila says:

   December 27, 2009 at 9:28 pm

   MRI Studies: The Brain Permanently Altered From Infant Circumcision
   by Dr. Paul D. Tinari Ph.D.

   Two of my physics professors at Queen’s University (Dr. Stewart & Dr. McKee) were the original developers of Positron Emission Tomography (PET) for medical applications. They and a number of other Queen’s physicists also worked on improving the accuracy of fMRI for observing metabolic activity within the human body.

   As a graduate student working in the Dept. of Epidemiology, I was approached by a group of nurses who were attempting to organize a protest against male infant circumcision in Kinston General Hospital. They said that their observations indicated that babies undergoing the procedure were subjected to significant and inhumane levels of pain that subsequently adversely affected their behaviours. They said that they needed some scientific support for their position. It was my idea to use fMRI and/or PET scanning to directly observe the effects of circumcision on the infant brain.

   The operator of the MRI machine in the hospital was a friend of mine and he agreed to allow us to use the machine for research after normal operational hours. We also found a nurse who was under intense pressure by her husband to have her newborn son circumcised and she was willing to have her son to be the subject of the study. Her goal was to provide scientific information that would eventually be used to ban male infant circumcision. Since no permission of the ethics committee was required to perform any routine male infant circumcision, we did not feel it was necessary to seek any permission to carry out this study.

   We tightly strapped an infant to a traditional plastic “circumrestraint” using Velcro restraints. We also completely immobilized the infant’s head using standard surgical tape. The entire apparatus was then introduced into the MRI chamber. Since no metal objects could be used because of the high magnetic fields, the doctor who performed the surgery used a plastic bell (“Plastibell”) with a sterilized obsidian bade to cut the foreskin. No anaesthetic was used.

   The baby was kept in the machine for several minutes to generate baseline data of the normal metabolic activity in the brain. This was used to compare to the data gathered during and after the surgery. Analysis of the MRI data indicated that the surgery subjected the infant to significant trauma. The greatest changes occurred in the limbic system concentrating in the amygdala and in the frontal and temporal lobes.

   A neurologist who saw the results to postulated that the data indicated that circumcision affected most intensely the portions of the victim’s brain associated with reasoning, perception and emotions. Follow up tests on the infant one day, one week and one month after the surgery indicated that the child’s brain never returned to its baseline configuration. In other words, the evidence generated by this research indicated that the brain of the circumcised infant was permanently changed by the surgery.

   Our problems began when we attempted to publish our findings in the open medical literature. All of the participants in the research including myself were called before the hospital discipline committee and were severely reprimanded. We were told that while male circumcision was legal under all circumstances in Canada, any attempt to study the adverse effects of circumcision was strictly prohibited by the ethical regulations. Not only could we not publish the results of our research, but we also had to destroy all of our results. If we refused to comply, we were all threatened with immediate dismissal and legal action.

   I would encourage anyone with access to fMRI and /or PET scanning machines to repeat our research as described above, confirm our results, and then publish the results in the open literature.

   Dr. Paul D. Tinari, Ph.D.
   Director,
   Pacific Institute for Advanced Study

   More on Circumcision and Neurological/Brain Impact Studies:

   Circumcision Pain Studies End Early Due to Infant Trauma

   Infant Pain Impacts Adult Sensitivity & Perception
4. Brad says:

   December 27, 2009 at 9:32 pm

   Is Non-Therapeutic Circumcision Ethical?

   Debating the ethics of circumcision is moot because circumcision is already recognized as unethical. Four United Nations documents make clear that taking away a baby’s right to develop normally and naturally takes away his right to self-determination. The Declaration of the First International Symposium on Circumcision, adopted March 3, 1989, by the General Assembly of the First International Symposium on Circumcision, states: “We recognize the inherent right of all human beings to an intact body. Without religious or racial prejudice, we affirm this basic human right.”

   Routine circumcision gained popularity in English-speaking countries during the Victorian era, supposedly to reduce the incidence of masturbation, which was mistakenly believed to cause disease. While the strategy failed, recognition of the sexual importance of the foreskin was made clear. Unfortunately, what did work, from that disingenuous introduction into Western medicine onward, was that circumcision became the miracle treatment for the dreaded disease of the day. None of the supposed benefits of circumcision has withstood scientific scrutiny, but that didn’t stop the process whereby, when one justification was disproved, another was adopted to take its place.

   Parents and guardians do not have the right to consent to the surgical removal or modification of their children’s normal genitalia, just as they cannot authorize removal of their child’s normal ear, nose, or labia. Physicians and other healthcare providers have an obligation to refuse to remove or mutilate normal, healthy body parts. In addition, insurers are ethically bound not to fund such practices.

   Only when a diagnosed condition exists, and after all less invasive treatments have been exhausted, can circumcision be performed on a minor and, then, only with the parent’s informed consent. This is the standard of care for all other procedures, yet it has never been applied to the medical anomaly of circumcision.

   The only persons who may consent to medically unnecessary or cosmetic procedures are the individuals themselves, after they have reached the age of consent, and then only after being fully informed about the risks and benefits of the procedure.

   Physicians who practice circumcision are violating the first maxim of medical practice, “Primum Non Nocere” (First, Do No Harm), and anyone practicing genital mutilation is violating Article V of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.”

   We support the genital integrity and self-determination rights of each and every person.

   The Pain of Circumcision Impacts Babies (and the Adults They Become)

   Circumcision is excruciatingly painful for a baby. Analgesia does not eliminate the pain of the amputation; the harm and pain persist long after any anesthesia has worn off. In addition, researchers observed a strong reaction to pain by circumcised babies undergoing vaccinations at four- and six-months and equated this reaction with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

   Circumcision encodes the brain with pain and trauma, disrupts the maternal/infant bond, interferes with normal breastfeeding and sleep patterns, and undermines the baby’s first developmental task of establishing trust. Circumcision, for the baby, is a primal wound.

   The pain may not be remembered consciously, but the body and the psyche will never forget the traumatic experience. Those who remember or who have recovered circumcision memories in therapy describe the excruciating pain and terror associated with the experience.

   While providing pain relief to infants who must undergo therapeutic circumcision is ethical, even if all pain was eliminated from non-therapeutic circumcision, we would still oppose the forced, non-therapeutic circumcision of non-consenting minors on the grounds of human rights.

   Whether or not infants feel pain has been an issue over the years. In 1656, Felix Wurtz, in The Children’s Book, asserted the idea that the less mature the infant, the greater degree of pain experienced. An infant’s pain was considered very real in the mid-19th century. In 1898, in his book, Therapeutics of Infancy and Childhood, A. Jacobi cautioned against chloroform, which produces shallow respirations, and ether, which has a detrimental effect on kidneys and lungs. He was aware of the need for analgesia in the newborn and the difficulty accomplishing it successfully.

   This understanding was lost when Charles Darwin, in his 1872 book, The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animal, claimed that children’s physical responses to pain reflected sensory or emotional reactions to pain, but were just reflex actions, reinforced by habit. Even up to the 1980s, physicians performed surgery, including open-heart surgery, on infants without anesthesia. But, we now know that Wurtz was correct. Babies do feel and experience pain.

   During the 1980s, Anand and Hickey monitored pain responses of babies undergoing circumcision and, in their landmark 1987 New England Journal of Medicine article, “Pain and Its Effects in the Human Neonate and Fetus,” concluded that infants feel as much—or more—pain as adults. It took another twelve years for the American Academy of Pediatrics to recommend analgesia for babies undergoing circumcision. Still, today, more than 50% of babies are circumcised without pain relief.

   Circumcision is Not Minor Surgery

   Minor surgery is said to be any surgery that is performed on someone else. To infants and children, amputation of a normal, healthy, sensitive, functional body organ is not minor surgery. Non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision is performed on non-consenting patients. In the case of older boys, it is often performed when less invasive treatments would suffice─alternatives that do not have the risks, complications, and lifelong loss inherent in circumcision.

   The short-term risks of circumcision include:

   • Bleeding—the foreskin is highly vascularized, making hemorrhage a particular risk.

   • Infection—from trivial to life-threatening systemic infections are quite common, especially with the rise of deadly hospital MRSA infections.

   • Surgical accident—the foreskin is tiny and there are no guidelines for the amount of skin to be removed, allowing for the accidental denuding of the entire shaft of the penis or the amputation of part or all of the glans penis.

   • Death—may result from bleeding, infection, urinary retention, or cardiac arrest. Since there is no central registry of circumcision deaths, the actual number of babies who die from circumcision is unknown, but has been estimated to be over 100 annually in the United States.

   Less common immediate complications include life-threatening pulmonary embolism, apnea, projectile vomiting, tachycardia, heart failure, and pneumothorax.

   The long-term, post-operative, iatrogenic (doctor-caused) complications of circumcision, not seen in intact boys, include:

   • Urinary retention—from improperly placed bandages or a slipped Plastibell ring, which may result in a ruptured bladder, renal failure, or interruption of circulation in the lower extremities.

   • Adhesions and skin bridges—the result of two raw surfaces becoming attached when healing.

   • Meatal complications—including meatitis (inflammation of the urinary opening), meatal ulceration (due to loss of protection of the meatus), and meatal stenosis (narrowing of the meatal opening).

   • Post-circumcision phimosis—caused when the circumcision scar forms beyond the glans, entrapping it.

   • Inconspicuous, buried, trapped, or concealed penis—caused by circumcision.

   • Loss of the gliding action of the foreskin.

   • Loss of full sensitivity.

   Miscellaneous post-operative complications include chordee (curved penis), inclusion cysts, lymphedema, and neuromas.

   The Foreskin Has Crucial Functions

   The foreskin (prepuce) has been described as a simple fold of skin, with its structures and functions ignored. The foreskin actually is a complex organ, an integral part of the penis, with many important functions.

   The foreskin protects the glans and the urinary meatus (opening) and performs many other integrated functions.

   The immunological functions of the foreskin help protect the body from pathogens. The sphincter action of the preputial orifice prevents entry of infectious contaminants. Glands secrete lysozyme, an enzyme that breaks down cell walls of pathogens. The sub-preputial moisture lubricates and protects the mucosal lining of the glans and inner foreskin. The high vascularization of the foreskin brings cells to fight infection, while Langerhans cells secrete cytokines, proteins that regulate the intensity and duration of immune responses, and langerin, a substance that provides a barrier to HIV infection.

   The foreskin provides the skin necessary to accommodate a full erection. Even when erect, the foreskin has a gliding action that provides additional sexual pleasure to the man and his partner. The gliding mechanism of the foreskin facilitates insertion and reduces friction and chafing during sex. The foreskin also provides a seal, keeping the secretions necessary for comfortable intercourse contained within the vagina.

   The foreskin contains 20,000–70,000 erogenous nerve endings, the majority of which are concentrated in the ridged band, which encircles the inner opening of the foreskin. When the penis is flaccid, the nerve endings are protected but, when erect, they are exposed. Circumcision removes about three-fourths of the nerve endings in the penis, leaving the circumcised penis severely disabled by comparison.

   These nerve endings allow a man to modulate his sexual experience. Without them, a man may feel pleasure, but, without warning, reaches ejaculation quickly. The greatest complaint of circumcised males is premature ejaculation.

   Without the foreskin’s protection, the glans becomes keratinized (calloused). The free nerve endings in the glans become buried in layers of callused skin. Many circumcised males complain about sexual dysfunction and impotence because they lack the feelings and feedback meant to be provided by nerve endings that were amputated with circumcision. Circumcised men are 4.5 times more likely to be diagnosed with erectile dysfunction than intact men.

   The foreskin plays an important role in protection, sexual function, and sexual pleasure.

   Circumcision Alters Sexual Function

   The foreskin has a gliding action that facilitates intercourse. The gliding of the foreskin stimulates the glans and the glans stimulates the foreskin. During intercourse, the foreskin turns inside out and the ridged band is exposed to and stimulated by the vaginal walls. The movements and skin contact an intact man needs to reach orgasm are compatible with the movements and skin contact a woman needs to reach orgasm.

   The dryness, abrasion, and chafing complaints of some women, along with their inability to have an orgasm, are oftentimes complications of circumcision. A circumcised male has little lubrication of his own, and he removes much of a woman’s vaginal lubrication with every outstroke. In addition, a circumcised male needs longer strokes to stimulate the small sensitive area (frenular remnant) on the underside of his penis to reach ejaculation. Each long outstroke distances him from the woman’s clitoris, making it harder for her to ride the wave to orgasm.

   An American joke asks, “Why do women fake orgasm?” The answer, “Because men fake foreplay,” is only partially correct. Women fake orgasm because many circumcised men miss much of the pleasure of foreplay, their movements aren’t compatible with women’s movements, and women don’t want to hurt men’s feelings. Many men, insecure about their sexuality, may know something’s wrong, but are relieved to hear, “Yes, honey, I had an orgasm.” Rarely is this potential cause for deep tension in relationships discussed. Mutilated sex organs are no joke!

   Once couples realize these problems are related to circumcision rather than inadequacy, they can learn to adjust the mechanics of sex to partially compensate for the genital alteration of circumcision, but nothing can restore full sexual experience when significant amounts of sensory tissue are amputated from either a man or a woman.

   Circumcision Falsehoods: Don’t Be Conned by the Pros

   While its origins have been lost in antiquity, we know circumcision was introduced into Western medicine during the mid-1800s to prevent masturbation. Since then, a host of “medical reasons” have been used to justify a practice most of the world has never considered or has long abandoned. The history of the medicalization of circumcision is astonishing:

   • 1832 Dr. C-F Lallemand circumcises a patient to cure him of nocturnal emissions.

   • 1845 Dr. Edward Dixon declares that circumcision cures and prevents masturbation.

   • 1855 Dr. Jonathan Hutchinson publishes his theory that circumcision prevents syphilis.

   • 1865 Dr. Nathaniel Heckford claims that circumcision cures epilepsy.

   • 1870 Dr. Lewis Sayre declares circumcision cures epilepsy and prevents spinal paralysis.

   • 1871 Dr. M. J. Moses declares that circumcised Jews are immune to masturbation.

   • 1873 Dr. Joseph Bell announces his discovery that circumcision cures bedwetting.

   • 1875 Dr. Lewis Sayre declares that the foreskin causes curvature of the spine, paralysis of the bladder, and clubfoot.

   With the introduction of the germ theory, the excuse for circumcision was the prevention of germs, thus was born the hygiene fallacy.

   During the 1930s, penile cancer, a rare disease that affects 1:100,000 elderly males, became the reason to circumcise. Yet, Japan, Norway, Finland, and Denmark, non-circumcising countries, have less penile cancer than the USA.

   Cervical cancer, mistakenly attributed to smegma, became the excuse for circumcision during the 1950s. Cervical cancer is a sexually transmitted disease (STD) caused by the human papillomavirus (HPV), best prevented by safe-sex practices.

   STDs, the excuse of the 1960s, are best prevented with condoms.

   When the 1970s saw challenges of routine medical practices, including tonsillectomies, radical mastectomies, episiotomies, and circumcision, medical excuses for circumcision were replaced by emotional ones: “He’ll look different from his father.” “He’ll be teased in the locker-room.”

   The 1980s excuse was protection from urinary tract infections, which in actuality are often caused by aggressive “care” of the foreskin, and are easily treated with antibiotics.

   The latest excuse for circumcision is protection from AIDS (based on three flawed African research studies), a dubious theory, considering that the USA has the highest rate of AIDS-infected circumcised males in the developed world.

   AIDS has been curbed successfully in Thailand, Senegal, and Eastern Uganda by governments taking a strong leadership role, targeting commercial sex workers and the populace with an aggressive educational campaign, and distributing free condoms. Condoms are 95 times more cost-effective than circumcision. Promoting expensive circumcisions in a continent lacking adequate food, safe water, good hygiene, and modern medical facilities, is a deadly approach, likely to exacerbate the pandemic.

   Africans are lining up to be circumcised, believing they will not need condoms. Others are being blamed for the pandemic and forcibly circumcised. Coerced or forced circumcision is unethical.

   Rather than mutilate the organ of pleasure and procreation, promoting hygiene and safe sex is a more life-affirming and ethical approach.

   Circumcision of Boys Alters Human Behavior

   There is abundant evidence that the non-therapeutic circumcision of children alters human behavior throughout life. Circumcised boys cry differently, have more trouble breastfeeding, a heightened alteration to pain at vaccination, and, after they become adults, many have a compulsion to reenact the trauma of circumcision on others. The behavioral changes of circumcision are the major reason this debate exists at Opposing Views. Such a debate does not exist in the non-English speaking nations where child circumcision is almost unknown.

   Male circumcision is (1) a traumatic operation and (2) the loss of a functional body part. Persons who have lost body parts must grieve their loss of function. Failure to grieve the loss of the foreskin function results in a cohort of men who are in denial about their loss and who need to maintain their denial. Traumatized persons tend to reenact and repeat their trauma. The compulsion to repeat the trauma and the emotional need to deny the loss results in a large cohort of circumcised men who seek to perpetuate the practice of non-therapeutic circumcision. Such men become the ‘adamant fathers’ who insist on circumcising their sons despite medical evidence that the operation is injurious. Circumcised doctors tend to be biased in favor of circumcision. A baby is more likely to be circumcised if the father and/or attending physician is circumcised.

   Australia currenly is experiencing a backlash against genital integrity. The Australian Paediatric Association recommended non-circumcision—genital integrity—in 1971; thereafter, the incidence of circumcision among Australia’s newborn plummeted. At the present time, in regard to genital integrity status, Australia is, in effect, two nations, one of which has mostly circumcised men and the other that has mostly intact men. The dividing point is the year 1978, because the incidence of genital integrity among newborn boys rose above 50 percent in that year. The ever-increasing percentage of genitally intact younger men in the population is causing increasing anxiety and distress among some older circumcised males. There now is a peculiar phenomenon happening in Australia, where one sees middle-aged men from the circumcised generation trying to turn Australia’s medical practice back to that which prevailed before 1971. This is, of course, an attempt to defend the culture-of-origin and is carried out for the emotional reasons described here, although, as Goldman reports, pseudo-scientific reasons are advanced.

   The medical literature on circumcision is voluminous and contentious. Circumcised doctors create papers that overstate benefits and minimize harms and risks. When these doctors publish such claims, other doctors come forward to refute them. The result is an unending debate driven by the emotional compulsion of circumcised men. The best way to end the debate is to stop the emotional injury to men that results from medically-unnecessary non-therapeutic child circumcision. To stop behavior change, boys should not be circumcised.

   Circumcision Destroys Physiological Functions

   The foreskin is a specialized organ, with protective, sensory, mechanical, and sexual functions, which are destroyed by its amputation.

   The foreskin protects the meatus of infant boys from ammoniacal diapers and prevents meatitis, meatal ulceration, and meatal stenosis.

   Moreover, the foreskin has immunological functions that prevent infection. The most important pathogen in urinary tract infection (UTI) is Escherichia coli, present in feces. The muscle fibers in the foreskin form a whorl at the orifice that serves as a preputial sphincter, keeping feces away from the meatus and helping to prevent UTI in infants. The subpreputial moisture contains lysozyme, which destroys pathogens. For example, circumcised adult males have a higher incidence of non-specific urethritis and circumcised boys have more Staphylococcus aureus in the urethra.

   The foreskin is a specific erogenous zone, which is the most highly innervated part of the penis. A ridged band, which originates from the frenulum and encircles the opening of the foreskin, contains nerve endings arranged in rete ridges near the mucocutaneous boundary. The foreskin contains the tissue on the penis most sensitive to fine-touch . Circumcision degrades sensory input to the central and autonomic nervous systems and results in an increase in intra-vaginal ejaculatory latency time.

   The foreskin has important mechanical functions. Since the foreskin is not attached to the underlying structure, it is free to glide back and forth over the glans penis during intercourse. The penis glides in the foreskin during intercourse, reducing friction, vaginal dryness and abrasion and makes intercourse more comfortable for both partners. The force required to penetrate increases 10-fold when the foreskin is absent.

   Destruction of the foreskin may also adversely affect physiological function in the female partner. Lack of the foreskin is implicated in female sexual arousal disorder.

   Destruction of these protective and sexual functions degrades health and well-being throughout life, so non-therapeutic circumcision of infants and boys should not be performed.

   The Prophylactic Benefits of Circumcision are Slight to Non-Existent

   The circumcision of infant boys is an aberrant practice associated with the English language. The English-speaking nations are nearly exclusively the only practitioners of neonatal circumcision. Consequently, English-speaking doctors who have suffered the emotional effects of circumcision are the leading advocates of non-therapeutic circumcision of children. The articles that tout the alleged advantages of child circumcision are found almost exclusively in the medical literature that is written in English.

   Circumcised doctors, writing in English, exaggerate prophylactic benefits of circumcision and minimize the risks, certain injury to function, and other disadvantages.

   The claims usually are for protection against the most feared disease of the moment. At various times claims have been made that male circumcision prevents feeblemindedness, epilepsy, hip joint disease, sexually transmitted disease, cancer, urinary tract infection, and on and on.

   Circumcised American doctors touted prevention of cancer in the 1950s and 1960s, but Leitch (1970) in Australia and Preston (1970) in the United States, working independently, showed these claims to be without merit.

   Circumcised American and Australian doctors touted prevention of urinary tract infection in the 1980s, but Chessare (1992) has shown the risks of circumcision to exceed the claimed benefit. Moreover, we now know that the alleged prevention of UTI cannot be shown to actually exist because of the methodological flaws present in all existing studies.

   The current most feared disease is HIV infection, which progresses to AIDS and death, if not treated with a potent dose of anti-retroviral drugs. Most of the leading advocates of circumcision to prevent HIV infection are from the circumcising cultures of Australia, Canada, and the United States. Several studies have been produced in Africa by English-speaking doctors from nations with a circumcision culture, which purport to show a reduction in HIV transmission from female to male in adults in Africa. Such studies are not relevant to the circumcision of children in developed nations. Moreover, more and more evidence is emerging that these African studies contain disabling methodological flaws that render them useless. The CDC does not accept male circumcision for prevention of HIV infection in the mostly circumcised United States where the CDC reports the incidence of infection is high for a developed nation and increasing. The CDC declines to recommend circumcision of the newborn to prevent HIV infection.

   The medical literature, which touts benefits of non-therapeutic circumcision of children, is emotionally driven by the peculiar needs of persons from circumcising cultures. It should be ignored. Non-therapeutic circumcision of children is an injurious operation that adversely affects health and well-being, so boys should not be circumcised.

   The Risks of Circumcision are Severe, Real, and Well Documented

   The principal risks of circumcision are hemorrhage, infection, and surgical accident leading to mutilation, such as penile amputation. Death may occur from loss of blood or from systemic infection.

   As discussed in Argument 1, circumcision causes emotional issues for many men.

   As discussed in Argument 2, circumcision always causes loss of the ridged band and results in degraded sexual function and pleasure.

   The rate of complications is understated by most writers in English, but Patel (1966) studied 100 circumcisions prospectively (the most accurate type of study), followed the infants after discharge, and recorded 35 cases of bleeding, 8 cases of infection (one severe), meatal ulcers in 31, meatal stenosis in 8, and acquired phimosis in 1.

   Griffiths et al. (1985) prospectively studied 140 boys aged 1 through 15 who were admitted for circumcision. The authors reported 46 cases of vomiting, 19 cases of delayed urination, and four cases of readmission to hospital to treat complications. The mean time of healing was 10.4 days.

   Williams & Kapila (1993) report an incredible variety of complications, up to and including death. The incidence of death from circumcision related complications is unknown, because no on maintains a record of deaths from circumcision, however Gellis says there are more deaths from complications of circumcision than cancer of the penis, while Baker estimates 229 deaths a year from circumcision. Coroner’s reports show several circumcision deaths at the hands of medical practitioners, and, tragically, two deaths after ritual circumcision are a matter of record.

   Newborn boys who have been circumcised have an open wound. They are at twelve-times greater risk of infection with life-threatening antibiotic-resistant CA-MRSA than intact boys. This is a new and emerging risk recently recognized by the CDC.

   Non-therapeutic infant and child circumcision should not be performed because the injury is certain and the risks are severe and demonstrated. Boys should not be circumcised.

   Doctors Should Not Perform Non-Therapeutic Circumcision of Children

   Under the ancient English common law that prevails in English-speaking nations, everyone, including infants and children, has a right to his or her bodily integrity.

   Similarly, under contemporary international human rights law, everyone, including infants and children, has a right to his or her security of the person and to freedom from degrading treatment.

   We have previously shown in Argument 2 that any circumcision excises and amputates functionally important tissue from the human body, which results in degraded physiological functions.

   The circumcision of male children, therefore, violates the legal and human rights of the child, who is too young to consent to such a violation. The child, therefore, must live with the result of his irreversible injury for his whole life.

   Under contemporary rules of ethics, doctors must respect the rights of their child-patients. They have a duty to their child patients to render only the care that the child-patient needs and not what someone else wants. Child-patients do not need non-therapeutic circumcision so doctors have a duty to not provide it.

   Circumcision also violates the four cardinal principles of medical ethics – beneficence, non-maleficence, justice, and autonomy. For this additional reason, doctors have a duty to not carry out non-therapeutic circumcision on infants and children.

   The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is working to bring medical practice into harmony with international human rights law. UNESCO says:

   In applying and advancing scientific knowledge, medical practice and associated technologies, human vulnerability should be taken into account. Individuals and groups of special vulnerability should be protected and the personal integrity of such individuals respected.

   The circumcision of children is an unethical practice for all of the reasons discussed above and for other reasons not mentioned here. Doctors, therefore, should refuse to perform non-therapeutic circumcisions on children.

   Circ. of Boys Prevents Implementation of Genital Integrity Policy

   No medical society recommends neonatal circumcision. By this action, they imply that non-circumcision or genital integrity is most likely to provide the highest state of health and well-being. Nevertheless, they have failed to state this explicitly and parents frequently are deceived into believing that circumcision is best for their child.

   The United States, where infant circumcision is promoted, has a very expensive health care system, however, the infant morbidity and mortality is much higher than it should be in any developed nation.

   By contrast, in Australia, where infant and child circumcision has been discouraged since 1971 and where the incidence of circumcision has declined steeply, infant mortality has been cut in half.

   Genital Integrity provides total freedom from the complications, risks, loss of physiological functions, emotional issues, sickness, and occasional deaths that follow the circumcision of children.

   The Canadian Paediatric Society says:

   • All infants, children and adolescents – regardless of physical or mental disability – have dignity, intrinsic value, and a claim to respect, protection, and medical treatment that serves their best interests.

   • Although family issues are important and must be considered, the primary concern of health professionals who care for children and adolescents must be the best interests of individual children and adolescents.

   These principles are equally applicable in the United States. The medical establishment of the United States, therefore, has a duty to change its policy regarding infant and child circumcision to discourage the practice, so as to promote child health and well-being throughout life.

   Goldman, however, writes persuasively on the emotional inability of circumcised doctors to develop a responsible genital integrity policy. It appears that the United States medical establishment will be unable to develop a genital integrity policy until intact, non-circumcised doctors, who are free of the emotional consequences of child circumcision, are in the majority.

   Boys should not be circumcised, so that they may enjoy optimum health and well-being and so that a new generation of non-circumcised doctors may grow up and institute a genital integrity policy for America’s children.