728x90
my iParenting
From Our Sponsors
e-newsletters
Sign up to receive our free weekly e-newsletters

new terms of use
new privacy policy
award-winning products
The iParenting Media Awards program helps parents find the best products for their families.

Making the Cut

Rethinking Circumcision
By Laura Shanley

As a child growing up in a Jewish family, I always assumed my future sons would be circumcised. It was a tradition, my parents explained, and research proved it was medically beneficial.

Years later, however, when I gazed upon my newborn son’s beautifully-formed body, I knew I could no more cut off a part of his penis than I could a part of his ear or toe. In time, I would learn I was not alone in my belief that little boys are perfect just the way they are.

How It Began
Many people believe circumcision originated with the Jews; however, anthropological evidence suggests it began thousands of years ago as part of ancient tribal initiation ceremonies. The cutting of the penis was seen as a symbolic act that bonded the individual to the tribe. Eventually the practice was adopted by both Arabs and Jews and converted into an act of religious faith.

Non-religious circumcision began in the mid-1800s. Doctors in English-speaking countries claimed circumcision would prevent masturbation, which at that time was thought to cause a multitude of diseases including tuberculosis, insanity and epilepsy. Masturbation was also viewed as a morally degenerate act. By cutting the penis, doctors hoped to curb sexual appetites and encourage more “Godly” behavior.

In the early 1900s, it was obvious circumcision did not prevent masturbation, and proponents began taking a different approach. Using the Germ Theory of disease, cleanliness was now given as the primary reason to circumcise. The uncircumcised penis was said to be germ-laden and prone to disease. Because poor immigrants and African Americans either couldn’t afford or didn’t believe in circumcision, the circumcised penis became associated with wealth and affluence while the uncircumcised penis became associated with poverty and disease.

By the late 1960s, more than 80 percent of American male infants were being circumcised. However, not everyone was convinced of its validity. In an article in the New England Journal of Medicine titled "Ritualistic Surgery: Circumcision and Tonsillectomy," a pediatrician named Robert Bolande wrote there was insufficient evidence to justify any surgery as a preventive measure and that cutting in the absence of disease violated the most cherished tenet of medical ethics: First, do no harm. In the years to come, numerous studies would prove that none of the medical benefits associated with circumcision, primarily prevention of cancer of the penis and sexually transmitted diseases, could withstand scrutiny.

The Foreskin Has a Purpose
The foreskin is the natural covering for the glans, or head of the penis. It comprises as much as half or more of the penile skin system and has three known functions: protective, sensory and sexual. During infancy, the foreskin protects the glans from irritation, urine and feces. In adulthood it enhances the quality of sexual intercourse. Studies show that the foreskin has a greater concentration of complex nerve endings than the glans and is the most sexually sensitive part of the penis. According to Canadian pathologist John Taylor, it is a key erogenous zone, and its 240 feet of nerves and 1,000 nerve endings are similar to those of the fingertips and lips.

How the Procedure Is Done
During a circumcision, a baby is placed on his back and strapped to a board so that he cannot move. His genitals are washed with antiseptic. Generally, he is not given any anesthetic. His foreskin is torn from his glans and slit lengthwise so that the circumcision instrument can be inserted. His foreskin is then crushed and cut off.

Circumcision Hurts
Cutting off any part of the body is painful. During infancy, the foreskin is tightly attached to the glans like a fingernail to a finger. The act of separating the foreskin from the glans is said to be similar to running a razor blade underneath the fingernail. Even if a baby receives anesthesia, he still experiences pain when the needle is inserted into the base of his penis. After the pain medication wears off, the baby will feel the pain of the wound, including every time he urinates, defecates or has his diaper changed. The pain generally lasts 10 days to two weeks.

What the Experts Say
In 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics’ Task Force on Circumcision released a statement saying, “Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.” Some prominent doctors go one step further and discourage parents from circumcising their sons. Dr. William Sears, one of America’s most renowned pediatricians and the author of more than two dozen pediatric books, states: “Do not circumcise your baby because you think there are some medical benefits … Leave nature alone – whether you believe God created men with a foreskin, or nature simply evolved this way, there must be some reason men have foreskins. Why change something that God/nature has created?”

Dr. Dean Edell, one of the first physician broadcasters in the nation and host of America's second most popular syndicated radio talk show, The Dr. Dean Edell Show, refers to circumcision as an “unnecessary and inhumane assault.”

Dr. Edell is not alone. No national health organization in the world recommends routine infant circumcision, and apparently, most of the world is listening. Worldwide, 15 percent of males are circumcised. In the United States, the rate has steadily declined for the past 30 years and is now at 59 percent.

A Parent’s Decision
Most mothers want the best for their babies, and mothers who choose to circumcise their sons are no different. However, it is not uncommon for a mother who has had her son circumcised to regret her decision. Susanna Fierro-Baig, a mother of five in Van Nuys, Calif., agreed to have her first son circumcised at her husband’s insistence.

“It was done when he was 1 week old at the doctor’s office. Even though he received some form of pain medication, I could hear my son's shrill cry from the waiting room. When we returned home, he cried, inconsolably at times, for days. I knew he was in pain because like my daughter, he had hardly cried that first week after his birth. As my husband and I looked at his penis – bleeding, disfigured and swollen – we both cried for him and regretted our decision. Our next two boys were left intact,” she says.

A Human Rights Issue
In spite of the AAP’s pronouncement, circumcision is still a hotly-debated topic. However, those who oppose it say the real issue isn’t whether circumcision has benefits; the real issue is who has the right to make the decision. Marilyn Milos, registered nurse, co-founder and executive director of the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers, believes the decision to circumcise can only be made by the consumer.

“The consumer of a neonatal circumcision is the infant who is circumcised, not the parent(s) who requested and/or paid for the circumcision. Body ownership rights are now being introduced as an issue in circumcision lawsuits that claim that every human being has an inherent, inalienable right to his own intact body. These cases assert that the only person who can consent to a circumcision is a person making this personal decision for himself. And, with American men now expressing anger over what they believe was a violent violation of their bodies, we can no longer ignore the voices of the victims,” she says.

Indeed, many men are now speaking up. All around the world, there are support groups for men who believe that as infants or young boys, their rights were violated. Fortunately, my son is not among them. At 23, he is thankful I left the decision of whether or not to circumcise up to him. He is happy with his body just the way it is.



Want to see more?




About the Author: Laura Shanley is the author of Unassisted Childbirth (Bergin & Garvey, 1993) and the mother of four children born without assistance.

back to index