Circumcision Decision, Opinions and Info Wanted

[mumintraining]

Hello ladies,

I thought as many of us are heading to the final stage of pregnancy you may have already been thinking or looking into this topic and might be able to share your findings so far.

Basically there is a good chance that my little one is a boy and now this has become more than academic for me. So far I have told DH that we will sit down and talk after both of us has had a chance to come to our own conclusions and provide more than just ideas.

The reason for this is that so far I have had the following opinions/arguments given:

Pro:

DH "I've had it done and I'm fine", "It looks better", "He will enjoy sex more later on"

DH's Mum "The Dr's just take the baby and do it, you don't even here them crying", "It has to be done or they get infections and then it has to be done anyway", "It was right for my boys [basically translated to that was my decision, you should do the same]"

Con:

My Mum "Boys can learn to keep themselves clean, no harder than little girls", "Sensitivity of un snipped men is more so, ie more sensation durring sex", "Your father is and brother isn't and neither of them have self esteem issues - makes little difference in the long run"

Family Precidents:

One uncle as a little boy did what little boys do and put it into a chain and ripped of the top - if he had been circumsised he would have lost the tip of the penis as opposed to the foreskin.

Another uncle was and the Dr stuffed it up - suffered erection issues and associated pain. Long term problems with intimacy.

Finally I have another uncle who is an Emergnecy Trauma Surgeon who pointed out to my mum when it was about my brother just how often the foreskin is used to patch up really bad wounds etc. If its gone then you loose a valuable natural skin patch should it be needed.

My position:

I respect my DH and know that his bond with his son is important so I am inclined to take his views seriously. However this is my baby and I do not what to do something that could harm or hinder them, for crying out loud I would never consider altering the genitals of my daughter for what appears to be cosmetic reasoning on his families side.

No one in my family follows a faith that requires this to take place - so thats one less reason. In fact my personal beliefs are more in line with this child is born as it is, imperfectly perfect - like everyone of us.

As for what looks good or not etc I can not honestly say the only boy bits I have been on any real terms with are DH's and I can't say him being snipped or not would change a darnned thing about our relationship. So I really can't even draw on experience here.

As you can imagine I have been avoiding this talk long enough, it does need to happen. Please know that even though I may be one way more than the other I really do want a wide range of opinions so that I can know I have looked at this properly.

If you have any links to info or reports/studies you know about please pass them on.

Thankyou,

Diana

[~StarBright~]

Hi Diana

It is a tough decision to make for you and your DH- GOOD LUCK!!

My DH and i decided to circumcise our son before he was born- alot of what you have said played a part in our convo- DH has been circumcised and there was the thought of them being the "same"(Also all his male cousins on both sides have been circumcised)- After we had it done i had a funny out of place convo with a telstra salesman (dont ask!! ) where he informed me that he was circumcised but his son wasnt- and he has questioned daddy why they look different "down there"

So i can see where your DH is coming from there.

But is that enough of a reason? Other things that we considered were infections (both after HAVING it done as well as later in life after NOT having it done) and the thought that if anything was to happen to our boy and he needed to have it done later in life- that it would be far more painful and possibly traumatic. Although by the sounds of your uncles.. they were kind of lucky that they werent already done..

Then we considered our sons future sex life (lol seriously we did!!) and yes apparently a circumcised penis gets more pleasure and our decision was made!!

The procedure was quick and simple- no needles, we arrived at the drs surgery and they applied a numbing cream on his willy- told us to go have a coffee and come back in half an hour- they then took DS into the surgery part of the clinic and he was returned a few minutes later happy as larry- no tears. We had to apply vaseline every nappy change for about two weeks and it healed nicely.

I guess either way there is no defiante right or wrong decision and its totally up to you and your DH, this was our experience and so far he seems none the worse for it- but i will be keeping him away from chains!!

[Lolli]

Hi,
I just wanted to weigh in here with our experience. Ds was circumsised at 3 weeks of age, with a local anesthetic. (This particular doctor only did babies to six weeks of age. Some will only do them after 12 months. However, after 12 months a general anesthetic is used, which makes the procedure more dangerous).
My dh was able to go in with ds while it was done. The doctor was very understanding and spent a long time talking to us about the questions we had. Ds was in pain (or shock) after it happened, and was in pain for the next 24 hours, until we were able to give him a bath and remove the dressing. We treated him with Panadol. Once the dressing came off he was fine, and has been since.
I was very reluctant to do it for the same reasons as you, but dh was unbudgable. He really out his foot down- we argued about it when I was pregnant. I gave in eventually.
But I actually don't regret the desicion now. Ds has suffered no ill effects and he looks like his dad, which I think is probably the was it should be.
Good luck with your desicion.

[Devon]

Sounds like a hard decision for you and your DH if you feel differently about it.

Personally, I would not consider circumcising my son.

I was just reading about circumcision last night - in a book called 'Heart to heart parenting', and the author was saying that there are a lot of nerve endings in the foreskin, and having the head of the penis protected by the foreskin allows it to remain more sensitive, so a man with an uncircumcised penis would get more intense pleasure. The book also said that in a circumcised man, the head of the penis grows an extra layer of skin as it's lost its natural protective covering, and that this dampens sensitivity as well.

My DH is uncircumcised, and I don't have any problem with the way it looks, it's just a natural penis. And I'm pretty sure they all look the same when they're erect. The same book was saying that there might be a slightly increased risk of urinary tract infections in uncircumcised males, but that's it. Honestly, men's penises are supposed to be uncircumcised - they've evolved to be there, so having a foreskin can't be that much of a health risk to them.

I can understand that your DH might not want your DS to question why he looks different to his dad, but I'm not sure that *for me* that would be enough of a reason to circumcise. I can't imagine that it would cause any distress to a boy to have a slightly different-looking penis to his dad. When he's old enough it would be pretty easy to explain why. My father is circumcised, my brother isn't and as far as I'm aware it has never caused any problems between them. In fact, my dad really resents the fact that he was circumcised.

I would be quite upset to have family interfering in this decision, it's up to you and your DH, so I hope that he's not listening too closely to his mother!

Best of luck making your decison, I hope that you can get lots of information and that the discussion you have with your DH is a good one.

[Lozza]

hi, You have a very hard decision to make. we got our little boy done while we were still in hospital he was 3 days old. I spoke to our doc about waiting for a local, he said by the time the local even starts to work the circ would already be finished. i was very distressed about getting him done, putting him through pain without pain relief. My dh wanted to have him done for the reasons: Dh is done, It is easier to clean, we knew someone that had to get it done at 25 and was really hard to deal with and heal because its bigger and longer recovery. It's better to get them done younger the better they say newborns cope better with pain then when they are older. It took less the 5 mins to do and he was back in my arms within 5mins happy no crying a little unsettled but that's it. the bell dropped off around 7 days later and healed really quickly. babies tend to cry because they are held done rather then getting the circ done. Now i'm glad he is done but i was worried before and during the time of getting it done. there are lots of pro's and con's but at the end of the day this is your child your decision.

[Trillian]

You do realise you've opened a pandora's box by asking for opinions on a VERY volatile subject? Only you and your DH can make this decision.

for what it's worth though, My two boys are NOT done. When I was pg with our first (a son) I did a lot of research and got info sent to me from the Family Planning Clinic (this was in the days before everyone had a computer let alone the internet) and basically we couldn't come up with a good enough reason to do it. Cosmetic reasons weren't enough (even though DH was done) and there were no religious reasons. The chances of him having phimosis (where the foreskin is too tight) were very small, as are the chances of him ever getting an infection. The better sex reason is just a myth and can't be proven because unless you've had it taken off as an adult how will they ever know it's better with or without? Men only *know* sex because of the way their penis's are as adults.

So in the end we just couldn't come up with a good enough reason because to me, 'just so he looks like his dad' isn't a valid reason for cutting off a piece of skin that they are born with. My Dh however since regrets us not getting it done but when I probe him about it, he still can't give me a good enough reason. And my eldest son has never had a major issue with his foreskin. It retracts like it should and he washes it every night in the bath. It really is low maintenance because you wash your genitals anyway regardless of if you are cut or not and it takes him less than 2 seconds to whip it back, give it a wash and let it go again.

It will take you a lot of soul searching, but the decision works both ways - your DH has to respect your thoughts on the matter too.

[Maruschke]

Hi

We have recently thought about this ourselves. We came to the conclusion that if bean is a boy, we won't be getting it done. We can't think of a good enough reason to do it. I have nothing against people who do get it done, or don't get it done. But this is what we have decided to do.

There are numerous threads on BB about circumcision, here is one. Try doing a word search for 'circumcision' and return threads in the BB search tool.

A lot of these threads contain both pros and cons for circumcision. Good luck coming to your decision.

[Nai]

DP is circumcised but if BB#2 is a boy he won't be done. For all of the reasons already stated but I also don't think looking like dad is valid enough.

DD has breasts but they don't look like mine, her woohoo also doesn't look like mine (fortunately on both counts as she is only 2!) but she is quite accepting that mummy and she both have breasts and 'ginas, they just happen to look different. I can't see why a little boy would be less accepting seeing that a little boy and a man still look different down there regardless.

Also longer term most boys these days don't get circumcised so when a boy becomes a teenager he is more likely to look like his mates if uncircumcised.

[~bernie~]

Its a hard decision isnt it? I chose not to have my boy done even though everyone in my dfamily was done. I think I made the right decision for me but you must do whats right for you and your family. good luck!

[Spring Angel]

We decided not to get our DS done. Initally DH wanted him done to be like him but as we both researched it we realised that the pros did not outweigh the cons. Basic hygine will overcome most of the arguments about infection, if you teach your child to wash himself properly (just as you would a daughter) it shouldn't be a problem.

I felt it wasn't my decision to remove a part of my sons anatomy when the only reason I could come up with was so that he looked like his father. Whether or not the process was quick and painless really wasn't enough to sway me, it is permanently changing a body which isn't mine.

I don't regret my decision in the slightest, DH does to a certain degree and he is concerned if he has to have it done down the track it is a more involved process, however, DS may need his appendix removed later in life and we don't indiscriminantly remove them at birth, so that argument is flawed IMO.

It is a very tough decision, sounds like you are equiping yourself with the info you need to make the best decision for your family.

HTH
Spring

[~Aveta~]

my opinion:

DON'T DO IT!

my ex-husband was done, and lost a good deal of sensation as he got older. by the time he was 50, he couldn't sustain an erection, and it wasn't due to illness or poor blood pressure. or lack of effort on my part!

my DS isn't done, and enjoys himself immensely! he is a sexually active teenager, has been since 17 years old. i refused to do him just because his father was, on the grounds that 1. nature put it there for a reason and 2. he could always decide to be circumcised as an adult if he chose. what right did a parent have to decide to remove a portion of his body? would you excise your daughter's clitoris?

my son has never had a problem with hygiene or using condoms. i showed him how to pee cleanly and wash properly when he was quite young, and all has been well.

a foreskin contains specialised oil glands that secrete a lubricating fluid, much like the inner labia of a woman. imagine walking around with the hood pulled back from the tip of your clitoris - do you think it would get irritated and sore? eventually harden up and perhaps lose sensation? these oil glands also secrete pheremones.

my DF isn't done, and is very sensitive, the foreskin itself having a great deal of nerve endings. i actually really enjoy it too. a man who washes at least once a day will not gather a great deal of smegma or smell, and i have no problems (sorry if TMI) going "down" on DF. i just make sure he washes first! our main contraception was always condoms.

please research, there's plenty if you google.

personally, i believe circumsision is mutilation. i apologise if this offends anyone, but i personally have not/ would not do it to my son/s.

[Bumperstump Cummerbund]

I may be wrong about this, but I thought circumcisions weren't performed any more, except for medical reasons??

[boomba]

In the end its up to you. But i didnt think it was my right to take something of my sons without his permisson.
Here is a thread wiht some info! I posted an article which is a good read! Its anti curcumscion but get as much info as you can from both sides!
https://www.bellybelly.com.au/forums...ml#post1465834

good luck! xx

[Trillian]

I may be wrong about this, but I thought circumcisions weren't performed any more, except for medical reasons??

They are still done at the parents request, but what you may be thinking of is that they aren't done as routine anymore like they were when our husbands and brothers would have been (Gen X basically)

[Celsie]

Sunflowa - very few doctors do it these days other than for medical reasons, but it is still done.

We had our DS done, but we did take a long time to come to this decision, as it is a very personal decision and only one you can make for yourselves.

The doctor who did the procedure explained all the pros and cons and we were under no obligation to go ahead once he had finished explaining. There were many pros that I never even knew about. For instance... They are now circumcising men in africa as they now believe it reduces the risk of men from contracting HIV.

DS was only 9 days old when the procedure was done. It really broke my heart and I was unable to stay in the room. DH went in with him and he said he only cried for about 5 seconds. I cried for about 4 hours afterwards. Infact, I was so upset by the time they came out of the room 10 minutes later, the doctor came and gave ME a big hug to comfort me. DH feels the whole experience was more traumatic for me.

It never seemed to bother DS when I'd change his nappy or give him a bath.The little plastic ring fell off within about 5 days and it healed without any problems.

Good luck in your decision.

[Trillian]

I would just like to point out that you can't really compare Africa to Australia with this situation. Abstinence and Condoms prevent HIV/AIDS, not circumcision

[Snacks]

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunflowa_girlie
I may be wrong about this, but I thought circumcisions weren't performed any more, except for medical reasons??
They are still done at the parents request, but what you may be thinking of is that they aren't done as routine anymore like they were when our husbands and brothers would have been (Gen X basically)

There are hospitals that wont do it, unless it is for medical reasons. Usually you have to find a dr who will do it and then go to whichever hospital or surgery they practice from.
I really feel for you. DH and I feel differently about it too.

[~Aveta~]

from an article in Kindred magazine: WARNING: very confronting.



Intact! Protecting Our Boys from Circumcision


By Meryn Callander

Circumcision — ten years ago I had trouble spelling the word. I would stumble over the pronunciation of it, had I cause to use it, which I rarely did. Then Marilyn Milos entered my life through our founding meeting of the Alliance for Transforming the Lives of Children (aTLC). 1 It was her eyes, large and bright and gentle, that first engaged me. Then her generous and ready smile, resonant and contagious laugh, her deep voice. The word circumcision rolled off her tongue with the ease borne of speaking it many, many times each day.

Marilyn's own sons are circumcised. Her doctor had told her that the surgery was a necessary health measure, it didn't hurt, and only took a moment to perform. It wasn't until several years later, in 1979, that Marilyn, as a nursing student, saw the surgery herself.

She recalls filing into the newborn nursery with the other students, to find a baby strapped spread-eagle to a plastic board on a counter top. He was struggling against his restraints — tugging, whimpering, and then crying helplessly. No one was tending him. When she asked her instructor if she could comfort him, she was told to wait till the doctor arrived. When he arrived, Marilyn immediately asked him if she could help the baby. On putting her finger into the baby's mouth, as the doctor suggested, she found the baby sucked. As she stroked his head and spoke softly to him, he began to quiet.

The silence was broken by a piercing scream — the baby's reaction to having his foreskin pinched and crushed as the doctor attached the clamps to his penis. The shrieks intensified as the procedure continued. The baby started shaking his head — the only part of his body free to move — back and forth. He began to gasp and choke, breathless from shrill continuous screams. In the final stage of the surgery, the doctor crushed the foreskin against the circumcision instrument and then, finally amputated it. The baby was limp, exhausted.

While the doctor remained passive, ‘professional', Marilyn was devastated. Even more so when she heard his comment: ‘There's no medical reason for doing this.' Eyes filled with tears, sick to her stomach, she questioned how it could be that medical professionals, dedicated to helping and healing, could inflict such pain and anguish on innocent babies unnecessarily. Marilyn made the decision to dedicate her life to bringing an end to this horrendous practice.

As a nurse, believing every parent had a right and an obligation to be fully informed, she told parents what she wished she had been told before her sons were circumcised. Told to keep her mouth shut, she made a video of a circumcision for parents. She was told it was too much for parents to see. ‘Perhaps, then,' Marilyn responded, ‘it's too much for a baby to endure!' The video was censored and, in 1985, Marilyn was fired. Fired from the nursing profession and fired to advocate for the genital integrity of all children. That same year, she co-founded the National Organisation of Circumcision Information Resource Centres (NOCIRC); the first national clearinghouse in the United States for information about circumcision.

Today, my frustration is no longer fuelled by an inability to readily spell or even pronounce the word circumcision fluently, but rather by the fact that this practice continues in the face of an abundance of research revealing, beyond any shadow of doubt, the damage inflicted. For example, while many circumcisers claim that babies do not experience pain, a mountain of published scientific studies prove that they do . In fact, babies feel pain more sharply than adults. Pain is serious. It is not something to be dismissed, ignored, or laughed at. It does not ‘toughen' little boys. In fact, baby boys who have been circumcised suffer from an abnormally and artificially lowered pain threshold, and their heightened response to pain is consistent with post-traumatic stress disorder.

... No one is aware of the deep implications and life-lasting effect (of circumcision). The torture is experienced in a state of total helplessness, which makes it even more frightening and unbearable. — Frederick Leboyer

Unbearable trauma

Circumcision is painful and traumatising. In the course of every circumcision, all babies scream, tremble, and/or cry. Many hold their breath, defecate, or vomit. Breathing difficulties can induce choking and apnea. Some infants are so severely traumatis ed by the experience that they fall into a semi-comatose state. (Some circumcisers pretend or presume these babies are falling asleep.) Going into a coma-like state is one way for a baby to distance himself from his agony, but it has dangerous consequences for the brain. Some infants cry for hours afterwards, and remain irritable for days. Post-circumcision stresses increase adrenal corticosteroids (stress hormones), decrease arterial oxygen perfusion, and disturb the sleep-awake cycles. 1

It is difficult to reconcile the awareness that so many people bring to a birth today — that a newborn, in the course of delivery, must be well oxygenated, not sedated, tenderly cared for, and welcomed with love; and the practice of strapping him to a restraining board within a day or two after delivery, if the infant is a male, exposing him to bright lights and cold instruments and, without benefit of anesthesia (which, unfortunately creates additional risks and potential complications for newborns), amputating his foreskin. There is something terribly bizarre and irrational in this, even more so in a climate where current ethical guidelines state that surgical procedures cannot be performed on research animals without using anesthesia.

When they brought him back to me, I could see that he had been crying and had a glassy, wild look in his eyes. I think it was terror… I'll never forget that look. They probably shattered every bit of trust he had. — C. Miller

What we know from infant neurological development, trauma theory, clinical experience, and research all support the conclusion that circumcision is a trauma. Like other traumas, the experience of circumcision is repressed, but may be remembered or relived under special circumstances. Long-term psychological effects can be difficult to establish because the consequences of early trauma are very rarely recognisable to the person who experienced the trauma. However, it is well established that adults, abused as young children, suffer adverse behavioural responses connected with their early trauma. Clinical experience, child development theory, and infant behaviour all suggest that circumcision can impair bonding. At the most immediate level, the separation of newborn from the mother, on whom the infant's world centres, is in itself a traumatic experience.

Circumcision is an enormous obstacle to the development of basic trust between mother and child. — Rima Laibow

Some infants withdraw because of the trauma of circumcision. They may be less responsive and more irritable. Some mothers, feeling guilty, become overprotective; or withdraw to protect themselves from feeling their own pain. Some circumcised infants cry for extended periods and seem inconsolable. While this helps the infant resolve the trauma, the crying may exceed the mother's tolerance level. She may think of the infant as having a ‘difficult' temperament and use that belief as a reason not to respond. Or, she may feel incompetent and withdraw because she feels unable to relieve the infant's distress. Clearly, it is not only the infant who suffers post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Witnessing circumcision, or becoming aware of the harm or injury inflicted on her child, leaves the mother, too, liable to PTSD. The mother–infant relationship depends on the responsiveness of both. If either mother or infant is unresponsive, the relationship will suffer.

Jesse was shrieking and I had tears streaming down my face. Jesse screamed so loud that all of a sudden there was no sound! He was screaming and it went up and then there was no sound and his mouth was just open and his face was full of pain! I remember something happened inside of me… the intensity of it was like blowing a fuse! I don't think I can ever recover from it. It was too intense. When he was first born, there was a tie with my newborn. And when the circumcision happened, in order to allow it I had cut off the bond. I had to cut off my natural instincts, and in doing so I cut off a lot of feelings towards Jesse. I cut it off to repress the pain and to repress the natural instinct to stop the circumcision. (emphasis added) — Elizabeth Pickard-Ginsburg

Complications

Circumcision creates a disturbingly long list of unnecessary surgical risks and complications ranging from lacerations, haemorrhage, infections, penile amputation, and urethral damage to an inordinately large number of badly performed circumcisions with resultant deformed penises. There is no trustworthy data on the true rate of complications. Hospitals are free of any obligation to report circumcision accidents.

The risks of newborn circumcision are an underreported and ignored factor…. Most often a poor surgical result is not recognised until years after the event. — James Snyder

… the true incidence of complications associated with circumcision is at best an estimate. These complications are often overlooked or under-reported… most complications were discovered only by carefully examining the nurses' notes. — John Gearhart

One study estimates that a realistic complication rate for newborn circumcision ranges from 2 to 10%. There is simply no way of knowing which circumcised newborn will become a victim of these statistics. The only way of ensuring that an infant will not is to say ‘No!' to circumcision. To many of the circumcised men today, the very fact that the foreskin was destroyed is itself a complication, putting the actual complication rate at 100%. The long-term consequences of neonatal circumcision only now are beginning to be documented.

Accurate reporting of deaths attributed to circumcision is suspect. Many deaths from circumcision are signed out as due to sepsis (blood poisoning). Other deaths are hidden as due to ‘complications of anesthesia' with no mention of the fact the baby had been anesthetised for no reason other than an unnecessary routine circumcision. It would take great courage on the part of physicians to report a death attributable to circumcision knowing that the procedure had been deemed unnecessary by every pediatric and obstetrical society in the Western world, and that they may be sued for malpractice.

General anesthesia is very dangerous for a baby and local anesthesia is largely ineffective. Even if local anesthesia is used — and the death and complication rate from local anesthesia is itself a disincentive for using it — the effect lasts but an hour or two. Then, the pain of the amputation returns. It is now impossible to avoid contact between the unprotected, raw, reddened, exquisitely sensitive glans penis and the inevitable faeces or urine-soaked diapers. The throbbing pain of the wound is aggravated every time the baby urinates and hot acidic urine burns the raw flesh. Even holding the infant to comfort him inflicts pain. It takes ten to fourteen days until the wound heals and the initial pain of circumcision subsides.

What is normal?

A physician's entire training is geared to distinguish what is normal and what is abnormal. Disease is a deviation from the normal, which one hopes to correct. The normal needs no correction. The foreskin — or prepuce — is normal and natural. It is the flexible, double-layered sheath of specialised skin that covers and protects the glans — or head — of the penis. The foreskin is a uniquely specialised, sensitive and functional organ of touch, and an integral and important part of the skin system of the penis. Nature designed the glans to be an internal organ. In many ways, the foreskin is like the eyelid. It covers, protects, and preserves the sensitivity of the glans by maintaining optimal levels of moisture, warmth, pH balance, and cleanliness. Genitally intact males know from experience that the foreskin is one of the most sensitive parts of the body. Circumcised males have no idea what was taken from them. Most are surprised to learn that the glans penis is one of the least sensitive parts of the entire body. Circumcision is a disservice to both males and females, especially in later life. A circumcised male can never reach his full birth potential of genital pleasure. The woman can never be a recipient of her lover's full sexual response.

Intact males can be more tender, gentle, relaxed, and loving during sex because the lightest and subtlest gesture or motion evokes deeply satisfying sensations. — Paul M. Fleiss and Frederick M. Hodges

Contrary to popular myth, the penis or foreskin is not ‘dirty'. The immunological functions of the foreskin and the self-cleansing functions of the penis actually protect the body from harm. No extra care is needed for an intact infant or young boy. Hygienic care of the normal intact penis is simple. One washes it as one washes any other part of the body. The prepuce is a normal structure with a definite function. Like a shoe, or glove, it protects the underlying structure — in this case the glans — from the environment. The glans is appropriately and advantageously exposed upon only three occasions: when urinating, washing, and engorgement/erection.

The myth that circumcision protects babies from urinary tract infections — which are a relatively rare and minor problem — evaporates in the light of current scientific data. Breastfeeding is a more effective and appropriate way to prevent urinary tract infections. Circumcision does not prevent premature ejaculation (a common sexual complaint of Australian and American men — most of whom are circumcised) — it likely causes it. Preventing penile and cervical cancer are not valid reasons for infant circumcision any more than amputating young girls' breasts to prevent breast cancer. It would make just as much sense to amputate the breasts from all young girls to prevent breast cancer. The incidence of cancer of the penis in Europe, where circumcision is rare, is no higher than in the US or Australia. More US and Australian men develop and die of breast cancer than penile cancer. Cigarette smoking contributes to penile, prostate and breast cancer in males, and ‘blame' should more aptly be placed there.

One unique argument for circumcision — now rejected in all English-speaking countries except the US — is the notion circumcision has prophylactic value, that is, it ‘prevents' certain problems from developing. As a surgery, the concept is a bizarre one, now applied solely to the genitals. No other body part is subject to ‘routine' removal as a ‘preventive' measure especially when measured against the pain and risks of surgery. — Marilyn Milos

The intact penis is not more likely to spread sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS. The fact is that the US has one of the world's highest AIDS rates as well as the most circumcised sexually active males. It is not the foreskin that causes these diseases, and circumcision will not prevent them. Rigorously controlled studies have demonstrated that the foreskin plays a protective role in shielding the rest of the penis and thus the rest of the body from AIDS.

There are no valid medical reasons for performing circumcision. The risks and disadvantages far outweigh any possible protective benefits. Any doctor who says otherwise is misinformed about relative risk. While the principles of medical ethics require that babies be protected from pain and trauma, laboratory animals are provided greater protection from painful experiences than are our infants. Any doctor who performs a circumcision is violating a major tenet of medicine: ‘First, do no harm.'

Faith and culture

Aside from medical persuasion, religious, cultural, and social pressures perpetuate circumcision. Doctors performing circumcision today usually remove far more tissue from the penis than was removed during the period of both the Old Testament and New Testament. During Biblical times, only the tip of the foreskin was removed. Circumcision has suffered an escalation from the original Biblical injunction, with tragic consequences.

When most people think of religious circumcision, they think of Muslims and Jews, for whom this is a deeply sensitive topic. Despite their being subject to tremendous emotional stresses and cultural pressures when considering the issue, a courageous reexamination of circumcision is occurring within both the Muslim and Jewish communities.

Traditional Jewish circumcision is performed by a ritual circumciser on the eighth day after the baby's birth, at home, in public (females are often excluded from observing the actual cutting). For many Jews, the bris milah is a joyous occasion when friends and family celebrate and welcome the new member of the family. It is difficult for some Jews to consider any information that could appear as criticism of Judaism. For others, freeing Judaism from circumcision is not about criticism; it is about spiritual renewal and affirmation.

No matter how much religious sentiment may have clung to it in the past, today it is perpetuated only by custom and fear, to which we surely do not want to erect temples. — Abraham Geiger

During the nineteenth century, the founders of Reform Judaism in Germany and the United States sought to abolish circumcision as part of their task to modernise Judaism. Many prominent Jews disapprove of circumcision: Sigmund Freud and Theodor Herzl, the founder of Zionism and spiritual father of the state of Israel, protected their own sons from it.

Many Jews defend ritual circumcision because of the deep meaning they see in the bris milah , the ceremony during which the baby is circumcised. In recent years, though, observant Jews in the United States have developed new traditions to replace the circumcision part of the ceremony. Instead of bris milah at eight days, they celebrate bris shalom. Here, the joyous, beautiful and deeply moving religious and spiritual aspects of the ceremony are retained and enhanced, but no-one gets hurt. The boy is named and presented to the community and his penis remains intact. These gentle ceremonies are increasing in popularity. Jews are able to retain the best parts of their traditions, follow their conscience and their hearts in protecting their baby from unnecessary surgery while still affirming the spiritual ties to their community and history. — Paul M. Fleiss and Frederick M. Hodges

A growing number of Muslim organisations have taken a firm stand against circumcision, proclaiming:

God with his infinite grace did not and would not condone such cruel ritual. This act is not found anywhere in the Qur'an. It is only in such man-made innovations such as ‘hadith and Sunnah' that one can find such cruel laws and rituals. — Edip Yuksel

The parental decision to circumcise an infant — regardless of religious faith — is based mainly on emotion and peer pressure, with little comprehension of the disservice done to the newborn. The decision is frequently made with the tacit consent of a doctor.

In all cases where parents request a circumcision for their child the medical attendant is obliged to provide accurate information on the risks and benefits of the procedure. Up-to-date, unbiased written material summarising the evidence should be widely available to parents. — Pediatric and Child Health Care Division, Royal Australasian College of Physicians.

Despite this policy statement, few doctors inform parents of what is actually done to a baby when he is circumcised, and parents remain unaware of the realities of the procedure, the pain inflicted, and the potential complications and repercussions. Most who have witnessed a circumcision or seen a videotape have been shocked:

It's absolutely horrible. I didn't know how horrific it was going to be. It was the most gruesome thing I have ever seen in my life. I told the doctor as soon as he was done, if I had had a gun I would have killed him. — Melissa Morrison

Observing their son's pain leaves many with deep feelings of regret:

His screams tore at my heart… Too late… I knew that this was a terrible mistake and that it was something no one… should ever have to endure… my body feeling nauseatingly sick with guilt and shame. All I could think of was holding and consoling my child, but his pain felt inconsolable — his body rigid with fear and anger — his eyes filled with tears of betrayal. — B. Raisbeck

A big issue for many parents, fathers especially, is that of their baby looking like his dad.

…circumcising a baby cannot make him look like his circumcised father, nor does it create a ‘bond' between father and son. Bonds are created by the expression of love rather than by cutting the penis... What if the father were missing a finger? Would it be right to amputate a finger from the baby so that he matches his father? — Paul M. Fleiss and Frederick M. Hodges

Surely no one of us would claim it reasonable to perpetuate any form of bodily mutilation — be it binding of the feet, burning or excising the clitoris, or circumcision — on the sway of emotions or peer pressure. Just as boys do not need to be circumcised because their father has been circumcised, boys do not need to be circumcised just because their neighbour or even their parents' best friend's infant son has been, and with the decline in circumcision rates, this excuse is less valid than ever. The chances are approaching 50-50 that the boy next door is intact, and the locker rooms are reflecting that.

The ‘I'm circumcised and I'm fine' syndrome is prevalent throughout our culture, and completely ignores the fact that the typical circumcised male has no means of comparing his experience with what may have been. All of his sexual experience has been with his circumcised penis. Then, too, he is in all likelihood woefully lacking in knowledge of the functions of foreskin, glans sensitivity, and the pleasure dynamics of the normal intact penis. To admit that a penis is not all it could be takes a great deal of soul searching, courage, and honesty.

The danger in knowing about circumcision is that one is then vulnerable to feeling the associated emotional pain of what has been done. The greater danger is that without this knowledge we will continue to circumcise and cause more pain. — Ronald Goldman, PhD

We live in a society shaped by Puritan ethics and views on sexuality. Sexual pleasures are held to be immoral or dangerous, and celibacy and virginity held to be virtues. Generally, we are uncomfortable talking seriously about sex. The subject — which includes, of course, anything to do with the penis, and hence circumcision — is avoided or joked about.

It is hardly surprising that denial persists, despite the data, as a common defence mechanism. Few people want accurate information: dealing with the facts is too confronting. The trauma of circumcision is gruesome and upsetting. And so, on an individual, familial, and social level, we silently collude in agreeing not to ask or tell about circumcision. However, the facts remain, and with our silence, we perpetuate the pain.

Our materialistic view of the body gives rise to medical materialism and reflects our cultural materialism. The foreskin, we tell ourselves, is ‘just a little piece of skin'. But we are more than our material body, and the impact of circumcision is not just material. It is also psychological and social. When the bond between child and mother is disrupted, the bond between child and humanity is disrupted. Consequently, it is not only the child who is wounded during circumcision. We are all wounded: the parents, the physicians, the community, and the society. — Ronald Goldman

Awareness, inquiry, and disclosure are vital to a healthy society. Healing involves taking responsibility.

…to hold the medical community (or any other group) solely responsible for the practice of circumcision would be a serious mistake. A person, group, or institution has only as much power as other people give it. Circumcision is a social problem in which the whole society is complicit. — Ronald Goldman

Most of the world rejects circumcision: Over 80% of the world's males are intact. Most circumcised men are Muslim, Jewish, or North American. The United States is the only country in the world that circumcises most of its male infants for nonreligious reasons. The rise of circumcision in the first half of the 20th century to prevent masturbation and for other purported health benefits, or simply as a fashion, was confined to the English-speaking countries. It never gained acceptance in any of the Continental European countries. In Sweden and Finland, male circumcision is closely regulated and their governments are giving serious consideration to prohibiting it altogether, just as female genital mutilation is banned.

Since the 1950s and 1960s male circumcision has been in decline in the English-speaking world, and medical associations in the UK, Canada, and Australia have taken strong stands against routine circumcision. The introduction of the National Health Scheme in the UK brought about a precipitous reduction in the circumcision rate there, so that by the 1970s fewer than 1% of baby boys were being circumcised. By about the same time, the circumcision rate in Australia had fallen below 50% and it continued to fall so that in the 1990s only about 10% of baby boys were circumcised.

Professional influence

Physicians influence circumcision rates by their attitude towards circumcision and their willingness or unwillingness to educate parents. Most of our male physicians are unaware of how they themselves have been genitally compromised. Additionally, they were likely given little or no accurate information about circumcision in medical school.

Nearly every illustration of male sexual anatomy in medical textbooks, popular medical books, and American-produced pornography portrays the penis as being circumcised, without comment, as if it were naturally so. — Paul M. Fleiss and Frederick M. Hodges

Many physicians purport it to be a stress-free surgery without any negative consequences. Most are uncomfortable discussing sexual matters, not only with their patients but also with other physicians. Many have not made peace with their own sexual feelings or have not been honest in their evaluation of their sexual prejudices. Our culture's deeply imprinted bias toward the appearance of the intact penis remains largely unchallenged and unrecognised by the medical profession as well as the culture at large.

Then too, circumcision is big business. Neonatal circumcision is the most frequently performed routine operation in the US. In Australia, several GPs and other practitioners have exploited the publics fears as a business strategy.

In the US, doctors are collecting as much as $240 million yearly to perform 1.2 million needless operations on 1.2 million normal penises.

Most parents want the operation. I can make an extra $200. Why should I try to dissuade them? — Anonymous obstetrician

Then too, there are hidden factors that raise the cost of circumcision to the healthcare industry. For example, the additional cost of the hospital stay for circumcised infants in the US — an annual cost estimated between 1990 and 1991 to be between $234 million and $527 million beyond the charges for the procedure itself. The total cost of all neonatal circumcisions performed in hospitals in the US in 1999 was reported to be $2.1 billion, surely difficult to justify in a time of increasingly scarce healthcare dollars.

Circumcision is profitable, and not only for the medical-industrial complex. Human foreskins are in great demand for a number of commercial enterprises, and the marketing of purloined baby foreskins is a billion-dollar-a-year industry. Some examples: pharmaceutical companies use foreskin in the manufacture of interferon and other drugs, and international biotech corporations are procuring cells from amputated foreskins and experimenting with artificial skin. According to a report in Forbes magazine, the annual market for baby-penis-derived products could be $1 to $2 billion. And all of this without the permission of the ‘donor'.

Biotechnology firms like Organogenesis have received fast-lane approval from the Food and Drug Administration for its foreskin-based Graftskin. American doctors, medico-legal experts, and bioethicists were denied the opportunity to request a full hearing and voice their concerns over the ethics of trafficking in and marketing these foreskins.

The heartening news is that, despite pressures to continue circumcision, the rate of circumcision has declined overall. Many people are beginning to question the moral or legal right of a parent (or doctor) to remove a valuable and normal part of another human's body. Would it be moral or legal to remove the tip of every male's left little finger? While many doctors who do not really believe in circumcision still perform it under pressure from colleagues, hospitals, and parents, many noted physicians have spoken out against circumcision, including Benjamin Spock. Enlightened doctors, nurses, and parents are saying ‘No'.

My feeling is that it is a traumatic experience and I am opposed to traumatising the baby… and to inflicting an operation on an individual without his permission. My feelings became more concrete when I talked to Leboyer and saw his birth film. It seemed so incongruous to have a nonviolent birth and then do violence to the baby by circumcising him. — Howard Marchbanks

In the US, the average rate of circumcision was close to 90% during the 1970s, but today it is just about 50% nationally. An improvement, yes, but that still leaves 3,500 infants being subjected to a traumatic and entirely unnecessary surgical procedure in that country every day , one every twenty-five seconds. Estimates for Australia are around 10%, most of which are now performed under a general aneasthetic in boys older than six months, or approximately 16,000 circumcisions per year, 35 every day.

Only by denying the existence of excruciating pain, perinatal encoding of the brain with violence, interruption of maternal–infant bonding, betrayal of infant trust, the risks and effects of permanently altering normal genitalia, the right of human beings to sexually intact and functional bodies, and the right of individual religious freedoms, can human beings continue this practice. — Marilyn Fayre Milos and Donna Macris

Language is important in shaping our reality and experience — when we change the language, we'll change society. Marilyn continues to challenge my thinking and my language. Rather than being an anti-circumcision movement, NOCIRC today recognises itself as a genital integrity organisation. Most recently, on another aTLC board conference call, a member was sharing her excitement at a recent birth she had attended: ‘…he weighs eight pounds and is uncircumcised'.

Marilyn's voice boomed along the telephone wires from her home in Marin County, California, across the Pacific Ocean, and into my living room in East Gippsland, Australia: ‘Oh, my dear, do not say he is uncircumcised. Women are not called “unclitoridectomised”. He is natural, normal, whole, intact!'

Meryn G. Callander is editor of the Wellspring Guide (www.thewellspring.com/TWO), co-author of A Change of Heart: The Global Wellness Inventory, and Wellness for Helping Professionals and co-founder of the Alliance for Transforming the Lives of Children (aTLC) with husband, John W. Travis, MD. They are parents to Juniper, 11, and live in Metung, Victoria, Australia.

This article is excerpted from Meryn's forthcoming book, Myth Busting: Dispelling Misconceptions about Pregancy, Birth and the Early Years.