(this is a paper i wrote for an english class)
Just Say No – To Routine Infant Circumcision
Crimes are being committed in America today, and there are not many that are talking about it. This is shocking in itself. But given that the crime is against the basic human rights of our male children, it is a shame that parents and medical professionals are not speaking out against it. You might be confused, and that’s ok. This crime is routine infant circumcision (RIC). RIC violates the child’s basic human right to have body integrity and the right to not be strapped down and have his genitals mutilated. However, with RIC, the child does not get that choice; they are instead forced to go through this procedure, that has no benefits whatsoever, without giving consent. RIC must stop.
The United Nations wrote a Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. There are several articles that talk about this very subject. Article 1 states that “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights” (United Nations). Article 2 states that we are entitled to these rights and freedoms, and that there should not be “distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion” (United Nations). Article 3 states that we have the “right to life, liberty and security of person” (United Nations). Article 5 states that “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” (United Nations). Article 7 states that we are all “entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law” (United Nations). I could go on, but I think the message is clear. Our boys are entitled to equal treatment, but they are not getting it. Every time a baby boy is strapped down and their genitals are cut, their rights are being stepped on. Every time a baby boy is cut in a home for a religion they know nothing about, their rights are being stepped on. We cannot allow this to continue. As adults, we demand that our bodies be respected and we hold the right to mutilate, or modify, them as we choose. When the medical professionals encourage RIC, and when the parents choose RIC for reasons that are illogical, we are telling our baby boys that they are not worthy to have these rights, and their rights do not matter to us.
Circumcision violates patient’s rights, as well. The American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Bioethics made the statement in 1995 that “only a competent patient can give patient consent or informed consent” (Fleiss). Newborns obviously do not fall into that category. It is our job to protect our babies from people who would do them harm. We, as parents, do not have the right to consent to a procedure that has no medical necessity. Some might argue this point. But think about it. Would you allow someone to cut off your baby’s finger, even though there is no medical reason to do so? Probably not, because the finger has a function and a purpose. The same goes for the foreskin, it has a function and a purpose. The only time parents have the right to consent to a procedure for a child is if it is for “medical interventions in situations of clear and immediate medical necessity” (Fleiss). This would include treatment for a disease, a trauma that has occurred, or a birth defect or deformity. Given that all male newborns have a foreskin, circumcision does not fall into any of these categories.
Webster’s New World dictionary defines circumcision as cutting “off all or part of the foreskin”. Merriam-Webster’s dictionary not only defines it as the cutting of the foreskin, but it mentions female genital mutilation, too. It is well-known that female genital mutilation (FGM) has been against the law in the Unites States since 1996, and in other countries before that (Dugger, Female Genital Mutilation). And yet our male babies are not given this same respect. Why is that? Why has it been decided that they are less worthy of their basic human rights?
The historic reasons for circumcision are horrific and have been refuted by science. It started in Britain and the United States during the eighteenth century and in Australia during the late nineteenth century, for the same reasons. Those reasons include, but are not limited to, treating phimosis (a condition where the foreskin will not retract), curing masturbation (which was considered wicked and harmful), making the military men less susceptible to diseases (and therefore it was forced on all men who were enlisted and intact), and treating various nervous disorders (of men and women).
When we apply logic and science to these reasons, they no longer make any sense at all. Phimosis is very normal in male babies, often occurring until their teenage years. When the male infants are born, the foreskin “is firmly attached – really fused – to the glans” (Care). Dr. Paul Fleiss states that when the male child is born, their foreskin is “…attached to the glans, very much as a fingernail is attached to a finger. By puberty, the penis will usually have completed its development, and the foreskin will have separated from the glans” (Fleiss). He goes on to let us know that there is no specific time limit for this process. Some children are able to retract their foreskins earlier than others, just as some children are able to ride their bike or pump a swing, earlier than others. It does not mean that the body is defective and needs to be altered by surgical means. He stresses the fact that there is “no reason for parents, physicians, or other caregivers to manipulate a child’s penis. The only person to retract a child’s foreskin should be the child himself, when he has discovered that his foreskin is ready to retract” (Fleiss). This is something that all parents and medical professionals should be educated on.
Another historical reason for circumcision is to cure masturbation. Masturbation is something that we now know to be a continuation of the natural discovery of our bodies. The knowledge that most men masturbate, whether they are circumcised or intact, is a widely accepted idea, whether it’s factual or not. However, during the eighteenth century in Britain, the “normal fondling of the penis which all young boys and many babies did” was turned into “a wicked and harmful vice which had to be stamped out. This led to the gross medical error which characterized the normal phimotic condition of the infant and child penis as a pathological abnormality requiring immediate surgical correction” (Darby – Britain). Circumcision for masturbation was done on the infant or child, but “particularly just before a boy started school, as a precaution against picking up the habit of masturbation there” (Darby – Britain). The idea was that if a child was caught masturbating, and then was circumcised, the pain of the procedure would prevent future masturbation episodes. Considering the fact that circumcision is done without anesthetic, how horrible it must have been for these children to be punished for something they didn’t even know was wrong. One doctor even stated that there must be “no play in the skin after the wound has thoroughly healed, but it must fit tightly over the penis”, making sure that further tries to masturbate would be difficult and would require more work to reach orgasm (Spratling). And we wonder why so many men have erectile dysfunction today.
The United States military had a special hand in the continuation of circumcision. They insisted that the soldiers and sailors be circumcised “because it was believed that this would make them less susceptible to venereal disease” (Darby – US). We know now, that it is by using safe sex practices (male and female condoms, mutual masturbation), that we reduce the chances for sexually transmitted diseases. The act of cutting off skin does not make people less susceptible to STDs. If this was the case, then female circumcision would still be allowed today.
In the United States the practice continued at an alarming rate because there was an “oversupply of doctors” that seemed to have a shortage of “well-paying patients” (Darby – US). Because of this, they gave circumcision as a cure for many disorders; “hysteria, neurasthenia, spinal irritation, reflex neuroses, congenital phimosis and preputial adhesions in [the] male and female” (Darby – US). They even went so far as to state that “physicians can be abundantly occupied with this sort of work” (Darby – US). It is astonishing to think that our medical professionals decided on a barbaric procedure, instead of actually discovering the reason for these issues.
Even though the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the American Medical Association (AMA) stated in 1999 that they did not “recommend routine neonatal circumcision”, there seems to be a mess of circumcisions still being done (AAP, Neonatal). And they are being done for reasons that have been refuted by research. The Circumcision Information Resource Center of Colorado, which is a regional center of NoCirc.org, has a webpage with 25 myths and their corresponding facts listed (Circumcision Myths). It really is impressive to read, and really sheds some common sense light onto the subject. Dr. Neustaedter also lists some myths and the facts that go with them in his article, Circumcision Decision (Neustaedter). A couple of the myths that these sites share include the myth that “circumcision improves hygiene” (Circumcision Myths). In reality, hygiene is always a problem wherever there is a lack of water or hygiene products. This is not the case in most places anymore. “Adequate bathing will prevent these symptoms” (Neustaedter). Another myth these two sites share is that “circumcision is medically necessary” and “circumcision might reduce” the incidence of various diseases (penile and cervical cancer, UTI’s and STDs) (Circumcision Myths, Neustaedter). The facts are that the AAP states that it is “not essential to a child’s well-being” and that it’s “an elective procedure” (Circumcision Myths). The facts are that current studies are disproving any relationship between these conditions and circumcision. Penile cancer can occur in any man, regardless if they are circumcised or not. And cervical cancer is “associated with hygiene, STDs, and a history of multiple sex partners, not the foreskin of those sexual partners” (Neustaedter).
Other myths that the Resource Center of Colorado touches on are that it “doesn’t affect a man’s ability to give or receive pleasure”, that “a boy should look like his father”, that “babies don’t feel pain during circumcision” (Circumcision Myths). All of these can be disputed easily. One only has to look at the list of what is lost during a circumcision to know that it does, in fact, affect the pleasure that a man, and therefore his partner, gets during intercourse. The National Organization of Restoring Men gives a list of what is lost during a circumcision. The list contains 17 items, some that can be restored, and some that are gone forever. Among those items are cells that are components of the immune system, the immunological defense system that comes with the foreskin, nerve endings, natural coloring, blood vessels, and length and circumference (Lost List). The myth that the boy should look like his father is laughable. Do fathers and sons really sit down and compare penises? Do they really talk about how one is larger or smaller than the other? Or do they go through life without really knowing what the other looks like? In an effort to look like dad, are we going to give our baby boys tattoos, pot bellies, shave their heads, or cut off body parts because dad had a tragic accident? I don’t think so. The myth that states that babies don’t feel pain makes me want to cry. How low do we need to go for this one? Circumcision is done without anesthesia “because it may cause respiratory arrest in infants” (Neustaedter). Imagine someone ripping your fingernail away from your finger. This is similar, although not the same, to what circumcision does to a penis. Not using anesthesia is unimaginable. Only using “lidocaine and prilocaine” cream or “a local anesthetic” that is injected into the penis, is unimaginable (Neustaedter). How can this not be painful? And how can we allow this procedure to be done on infants who did not give consent? And who was it who decided that babies couldn’t feel pain?
These myths are not the only reasons why people choose to circumcise their infant boys. There are some religions where circumcision has been a tradition. One can name them immediately; the Jewish, Islamic, and Christian religions. We can all agree that some traditions, such as “slavery, segregation and female circumcision”, are better not being practiced (Brit Without Milah). We need to add male circumcision to this list. And the tide is turning. It is turning towards keeping our boys whole, as they were born.
According to the Jewish Circumcision Resource Center, “any child born of a Jewish mother is a Jew, whether circumcised or not” (Jewish). This statement already allows those of the Jewish faith to allow their boys to stay intact. In fact, circumcision goes directly against three of the things that Judaism is known for: “its rationality and its commitment to learning and scholarship” and the “tradition of gemilut chasadim, acts of loving kindness, and the prohibition on deliberately causing pain” (Brit Without Milah). Because of this commitment to learning, more Jewish parents are educating themselves about circumcision and are choosing to not cut their boys. They are doing their part to change the tide.
Male and female circumcision is also being questioned within the Islamic religion. Traditionally, “justification for circumcision is found in some of the sayings of Mohammed” (Islam). But there is nothing about it in the Koran. In fact, circumcision seems to conflict with “the Islamic belief that God’s creations are perfect”, that “alterations of nature are defacements inspired by the devil” (Islam). This is pretty strong language against circumcision. Dr. Aldeeb states that “religion has been a means of justifying both male and female circumcision” within the Islamic religion (Islam). He continues to say that it’s time to expose those who would continue this practice, condemning “the attitude of international and non-governmental organizations which dissociate one type of circumcision from the other, giving legitimacy to male circumcision in the process” (Islam). While the practice has not completely stopped, the first step is to question it. And there are some who are certainly doing that. The tide continues to turn.
Christians and Catholics have no leg to stand on when it comes to circumcising for religion’s sake. There are multiple scriptures that state that circumcision is not the deciding point for God. Galatians 5:6 states “In Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor the lack of it counts for anything; only faith, which expresses itself through love” (Catholic). 1 Corinthians 7:19 states “Circumcision counts for nothing, and its lack makes no difference either. What matters is keeping God’s commandments” (Catholic). There are more scriptures, but it is obvious that the old laws of circumcision were put away, and it is a person’s faith that matters to God. James Peron states that since RIC is a cosmetic surgery, and “conformity is not a Christian value”, then Christians should seriously question those who would suggest it (Peron). He goes on to say that Christians “are called upon to love, protect, and nurture our children” and therefore the choice “should be obvious” to not circumcise (Peron). And again, the tide continues to turn.
Each religion I have just mentioned also reminds their followers that there is no medical necessity for circumcision. And with these different religions stating that there is no religious connection either, then there really is no reason to continue the practice. Parents should feel very comfortable with saying no to a procedure that has no grounds, either within the medical community or with their religious faith.
So here we are, now knowing that there is no reason, whatsoever, to force this decision on children who have not been given the chance to say no. We now have the knowledge and education and resources to back up the decision to say that our boys and girls will be left intact, perfect as they are born. So what do we do with it? We pass on the information and educate others. How do we take care of an intact penis? What is the correct procedure for cleaning? With a circumcised penis there is a list of instructions that include using a protective lubricant, making sure no urine or feces is on the wound, and more. Care of the intact penis is quite simple. Do nothing. Wipe it down like you were cleaning your finger. There is no need to retract the foreskin (this can cause “pain, bleeding, and possibly adhesions”), just like there is no need to peel back your fingernail to clean under it (as that would be immensely painful) (Care). The AAP states “external washing and rinsing on a daily basis is all that is required” (Care). As the infant grows, and as he explores his body, he will stretch and move his foreskin, causing it to loosen. When the foreskin is good and ready, it will become retractable. As a teenager and then a man, his hygiene routine will include pulling his foreskin back, rinsing, and pulling it forward again. It really is this simple.
Given all of the information available to us, we are able to see the reality of the situation. Routine infant circumcision is a thing of the past. Routine infant circumcision crosses boundaries that we, as parents, have no right to cross. Routine infant circumcision makes our boys less important than our girls. It is within our power, as parents, to make the decision to stop mutilating our boys for reasons that hold no water. It is within our power to respect the rights of our child, which ever sex they might be. It is within our power to say no to RIC. Stand up for your son. He is worth it. And he will thank you for it when he is able to understand that you kept him whole and intact, because you knew he was perfect as he was born.
~~~~~
References
~ American Academy of Pediatrics: Circumcision Policy Statement. Pediatrics Vol. 103, No. 3, March 1999, pp. 686-693.
~ Brit Without Milah. 27 May 2007. http://www.circumstitions.com/Docs/britwm.pdf
Care of the Uncircumcised Penis: Guidelines for Parents (pamphlet). Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics, 1984.
~ Catholic Teachings On Circumcision. December 2004. 27 May 2007. http://www.coloradonocirc.org/files/handouts/Christian_Parents_and_the_Circumcision_Issue.pdf
~ “circumcision.” Merriam-Webster’s Medical Dictionary. Merriam-Webster, Inc. 27 May 2007. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/circumcision
~ “circumcision.” Webster’s New World Dictionary and Thesaurus. 2nd Edition. Hungry Minds, Inc, 2002.
~ Circumcision Myths. Circumcision Information Resource Center of Colorado. 27 May 2007. http://www.coloradonocirc.org/myths.php
~ Darby BA, B Litt, PhD, Robert. History of Circumcision – Britain. 27 May 2007. www.historyofcircumcision.net
~ Darby BA, B Litt, PhD, Robert. History of Circumcision – United States. 27 May 2007. www.historyofcircumcision.net
~ Dugger, Celia. Congress bans genital rite. New York Times, October 12, 1996:A1
~ Female Genital Mutilation. 1 Oct. 2003. CIRP. 27 May 2007. http://www.cirp.org/pages/female/
~ Fleiss M.D., Paul M. The Case Against Circumcision. Mothering: The Magazine of Natural Family Living, Winter 1997, pp. 36-45.
~ Islam and Circumcision. 27 May 2007. http://www.coloradonocirc.org/files/handouts/Islam_and_Circumcision.pdf
~ Jewish Circumcision Resource Center. 27 May 2007. http://www.jewishcircumcision.org/index.htm
~ Lost List, The. 20 March 2007. The National Organization of Restoring Men. 27 May 2007. http://www.norm.org/lost.html.
~ Neonatal Circumcision. 1 August 2005. American Medical Association. 27 May 2007. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13585.html
~ Neurasthenia. 1 November 2006. WebMD – Mental Health. 28 May 2007. http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/Neurasthenia
~ Neustaedter OMD, LAc, CCH, Randall. Circumcision Decision. 14 July 2004. 27 May 2007. http://www.hpakids.org/holistic-health/categories/Pregnancy%2C-Birth-and-Newborn-Care/
~ Peron, MS, EdD, James E. Christian Parents and the Circumcision Issue. 27 May 2007. http://www.coloradonocirc.org/files/handouts/Christian_Parents_and_the_Circumcision_Issue.pdf
~ Ray, Mary G. The Common and Not-So-Common Complications of Routine Infant Circumcision. 1997. Mothers Against Circumcision. 27 May 2007. http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/botch.htm
~ Spratling M.D., E.J.. Medical Record, Masturbation in the Adult, vol. 48, no. 13, September 28, 1895, pp. 442-443.
~ United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 10 December 1948. 27 May 2007. http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
~ Williams N, Kapila L. Complications of circumcision. Brit J Surg 1993;80:1231-6. http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/williams-kapila/
