male neonatal circumcision
Dec. 14th, 2006 01:10 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
asterrocIn response to a locked post by ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
l0stmyrel1g10n, I wrote the following long rant against infant circumcision of boys. I'm mostly against, though not yet entirely convinced. Enough that I will not blindly accept what doctors or a partner tell me, but enough unconvinced that I'm willing to discuss it.
There are a few reasons to potentially be against infant male circumcision. (1) It is an elective surgery, not a theraputic one; (2) there are health risks; (3) informed consent of the patient is not possible.
(3) Starting with the last, in the US all medical practices except those that would save a life require informed consent of the patient or legal guardian. As infant circumcision does not affect the child mortality rates, permission is required, and is usually taken in the form of the legal guardian's consent. (I wonder what happens if the parents disagree in front of the doctor.)
Another example is how a baby was born in China this summer with two left arms. Neither one was significantly more developed than the other, both caused the boy to cry when touched, and both had deformations. The doctors decided for the sake of "fitting in" that they would remove one of the two arms.[ref] I disapprove of that choice, as the articles I've read on it indicate that the doctors (and presumably parents) never once considered the possibility of retaining both arms, and leaving the child with two semi-functioning arms that might serve as well as one of yours or mine, instead of leaving the single semi-functioning arm. Freak or cripple, those were the choices. Of course, ideally the patient should make the choice, but the baby is unable to give informed consent, and yet the operation was, of course, performed.
(1) It is true that male circumcision makes good hygiene easier, just as it would be easier for females to clean themselves if the clitoral hood were removed. (Female circumcision varies in severity, with options including removal of the entire clitoris, removal of the labia minora, or sewing together of the labia majora. Removing the clitoral hood, clitorodotomy, is in the minority of female circumcision cases. [ref]) However, good hygiene for males is not impossible without a circumcision, nor is it any more of a burden than brushing one's teeth daily.
(2) The most common health risk to circumcision is in traditional Jewish ceremonies, in which the mohel actually sucks blood from the incision using his mouth. In a string of cases in NYC, the mohel performing the ritual had hepatitis I think, and transferred it to the infants, resulting in a string of deaths.[ref]
Less common are botched circumcisions. There's one famous case that started in the 1970's where one of two twin boys had a botched job and the doctor persuaded the parents to sexually reassign the child as a female and raise her as a girl. The girl "Joan" recieved numerous continued medical treatments to maintain the secrecy from the girl herself, including counselling, until at age 14 she finally got her parents to confess, and then desided to self-identify as "John" instead. The article about the case linked here does not complete the story, but later in life John made a number of suicide attempts, and eventually completed.
This one case was the most famous because of all the drama, but it was not the only one. While the risk of a botch job may be low, the consequences are VERY high. I am leaning towards thinking it is NOT worth it for a procedure that is not medically necessary, and will discuss this with my future partner, preferably before pregnancy.
More Reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioethics_of_neonatal_circumcision
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=19705
l0stmyrel1g10n, I wrote the following long rant against infant circumcision of boys. I'm mostly against, though not yet entirely convinced. Enough that I will not blindly accept what doctors or a partner tell me, but enough unconvinced that I'm willing to discuss it. There are a few reasons to potentially be against infant male circumcision. (1) It is an elective surgery, not a theraputic one; (2) there are health risks; (3) informed consent of the patient is not possible.
(3) Starting with the last, in the US all medical practices except those that would save a life require informed consent of the patient or legal guardian. As infant circumcision does not affect the child mortality rates, permission is required, and is usually taken in the form of the legal guardian's consent. (I wonder what happens if the parents disagree in front of the doctor.)
Another example is how a baby was born in China this summer with two left arms. Neither one was significantly more developed than the other, both caused the boy to cry when touched, and both had deformations. The doctors decided for the sake of "fitting in" that they would remove one of the two arms.[ref] I disapprove of that choice, as the articles I've read on it indicate that the doctors (and presumably parents) never once considered the possibility of retaining both arms, and leaving the child with two semi-functioning arms that might serve as well as one of yours or mine, instead of leaving the single semi-functioning arm. Freak or cripple, those were the choices. Of course, ideally the patient should make the choice, but the baby is unable to give informed consent, and yet the operation was, of course, performed.
(1) It is true that male circumcision makes good hygiene easier, just as it would be easier for females to clean themselves if the clitoral hood were removed. (Female circumcision varies in severity, with options including removal of the entire clitoris, removal of the labia minora, or sewing together of the labia majora. Removing the clitoral hood, clitorodotomy, is in the minority of female circumcision cases. [ref]) However, good hygiene for males is not impossible without a circumcision, nor is it any more of a burden than brushing one's teeth daily.
(2) The most common health risk to circumcision is in traditional Jewish ceremonies, in which the mohel actually sucks blood from the incision using his mouth. In a string of cases in NYC, the mohel performing the ritual had hepatitis I think, and transferred it to the infants, resulting in a string of deaths.[ref]
Less common are botched circumcisions. There's one famous case that started in the 1970's where one of two twin boys had a botched job and the doctor persuaded the parents to sexually reassign the child as a female and raise her as a girl. The girl "Joan" recieved numerous continued medical treatments to maintain the secrecy from the girl herself, including counselling, until at age 14 she finally got her parents to confess, and then desided to self-identify as "John" instead. The article about the case linked here does not complete the story, but later in life John made a number of suicide attempts, and eventually completed.
This one case was the most famous because of all the drama, but it was not the only one. While the risk of a botch job may be low, the consequences are VERY high. I am leaning towards thinking it is NOT worth it for a procedure that is not medically necessary, and will discuss this with my future partner, preferably before pregnancy.
More Reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioethics_of_neonatal_circumcision
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=19705
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-12-16 02:35 am (UTC)My initial peditrician was Jewish and strongly opposed to circumcision as unnecessary at best, and probably a painful experience for a newborn.
Finally, if a man wants to get it done later, he can. It's easily performed as an outpatient procedure, the reverse is untrue.