I wrote this email in response to an article circulating on Facebook the title of which likened male circumcision of infants to a vaccination program … If a vaccine was proposed with little benefit in prevention of nothing in particular with a serious complication rate of 1 in 200 surely it would be rejected …
I read with interest your article (link below) in which you advised USA parents to opt for routine male infant circumcision. You suggested it was advantageous as a preventative measure against certain conditions.
Please could you cite some international peer reviewed research to back this claim up.
In Europe, male circumcision of infants and minors is only done for the parents’ cultural or religious reasons. The medical communities of many countries do not advise infant circumcision – seeing the potential for harm far outweighs any possible minor benefit and recognising that it is an unnecessary procedure done without consent of the patient.
In your article, in the section, “Myths about circumcision”, you state: “One of the more pernicious and persistent myths about circumcision is that it can dampen sensitivity and function and reduce pleasure. Research has found that it doesn’t.”
I must point out that by definition circumcision does reduce pleasure received from manipulation of the foreskin with its many sensitive nerve endings – as it is no longer present. Many men worry about the size of their penis – circumcision reduces girth and motility. Many circumcised men say that artificial lubrication is essential for sex or masturbation. Intact men don’t usually require lube to masturbate.
Please could you cite the international peer reviewed “research” that backs up these claims you make about circumcision not reducing pleasure?
The fallacious arguments you use to support male infant circumcision are used by Doctors in Malaysia, and others around the world, who recommend female circumcision.
You also state in your article that serious complications occur in “only” 1 in 200 procedures. If every boy in the world were to be circumcised, as you seem to suggest would be your choice, 1 in 200 children getting serious complications would be regarded as a serious global epidemic of harm. If this were for a procedure that was life saving with no alternative treatment that would be acceptable – but routine circumcision is not needed – you are perpetuating harm to children.
What happens to the foreskins you remove? Are they disposed of – or do you resell them for medical use?
What is the profit margin on a circumcision?
Do you recommend circumcision for pet mammals or farm animals?
I’m intact. Are you circumcised?
I note that if all American’s followed your advice the sheer numbers of infant circumcisions required would provide a steady reliable income stream for Doctors doing the procedures.”
If a vaccine were to be proposed with little benefit in prevention of nothing in particular with a serious complication rate of 1 in 200 surely it would be rejected …