The Fate of a Million Foreskins

The AAP will never actually recommend neonatal circumcision because of the legal liability. By any measure there are thousands of men in the U.S. whose circumcisions resulted in what could only be called genital mutilation, and a recommendation by the AAP would shift more legal liability to the so-called doctors. Only circumcised men and their female proxies are pushing for the amputation (the word actually used by the AAP in their medical description of circumcision) of sexual tissue from non-consenting minors. Circumcision is a cultural disease, passed from one mutilated generation to the next.

The AAP will never actually recommend neonatal circumcision because of the legal liability. By any measure there are thousands of men in the U.S. whose circumcisions resulted in what could only be called genital mutilation, and a recommendation by the AAP would shift more legal liability to the so-called doctors. Only circumcised men and their female proxies are pushing for the amputation (the word actually used by the AAP in their medical description of circumcision) of sexual tissue from non-consenting minors. Circumcision is a cultural disease, passed from one mutilated generation to the next.

And of course, in the description, one adds "without the patient's consent."

According to many doctors though, circumcising baby boys does more harm than good. In most countries near 0% of baby boys are circumcised. No national medical organization in the world recommends that baby boys be circumcised, but many national medical organizations recommend that baby boys not be circumcised. Even in Canada the main Pediatric organization recommends that baby boys not be circumcised.

Circumcision is medical quackery, a scientific hoax and a barbarous violation of human rights. The foreskin system is no more a mistake of nature than are human eyelids or ears and should be left alone! It is medically unjustified penis reduction surgery and is a cure for nothing. It is needlessly cruel as anesthetics are almost never used because the sale of foreskins is big business in this country and the foreskin needs to be untained by the use of anesthetics. Among western industrialized nations, America stands alone in continuing this primitive ritualistic practice of genital mutilation. It is excruciatingly painful and a crippling partial amputation of the infant's penis which frequently results in immediate and serious complications and always results in permanent disfigurement and long term physical and emotional debilitation and suffering. Hundreds of babies die annually in terror from shock and from infections or loss of blood resulting from this senseless barbarity. In fact, circumcision may increase the likelihood of sexually transmitted disease contraction. Circumcised American males have the highest incidence of STD's in the western world and the highest rate of HIV in the industrialized world. Circumcision has not reduced the rate of STD's or the transmission of HIV in America, Israel and Muslim countries, all of who routinely circumcise their male infants. Circumcision shatters the bond of trust between mother and child and it is not uncommon for circumcised babies to withdraw into a kind of semi-coma lasting for day or even weeks. Circumcision violates the physician's Hippocratic oath, which is to "do no harm." Shame on Dr. Stein and all doctors who are continue this assault on our babies. Removing healthy tisue without absolute medical necessity from a person who cannot give consent is unethical.

In a recent case in Atlanta a boy and his mom got a verdict for 2.3 million dollars for his seriously botched circumcision. The risks of circumcision are being ignored by the medical establishment. Not only are risks ignored, but the functions of the foreskin, both sexual and otherwise, are also. As can be seen from this article, money seems to be one of the motivating factors in circumcision advocacy.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have been heavily lobbied to recommend universal circ in the U.S. based on the recent studies out of Africa. They have yet to issue recommendations. It would be very helpful if all of those opposed to neonatal circumcision would write letters expressing their views to the AAP and CDC. Snail mail and e-mail addresses may be found at www.circumcisionandhiv.com/the-aap-project.html.

Thank you for your advocacy.

Dr. Renee Stein???s off-hand remark about circumcision ???We whack ???em all??? (The Fate of a Million Foreskins, Newsweek, April 13, 2009) shows not only insensitivity to the plight of infants, but betrays coercive informed consent tactics at her institution. The medicalized infant circumcision rate in the US, the highest in the world, is now only 56%, down from nearly 90% 30 years ago. In other Anglophone countries where the practice began, it has completely disappeared (the UK and New Zealand) or is in single digits (Australia and Canada).

Moreover, besides being a waste of ever scarce resources, circumcision is unnecessary surgery, anesthesia rare, whose open wound exposes the child to modern, hospital mutated ???super-bugs??? like MRSA, Methicillin resistant staph aureus, pathogens against which antibiotics are nearly useless. In a country with no medical safety net for children, parents would be wiser to save their money for actual medical care, and as your author points out, many are doing so, a healthy trend.

John V. Geisheker, J.D., LL.M.
Executive Director,
General Counsel,
Doctors Opposing Circumcision
DoctorsOpposingCircumcision.org

Dr. Renee Stein???s off-hand remark about circumcision ???We whack ???em all??? (The Fate of a Million Foreskins, Newsweek, April 13, 2009) shows not only insensitivity to the plight of infants, but betrays coercive informed consent tactics at her institution. The medicalized infant circumcision rate in the US, the highest in the world, is now only 56%, down from nearly 90% 30 years ago. In other Anglophone countries where the practice began, it has completely disappeared (the UK and New Zealand) or is in single digits (Australia and Canada).

Moreover, besides being a waste of ever scarce resources, circumcision is unnecessary surgery, anesthesia rare, whose open wound exposes the child to modern, hospital mutated ???super-bugs??? like MRSA, Methicillin resistant staph aureus, pathogens against which antibiotics are nearly useless. In a country with no medical safety net for children, parents would be wiser to save their money for actual medical care, and as your author points out, many are doing so, a healthy trend.

John V. Geisheker, J.D., LL.M.
Executive Director,
General Counsel,
Doctors Opposing Circumcision
DoctorsOpposingCircumcision.org

Ladies and gentlemen, this may be one of the, if not THE single largest Human Rights issues of this century. US Neo-natal male circumcision remains THE most common sugical proceedure performed in the United States. And, it has been for decades. All performed for NO MEDICALLY INDICATED REASON, and as such, by definition, unethically by doctors and hospitals. 28% are paid for by medicaid, YOUR tax dollars. One million boys each year, every year, one every 38 seconds is circumcised in the US.-the VAST MAJORITY WITHOUT anesthesia WITH 12-48 hours of birth. Welcome to America.....home of the brave, land of the FREE?.......let's have your first formative experience be the physical removal from your mother, complete body restraint on a cold surgical table staring at the lights, and the sugical amputation involving forcibly seperating the glans from the foreskin and cutting and crushing what would become 15 square inches of your most erotic tissue for no medically indicated reason.........without anesthesia............we are so arrogant and evil that we don't care that technically YOU haven't consented, YOU are unaware what is happening to YOU at YOUR young age, or that the not medically indicated surgical amputation is utterly and completely UNNECESSARY, and irreversible............WE KNOW WHAT IS RIGHT FOR YOU!

This is an absolute travesty of colossal proportions. And must end NOW. It is anathema to our entire system of laws, morals, ethics, and values. And, we, the US (and Jews and Muslims), stubbornly stand alone on the world state in our insistence on continuing this barbaric practice-unless you count the hapless Africans which we are yet again imperializing with circumcision-so we can better justify our practice.
Reproductive rights? Privacy? UN Convention on Human Rights? Choice?

Do you think we'll see any of the current, longer term ,larger poulation, studies showing STD rates HIGHER in circumcised males compared to uncircumcised males discussed in Newsweek? Hardly. Do you think we'll ever see any article discussing the actual lack of merit and fallacy of circumcision discussed in Newsweek? Hardly. Do you think we'll ever see Newsweek write an article explaining why the only mammal on the planet that is seen to have a birth defect requiring immediate surgical intervention is the American male and his foreskin? Hardly. Do you think any of the brilliant journalists at Newsweek will ever attempt to reconcile the ethics of the continuing practice of male circumcision with the UN and US prohibitions on female circumcision on the same anatomical part-prepuce? Hardly. Have a daughter? Try to get her circumcised at birth. You can't. It's prohibited. There are protections for girls. Have a dog? Try to get your dog circumcised. Can't-animal cruelty and abuse. Cat? Same thing. Horse, cow, goat.....can't do it. In fact, it is illegal to circumcise any other mammal, except the American male. Too many powerful constituencies have vested interests in continuing the uniquely American institution of neo-natal male circumcision. Do you think we'll ever see a Newsweek article explaining that 85% of the males on the planet are uncircumcised, and have been for millenia? Hardly. Will Newsweek craft an expositive article explaining how Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and England have virtually discontinued the practice, after adopting it uniformly in the early 20th century, and why? Hardly......

Breast cancer affects 1 in 8 or 9 US women. Neonatal double masectomy on all newborn girls would eliminate breast cancer. 1 in 100,000 males develops penile cancer, circumcised or not. Penile cancer prevention has been a justification for uniform, routine neo-natal male cirumcision. Would we even consider neo-natal double masectomies? It makes a lot more sense.....Think we'll see a Newsweek article on this? Hardly.

What we will see is a steady streem of these articles miraculously justifying a practice that pre-dates HIV/AIDS every month or so. With, absolutely no balance, or follow up when each and every one of the claims is refuted...........yet again............

How

My husband was not circumcised, the first man I was ever with who was not. WOW! Not only the feelings I felt but I did a little research myself. They think that almost HALF!!!!! of a males sexual feeling is gone when it is cut! For thoes more interested research FEMALE circumcision. THEY CUT OFF A WOMAN's CLITTORIS!!! IT HAS BEEN A SUBJECT OF HORROR AND THE UN HAS EVEN CALLED IT BARBARICK. Needless to say I had a son with my husban and he is NOT cut. I want him to have as much pleasure when he becomes an adult as any woman.

Nick Summers: Why don't you do some real investigative reporting into how the intact penis functions and why intact males would not part with their foreskins for all the rice in China? Shouldn't Newsweek at least be impartial and professional enough to present the truth? My sons learned at a very young age the value of their foreskins. They have always been stunned that any boys would be subjected to such cruelty and barbarism as is circumcision. Your article sounds like this is all about the money, which is a large part of the problem. The other part is that circumcised males and certain religious groups feel threatened by leaving males intact. As a physician who performed circumcisions in residency, I quickly learned (on my own) that this is an act of CHILD ABUSE and it has NO PLACE in the medical field.
Maybe someday Dr. "Whack 'em all" will learn what it is like to have one of her body parts "whacked" against her will, or maybe she can have the revelation I had: THESE BABIES SUFFER. If anyone touched a child's genitals outside the medical field, they would be arrested. Circumcised men and Jewish/Muslim women need to get in touch with their souls.

Since when were children ever at risk of contracting HIV sexually? I know I was not and still am not as an adult. STD risk is based on behaviour fifteen years or more after infancy. Let the MAN the child will become decide what to do with his own body and keep our tax money from mutilating children!
HIS body.
HIS choice.

The American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Neonatal [male] Circumcision when they review the policy on circ should AT LEAST have one natural male doctor (Someone that knows first hand the joy of these body parts that are amputated) included in the review. Isn???t a task force that has ZERO people with the anatomical feature like a task force of color blind doctors deciding on removing color sight from a baby. How can they know what the body part does? They also must make some statement about the loss of nerve endings and pleasure zones (thousands of fine touch nerve endings). Would it not be reasonable to take the decision away from those obsessed with finding a reason to justify all of the baby genital mutilations?

Apparently, 2 members of the AAP told the author that the AAP will probably come just short of recommending infant male circumcisions, and the author misunderstood that as meaning the AAP will probably come just short of mandating male circumcisions. As SC said in an earlier post it is hard to believe that a respected magazine such as Newsweek, would alow such an absurd error to be published. At least that article should help some people realize that you can't trust everything the U.S. media says about male circumcisions.

Ah, NEWSWEAK at it again! How laughable! Just a question NEWSWEAK: does having a well-known muslim as one of your two lead editors affect your stance on circumcision?
If the government "mandates" circumcision or any other surgery, that's the moment I check out of the USSA for good. Keep your paws of it, "doctors". What a sad, atavistic joke this nation has become these days. BTW, I heard things like disco and tofu just made it to the midwest, along with "Big Johnson" T-shirts. They'll catch up to the rest of country on this one to.
A note to the doctor: I'm pretty sure the most ardent advocates of FGM aren't crass and stupid enough to use phrases like "we WHACK 'em all", even in those places where they really do. I question the doctor's competence to practice medicine.