- The First valid criticism of circumcision is that Routine Infant Circumcision violates the human rights of the infant.
- You are removing a functional sex organ/s from a being that cannot consent.
- The third reason is the lack of medical consensus on the health benefits of circumcision in particular for infants or children. No Medical organisation in the world recommends infant circumcision.
- Prevention of UTI's is medically untenable. The medical literature shows a UTi easily treatable with antibiotics and of low incidence in male infants approximately 1 in 100. (Female's have much higher UTI's and antibiotics are considered the best treatment & not surgery.) In fact the complications of infant circumcision (2 to 3 in 100) far outweigh any protective effect for a male infant UTI (1 in 100) making more children sick from circumcision than a UTI,
- Pain Research found that circumcised infants had much greater pain response than non-circumcised infants at 6 month immunizations, indicating a future pain vulnerability.
- Loss of the gliding mechanism of the foreskin.
- Outside of the USA, the foreskin is recognised as a normal functional sex organ of the male penis, and worth preserving for the male to enjoy when sexually active.
- Health outcome data shows that in developed countries, the nations with best health outcomes, including lowest HIV/STI's are all from Non-Circumcision cultures.
- A significant number of circumcisions are botched requiring circumcision revisions by pediatric urologists causing further pain, and trauma.
- There is a large body of evidence that shows intact men, live long healthy lives with foreskins intact.
- In Finland where these statistics are gathered the rate of circumcision for an adult requiring a medical circumcision are 1 in 16700.
- Most medical organisations believe that conservative medical practice, health education, safe sex behaviour, and genital hygeine, give far superior health benefits, in comparison to circumcision, without any losses of function or human rights violations.
- Another refutation of circumcision is related to the denial and minimization of harm done by circumcision to a perfectly healthy baby. The harms are numerous, from pain during and post surgery, problems of excessive bleeding, problems of infection, loss of sensation and function, externalising an internal organ the glans, high frequency of meatal stenosis, trauma, shock, penile damage, death, the list goes on and on.
- The majority of issues where it is claimed circumcision has health benefits are for adolescent and adult males, and of these conditions most can be treated or prevented by other means such as barrier method use of condoms for STI/HIV, gential hygeine, HPV vaccine, and steroid creams or preputioplasty for tight foreskins. These do not apply to infants and using African Research on adults is not relevant and does not justify circumcision of infants.
- The research used to justify infant circumcision comes from Africa. Africa is a continent with Extreme poverty and disease, and has high prevalence of HIV & when sexually transmitted it is predominantly via hetero-sexual transmission, whereas in western nations, HIV is a low prevalence disease, and when sexually transmitted is predominantly via homosexual transmission, or a disease spread in the injecting drug user community from needle sharing. The small protective effect of circumcision if there is one, is only for heterosexual transmission protecting males from female infections. Condoms are more effective, and protect both partners not just one. Females are not protected from male circumcision, with one trial showing women were infected at higher rates by circumcised men. Circumcision is not protective for MSM, not protective for IV Drug users, nor for contaminated blood. The relevance of the studies only applies to consenting heterosexual adult male volunteers in high prevalence settings.
- Research outcome data and recommendations must logically follow from each other, therefore any recommendations can only apply to heterosexual adult male volunteers in high prevalence settings. These outcomes cannot be applied to infants, nor in low prevalence settings, and it is impossible to know whether an infant is heterosexual?
- The outcome data has no relevance to newborn infants or children.
- Infants do not have sex.
- Infants have not chosen their sexual orientaton or lifestyles.
- Infants may grow into men that want to be in faithful monogamous relationships.
- Most Infants born in low prevalence communities will never have exposure to a HIV infected sexual partner in their entire lives.
- Given the foreskin is a highly enervated pleasure giving sex organ in itself, Infants may grow into men that want to have an intact penis.
- Infants may grow into men that choose to practice safe sex, and use condoms consistently.
- Infants may grow into men, that choose to never travel to Africa, and to never have sex with HIV African infected women, or African sex workers.
- Infants may grow into men that choose celibacy for themselves.
- Infants may grow to be Gay Men.
- Children Circumcised for religious reasons may grow up to change their religion as adults or denounce religion all together.
- A man who is informed about sex, about safe sex, about condoms, and about circumcision, may make a choice for himself on any of these matters for himself, and it is not necessary that he be circumcised as a baby.
- Circumcision is not required in infancy and best left to the man to decide for himself when he understands the sorts of choices he wants to make for himself.
- Circumcision does not prevent HIV/STI's.
- Circumcision is not a barrier method, the circumcised penis is made of skin, and has vulnerable areas like the meatus & circumcision scar, and circumcised men get HIV/STI's and have to wear condoms.
- Circumcision increases risk compensation behaviour leading to less condom use, increased risky behaviour and higher HIV infection rates as recently seen on Africa.
Saturday, June 27, 2020
Friday, October 18, 2019
The 2 following recent published research studies have found that circumcision has failed to prevent HIV infections in circumcised men and encouraged higher risk behaviour in circumcised men
J Biosoc Sci. 2019 Oct 14:1-13. doi: 10.1017/S0021932019000634. [Epub ahead of print]
Voluntary medical male circumcision and HIV in Zambia: expectations and observations.
The study analysed the HIV/AIDS situation in Zambia six years after the onset of mass campaigns of Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision (VMMC). The analysis was based on data from Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) conducted in 2001, 2007 and 2013. Results show that HIV prevalence among men aged 15-29 (the target group for VMMC) did not decrease over the period, despite a decline in HIV prevalence among women of the same age group (most of their partners). Correlations between male circumcision and HIV prevalence were positive for a variety of socioeconomic groups (urban residence, province of residence, level of education, ethnicity). In a multivariate analysis, based on the 2013 DHS survey, circumcised men were found to have the same level of infection as uncircumcised men, after controlling for age, sexual behaviour and socioeconomic status. Lastly, circumcised men tended to have somewhat riskier sexual behaviour than uncircumcised men. This study, based on large representative samples of the Zambian population, questions the current strategy of mass circumcision campaigns in southern and eastern Africa.