PAIN
Advocates
"Clearly, circumcision is painful" (p. 1244) [1]. Circumcision without
pain medication is "barbaric" (p. 1245) [1].
Critics
According to a comprehensive study, newborn responses to pain are
"similar to but greater than those observed in adult subjects" (p.
1326) [2]. Circumcision is overwhelmingly painful and traumatic [3, 4].
Some infants do not cry because they go into traumatic shock from the
overwhelming pain of the surgery [5]. No experimental anesthetic has
been found to be safe and effective in preventing circumcision pain in
infants [3]. Changes in pain response due to newborn circumcision have
been demonstrated at six months of age, suggesting lasting neurological
effects and a symptom of post-traumatic stress disorder [4].
COMPLICATIONS
Advocates
Circumcision has low risk, less than 1% [6]. Most complications are
bleeding and infection.
Critics
The true incidence of complications is unknown [7]. The rate of
surgical complications was reported to be from 0.2 to 38 percent [6,
8]. (The higher rate included complications reported during the
infants' first year.) Realistic short-term complication rates are
between 2-10% [9]. There are over 20 known short-term complications,
including bleeding, infection, surgical injury, and in rare cases,
death [8]. This does not include complications discovered later in
life, problems caused by circumcision but not attributed to
circumcision, or unrecognized harm.
INFANT BEHAVIORAL RESPONSE
Advocates
This aspect of circumcision is not discussed by advocates.
Critics
Various studies have found that short-term effects of circumcision
include changed sleep patterns, activity level, and mother-infant
interaction, more irritability, and disruptions in feeding and bonding
[2].
URINARY TRACT INFECTION
(UTI)
Advocates
According to a meta-analysis, circumcision reduced the risk of
developing UTI in the first year of life by a factor of 12, and the
absolute risk of a genitally intact boy developing UTI was
approximately 1 in 100 [10].
Critics
The methodology for studies claiming that circumcision reduces the risk
of UTI complicates making any conclusion [11]. They do not account for
confounding variables such as breastfeeding [12], urine collection
method [13], definition of UTI [14], and rooming in [15]. For a rate of
1%, 100 boys would have to be circumcised to prevent one UTI, which
might be prevented by breastfeeding or rooming in. A Japanese study of
603 boys who were not circumcised did not find one case of UTI [16].
This further suggests methodological problems with attempts to claim a
strong association. UTI is easily treatable with antibiotics [17].
PENILE CANCER
Advocates
Reports of several case series noted a strong association between lack
of circumcision and penile cancer [18]. Advocates believe that
"invasive penile cancer could be virtually eliminated in the United
States by routine newborn circumcision" (p. 621) [19].
Critics
There are no American studies of the incidence of penile cancer and its
association with circumcision status. Penile cancer is rare, and the
estimated American incidence is about 1 per 100,000 [20]. In other
developed countries where circumcision is rare, such as Denmark and
Norway, the incidence of penile cancer is lower than the estimated
American rate [21, 22]. Penile cancer occurs generally in elderly men
[20]. Therefore, a male may make a decision to be circumcised when he
is older without losing this claimed benefit.
SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED
DISEASES
Advocates
Based on a meta-analysis of published studies, genitally intact men had
approximately 3 times the relative risk for HIV infection and increased
risk for genital ulcer disease [23]. (Many HIV studies were done in
Africa.) A review article concluded that genitally intact men were 2 to
8 times
more likely to become infected with HIV [24]. Circumcision reduced the
risk of genital ulcer disease, including syphilis and chancroid [23].
Critics
Studies are conflicting for each sexually transmitted disease [25].
Sexually transmitted diseases and circumcision involve behavior,
hygiene practices, culture, and religion, and it is impossible to
control all the confounding variables that affect sexual behavior and
circumcision status. Circumcision may increase the risk of developing
gonorrhea and chlamydia. "Based on the studies published to date,
recommending routine circumcision as a prophylactic measure to prevent
HIV infection in Africa or elsewhere, is scientifically unfounded" (p.
16) [26]. In a study on transmission rates of HIV from infected males
to uninfected females and from infected females to uninfected males in
Uganda, the authors found that circumcision status was not a
significant factor in the risk of transmission [27]. Sexually
transmitted diseases obviously cannot be transmitted until an
individual engages in sexual activity. Therefore, a male may make a
decision to be circumcised when he is older without losing this claimed
benefit.
SEXUAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL
EFFECTS
Advocates
In a national survey, circumcised men reported less sexual dysfunction
than genitally intact men [28]. Women prefer circumcised sexual
partners [29].
Psychological effects are not recognized.
Critics
The difference in reported sexual dysfunction above is not
statistically significant [30]. The Williamson study consists of young,
Midwestern, 98% white mothers. They live in an area of the country with
the highest circumcision rate, and 78% of the group had no experience
with genitally intact men.
In a more recent
survey, women with longer dual experience preferred anatomically
complete men overwhelmingly to circumcised men [31]. Without the
foreskin to provide a movable sleeve of skin, intercourse with a
circumcised penis resulted in decreased vaginal secretions, more
vaginal discomfort, harder and deeper thrusting of the partner, less
chance of having an orgasm, less frequent orgasms, less frequent
multiple orgasms, and shorter duration of coitus.
Circumcision results
in a significant loss [32]. The foreskin is an integral, normal part of
the penis. It protects the head of the penis and is comprised of unique
zones with several kinds of specialized nerves that are important to
optimum sexual sensitivity. Investigators found that circumcision
removes about one-half of the erogenous tissue on the penile shaft. The
foreskin on the average adult male is about 12 square inches of highly
erogenous tissue [33]. Men circumcised as adults reported a significant
loss of sensitivity [34].
A description of the
complex nerve structure of the penis explains why anesthetics provide
incomplete pain relief during circumcision [35]. Cutting off the
foreskin removes many fine-touch receptors from the penis and results
in thickening and desensitization of the glans outer layer. The complex
anatomy and function of the foreskin dictate that circumcision should
be avoided or deferred until the person can make an informed decision
as an adult.
In a national survey,
circumcised men reported they were more likely to engage in
masturbation, heterosexual oral sex, and anal sex than genitally intact
men [28].
The result suggests that circumcised men seek alternative forms of
stimulation to compensate for reduced sensitivity.
A poll of circumcised
men described adverse outcomes on men's health and well-being [36].
Findings showed wide-ranging physical, sexual, and psychological
consequences. Some respondents reported prominent scarring and
excessive skin loss. Sexual consequences included progressive loss of
sensitivity and sexual dysfunction. Emotional distress followed the
realization that they were missing a functioning part of their penis.
Low-self esteem, resentment, avoidance of intimacy, and depression were
also noted. Male satisfaction with circumcision depended on knowledge
about circumcision. The more men knew, the more likely they were to be
dissatisfied. They wished they had a choice.
Circumcision is
traumatic, and the long-term psychological effects of circumcision are
similar to the long-term effects of trauma [37]. Using four case
examples that were typical among his clients, a practicing psychiatrist
presented clinical findings regarding the serious and sometimes
disabling long-term somatic, emotional, and psychological consequences
of infant circumcision in adult men [38]. These consequences resembled
complex post-traumatic stress disorder and emerged during psychotherapy
focused on the resolution of perinatal and developmental trauma. Adult
symptoms associated with circumcision trauma included shyness, anger,
fear, powerlessness, distrust, low self-esteem, relationship
difficulties, and sexual shame.
ETHICS
Advocates
Ethical issues are not discussed by advocates.
Critics
When circumcision is performed, it does not treat any disease, injury,
or other health problem. Since there is no urgency to do it, it must be
delayed until the child is old enough to make the decision for himself
[39].
Circumcision violates
a major principle of medical practice: First, do no harm. It also
violates all seven principles of medical ethics [40]. Some doctors and
nurses refuse to perform or assist with circumcisions because of
ethical considerations [41, 42]. They have organized to form Doctors
Opposing Circumcision and Nurses for the Rights of the Child [43, 44].
The AAP Committee on
Bioethics report states, "Pediatric health care providers. . . have
legal and ethical duties to their child patients to render competent
medical care based on what the patient needs, not what someone else
expresses. . . .[T]he pediatrician's responsibilities to his or her
patient exist independent of parental desires or proxy consent" (p.
315) [45]. See also Response to American Academy of
Pediatrics Policy Statement .
NOTES
(1) Wiswell, T. "Circumcision
Circumspection." New England Journal of Medicine 336 (1997):
1244-45.
(2) Anand, K., and Hickey, P. "Pain and
Its Effects in the Human Neonate and Fetus."New England Journal of
Medicine 317 (1987): 1321-29.
(3) Lander, J., Brady-Fryer, B.,
Metcalfe, J., Nazarali, S., and Muttitt, S. "Comparison of Ring Block,
Dorsal Penile Nerve Block, and Topical Anesthesia for Neonatal
Circumcision." Journal of the American Medical Association 278
(1997): 2157-62.
(4) Taddio, A., Katz, J., Ilersich, A.,
and Koren, G. "Effect of Neonatal Circumcision on Pain Response During
Subsequent Routine Vaccination." The Lancet 349 (1997):
599-603.
(5) Romberg, R. Circumcision: The
Painful Dilemma. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey, 1985.
(6) Gee, W., and Ansell, J. "Neonatal
Circumcision: A Ten Year Overview with Comparison of Gomco Clamp and
Plastibell Device." Pediatrics 58 (1976): 824-27.
(7) Niku, S., Stock, J., and Kaplan, G.
"Neonatal Circumcision." Urological Clinics of North America 22
(1995): 57-65.
(8) Kaplan, G. "Comlications of
Circumcision." Urologic Clinics of North America 10 (1983):
543-49.
(9) Williams, N., and Kapila, L.
"Complications of Circumcision." British Journal of Surgery 80
(1993): 1231-36.
(10) Wiswell, T., and Hachey, W.
"Urinary Tract Infections and the Uncircumcised State: An Update." Clinical
Pediatrics 32 (1993): 130-34.
(11) Gollaher, D. Circumcision: A
History of the World's Most Controversial Surgery. New York: Basic
Books, 2000.
(12) Pisacane, A., Graziano, L., and
Zona, G. "Breastfeeding and Urinary Tract Infection." Lancet
336 (1990): 50.
(13) Fleiss, P. "Explanation for
False-Positive Urine Cultures Obtained by Bag Technique." Archives
Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 149 (1995): 1041-42.
(14) Hansson, S., Brandstrom, P.,
Jodal, U., and Larsson, P. "Low Bacterial Counts in Infants with
Urinary Tract Infection." Journal of Pediatrics 132 (1998):
180-82.
(15) Winberg, J., Bollgren, I.,
Gothefors, L., Herthelius, M., and Tullus, K. "The Prepuce: A Mistake
of Nature?" Lancet 18 (1989): 598-99.
(16) Kayaba, H., Tamura, H., Kitajima,
S., Fujiwara, Y., Kato, T., and Kato, T. "Analysis of Shape and
Retractability of the Prepuce in 603 Japanese Boys." Journal of
Urology 156 (1996): 1813-15.
(17) Denniston, G. "First, Do No Harm."
The Truth Seeker (1989, July/August): 35-38.
(18) Schoen, E., Oehrli, M. , Colby,
C., and Machin, G. "The Highly Protective Effect of Newborn
Circumcision against Invasive Penile Cancer." Pediatrics 105
(2000): E36.
(19) Schoen, E., Wiswell, T., and
Moses, S. "New Policy on Circumcision: Cause for Concern." Pediatrics
105 (2000): 620-23.
(20) Young, J., Percy, C., and Asire,
A. "Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results, Incidence and Mortality
Data 1973-1977." In National Cancer Institute Mongraph 41, 17.
Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare, 1981.
(21) Frisch, M., Friis, S. , Kjaer, S.
, and Melbye, M. "Falling Incidence of Penis Cancer in an Uncircumcised
Population (Denmark 1943-90)." British Medical Journal 311
(1995): 1471.
(22) Iversen, T., Tretli, S., Johansen,
A. , and Holte, T. "Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Penis and of the
Cervix, Vulva and Vagina in Spouses: Is There Any Relationship? An
Epidemiological Study from Norway, 1960-92." British Journal of
Cancer 76 (1997): 658-60.
(23) Moses, S., Bailey, R., and Ronald,
A. "Male Circumcision: Assessment of Health Benefits and Risks." Sexually
Transmitted Infections74 (1998): 368-73.
(24) Szabo, R., and Short, R. "How Does
Male Circumcision Protect against Hiv Infection?" British Medical
Journal 320 (2000): 1592-94.
(25) Van Howe, R. "Does Circumcision
Influence Sexually Transmitted Diseases?: A Literature Review." BJU
International 83 Suppl 1 (1999): 52-62.
(26) Van Howe, R. "Circumcision and Hiv
Infection: Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis." International
Journal of STD AIDS 10 (1999): 8-16.
(27) Gray, R., Wawer, M., Brookmeyer,
R., Sewankambo, N., Serwadda, D., Wabwire-Mangen, F., Lutalo, T., Li,
X., vanCott, T, Quinn, T., and Rakai Project Team. "Probability of
Hiv-1 Transmission Per Coital Act in Monogamous, Heterosexual,
Hiv-1-Discordant Couples in Rakai, Uganda." Lancet 357 (2001):
1149-53.
(28) Laumann, E., Masi, C., and
Zuckerman, E. "Circumcision in the United States: Prevalence,
Prophylactic Effects, and Sexual Practice." Journal of the American
Medical Association 277 (1997): 1052-57.
(29) Williamson, M., and Williamson, P.
"Women's Preferences for Penile Circumcision in Sexual Partners." Journal
of Sex Education and Therapy 14 (1988): 8-12.
(30) Van Howe, R. personal
communication (2000).
(31) O'Hara, K., and O'Hara, J. "The
Effect of Male Circumcision on the Sexual Enjoyment of the Female
Partner." BJU International 83 suppl. 1 (1999): 79-84.
(32) Taylor, J., Lockwood, A., and
Taylor, A. "The Prepuce: Specialized Mucosa of the Penis and Its Loss
to Circumcision." British Journal of Urology 77 (1996): 291-95.
(33) Ritter, T., and Denniston, G. Say
No to Circumcision. Aptos, CA: Hourglass, 1996.
(34) Money, J., and Davison, J. "Adult
Penile Circumcision: Its Erotosexual and Cosmetic Sequelae." Journal
of Sex Research 19 (1983): 289-92.
(35) Cold, C., and Taylor, J. "The
Prepuce." BJU International 83 (suppl. 1) (1999): 34-44.
(36) Hammond, T. "A Preliminary Poll of
Men Circumcised in Infancy or Childhood." BJU International 83,
no. suppl. 1 (1999): 85-92.
(37) Goldman, R. Circumcision: The
Hidden Trauma. Boston: Vanguard Publications, 1997.
(38) Rhinehart, J. "Neonatal
Circumcision Reconsidered." Transactional Analysis Journal 29
(1999): 215-21.
(39) Denniston, G., and Svoboda, J.S.
Letter to AAP Task Force. http://www.cirp.org/AAP/letters/1998.10%3aDOC/
1998.
(40) Denniston, G. "Circumcision and
the Code of Ethics." Humane Health Care International 12
(1996): 72-74.
(41) Easthouse, K. "Nurses:
Circumcision Consent Form Should Alert Parents to Downside." The
New Mexican 1993, 1.
(42) Pugh, L. "Santa Fe Nurses Reject
Circumcisions." Albuquerque Journal 1995, June 13, 1.
(43) Nurses for the Rights for the
Child. http://nurses.cirp.org/, (1995).
(44) Doctors Opposing Circumcision.
http://faculty.washington.edu/gcd/doc/, (1995).
(45) American Academy of Pediatrics
Committee on Bioethics. "Informed Consent, Parental Permission, and
Assent in Pediatric Practice." Pediatrics 95 (1995): 314
© Circumcision Resource Center
|