Parents face so many difficult decisions when it comes to having a child: decisions about nursing, sleep patterns, discipline, teaching methods and, in the case of boys, whether or not to circumcise. In addition to being the most common surgery for males in the U.S., circumcision has been practiced in various cultures for centuries. Yet when it comes to the health and best interest of your newborn, is circumcision the way to go?
Morris claims that the rate of complications with circumcision is low and, for that reason, every infant should be circumcised. Morris’ claim is not supported by the factual evidence.
Many studies of circumcision complications do not report complications that occur after the infant leaves the hospital so they miss many complications. Patel (1966) followed infants home from the hospital and he reports a complication rate of 55 percent.[1]
Death occurs even when the circumcision is carried out by a medical doctor.[2-4] Although there is no central registry of deaths, one should not suppose that deaths are rare. Baker (1979) estimated 229 deaths per year in the United States from circumcision.[5] There is no conceivable prophylactic advantage that justifies putting a child at risk of death.
Although Morris claims that there are no long-term adverse effects of circumcision, well documented emotional and sexual complications appear in many circumcised males that adversely affect both the individual and the whole of society.[6]
One must balance the expected benefit against the known risks. A cost-utility analysis finds that infant circumcision has a net injurious effect.[7]
Morris claims that “anti-circumcision organizations” dupe men into restoring their missing foreskins. There is no evidence to support his emotional charge. The decision to restore a foreskin is an individual decision in which the individual must balance the expected benefit against the time and trouble required to apply the traction necessary to cause tissue expansion to occur. Although complications of surgical restoration have been reported, non-surgical restoration is quite safe and “mutilation” is unknown. DOC has a statement on the subject.[8] DOC recommends that surgical restoration be avoided.
Next Argument
8
6
6
6
5
5
12
6
7
8
8
1
0
1
5
2
2
2
4
2
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Expert Verified
Link
