Should Boys be Circumcised?

Recommend (3) Comments (0)

Morris claims that circumcision prevents phimosis – a condition of having a foreskin that does not retract. Phimosis is easily treated without surgery by tissue expansion through manual stretching or by application of topical steroid ointment.[1]  Prescription of circumcision, a radical operation, for prevention or treatment of phimosis is outmoded and inappropriate in the 21st century.

The soothing oils in the moisture under the foreskin help to prevent dryness and  inflammation of the glans penis.[2] The foreskin, therefore, serves to prevent inflammation, which is caused most frequently by excessive washing due to unwarranted fear of infection.[3] 

Although Morris claims that circumcision prevents UTI, the antiquated studies, on which his claim is based, have been discredited due to their failure to control for confounding factors.[4] The circumcision rate in Australia has declined from about 90 percent before 1971 to 13 percent today, but no one has noticed an increase in UTI among Australian boys. In actual fact, overall child health and well-being has improved since the decline of circumcision.[5]

Morris now claims that circumcision reduces prostate cancer, however, Oliver et al. (2001) found no association between circumcision status and prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels.[6]

Morris claims that circumcision reduces risks of male to female HIV infection among adults in underdeveloped nations. These studies are not applicable to children in developed nations. Moreover, Morris’s fellow Australians, Dowsett and Couch (2007), question the conclusions of those three studies.[7] Furthermore, the Langerhans cells in the foreskin block the uptake of the virus.[8]

Morris claims that circumcision reduces the incidence of sexually transmitted disease (STD), but a survey carried out in Australia reported, “No significant protective effect of circumcision is discernible for genital warts, chlamydia, genital herpes, gonorrhoea, non-specific urethritis or pubic lice.”[9] Dickson et al. (2008), working in New Zealand, found slightly more sexually transmitted infection in circumcised men, although the difference was not statistically significant.[10]

Morris claims that as many as ten percent of men will need circumcision in later life for medical reasons. It is doubtful that this was ever true. Most circumcision in later life are caused by poorly trained physicians who know little of effective conservative treatment modalities. In any event, in the 21st century, effective treatment options make circumcision as treatment for disease outmoded except in rare cases.[11]

Morris claims that women favor the circumcised penis. This is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, which shows that women are more likely to experience orgasm when the partner has a foreskin.[12] Moreover, Bensley & Boyle (2003) show that circumcision of the male partner may be the cause of female arousal disorder.[12]

Morris would like us to believe that the circumcised and intact penis are equally sensitive. A study of penile sensitivity to fine touch indicates that the most sensitive areas are all on the foreskin, especially in the ridged band area,[13] which always is amputated by circumcision. The only study of sensation during sexual arousal inappropriately excluded the foreskin from testing and cannot be taken seriously.[14]

Goldman (1999) points out that involuntarily circumcised men need to find a rational justification for their sacrifice of erogenous tissue and tend to invent medical excuses. Claims that excision of healthy foreskin tissue somehow confers a health benefit must be examined with care, since they are likely to be generated to satisfy the emotional needs of circumcised men.[15] [16]