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?
Obviously circumcised men do not get foreskin infections because it is impossible to get an infection in a missing body part. Amputation of the foreskin of a non-consenting minor, done for fear of infection, when infections can be treated with antibiotics, is absurd.
The 7-10 percent post-neonatal circumcision figure comes from Schoen’s own paper (Journal of Urology, March 2006), in which he recited old figures he claims to have collected when he was practicing medicine, when circumcision was still the treatment of choice for non-retractile foreskin. Today, we know that a non-retractile foreskin is normal in infancy and childhood and, after puberty, is easily treated with gentle stretching and perhaps topical steroid ointment. The accuracy of Schoen’s figures is dubious, and the paper received scathing criticism from several commentators.
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
