Myths, Lies and Half-Truths
about Male Circumcision (Part 2)

by Geoffrey Francis

This article continues to explore and explode the myths, lies and half-truths about circumcision which those opposed to it put out as part of their deliberate misinformation campaign. This is particularly pernicious here on the Internet where many young, gullible teenagers and new parents are seeking genuine information; and the liars can hide behind pseudonyms and anonymous e-mail re-mailers.

The erroneous statements have been grouped into arbitrary sections for easier reference but some could just as easily fit into another section.

List of Sections:
Foreskin Structure and Development
Supposed Losses
Rights of Parent and Child
Alternatives to Circumcision
The Jews and Circumcision
Doctors and Circumcision
Other Statements

Alternatives to Circumcision

 

Soap and Water are all that are needed to keep a boy's penis clean.

This is true, but fails to recognize the fact that most young boys avoid the use of soap and water on any part of their bodies if not pressured and checked. Nearly all parents find it necessary to check that their sons have washed behind their ears and cleaned their teeth before going to bed at night. Simply teaching the boy to wash somewhere doesn't mean that he will wash there. If not washed daily the foreskin collects stale urine and smegma. Both contribute to inflammations of the foreskin and glans, known as balanitis, as well as causing bad odours.

Regular washing under the foreskin also presupposes that the foreskin is fully retractable and that the boy has been taught to retract it. As we have already seen, the anti-circumcisers would have us not retract our son's foreskin to perform this regular washing. One cannot have it both ways!

 

Phimosis can always be dealt with by conservative means without circumcision.

The foreskin is a fairly elastic structure and will normally naturally stretch to allow the glans to be uncovered or urine to be voided without problems. However a significant number of boys and men have foreskins which are not elastic enough. Gentle stretching, if started young enough whilst the skin is still very thin and supple, can sometimes work - especially where the phimosis is only slight. However this is uncomfortable and can be highly embarrassing for the boy - and often also for his parents who have to participate in the stretching exercises.

If the foreskin is stretched beyond its elastic limits then minute tears will occur which are not usually noticeable to the naked eye. These (like any other tears or breaks in the skin) will heal with formation of scar tissue. The scar tissue is even less elastic than the skin around it and thus the condition is made worse not better.

Many boys who have undergone foreskin stretching as a 'cure' for phimosis still end up having to be circumcised. They thus experience the double trauma of the unpleasant, embarrasing and unsuccessful stretching, followed by the circumcision that they could, and should, have had in the first place.

 

Balanitis can always be cured by antibiotics.

Balanitis caused by bacteria can be alleviated with antibiotics, but they have no effect on fungal induced balanitis - the most common kind. Furthermore, unless the conditions which encourage the breeding of the bacteria are removed the problem will most likely return after the antibiotic treatment has ceased.

Antibiotics are being over prescribed the world over and as a result many organisms have become resistant to them. This poses a real threat for doctors treating the most serious cases where available antibiotic treatments have become useless. It is necessary to cut down drastically in the use of antibiotics in cases where other treatments are available, especially where such treatments will prevent repeat occurrences of the original problem and further use of antibiotics.

It is quite reasonable to use antibiotics to treat an isolated case of balanitis, but circumcision should be the treatment of choice for recurrent balanitis.

 

The Jews and Circumcision

Jewish circumcision was originally only the removal of a small amount of the tip of the foreskin.

This has become a tenet of anti-circumcision folklore although it cannot be proved from any historical documentation.

It is true that by the time that Jews and Greeks were mixing freely, and Jews were wishing to compete in the Greek Games, a significant number of circumcisions were being done so slackly that it was easy to hide the fact by pulling the foreskin forward and tying it there. The Jewish authorities thus insisted upon a complete removal of the foreskin, with destruction of the inner foreskin, to prevent this malpractice.

It is generally accepted that the ancient Egyptians originally learnt the practice of circumcision from the Jews. Study of Egyptian mummies has shown a significant number to have been circumcised. If this had been removal of just the very tip of the foreskin it would have been extremely difficult for the anthropologists and archeologists to say with certainty that circumcision had been performed. Furthermore, drawings in the pyramids, etc show the foreskin being stretched forward prior to cutting ­ which would inevitably result in removal of a significant proportion of it.

On a secular level, it is widely thought that the Middle-Eastern peoples started to practice circumcision because of the problems caused by sand under the foreskin. Simply removing the tip of the foreskin would have made matters worse, not better, and hence makes no sense.

'Tribal' circumcision has developed independently in many parts of the world, eg amongst Australian Aborigines and many African tribes. In practically all cases the foreskin is drastically cut back during the ceremony. It would seem unlikely that the Jews were an exception to this norm.

 

Jewish doctors promote circumcision so that Jews will not stand out by being circumcised.

To the Jews circumcision is the Sign of the Covenant between them and God. As such it is something very special to them and they have no desire for the Gentiles to adopt routine circumcision for any reason.

Jewish doctors have the skills and knowledge to perform good circumcisions since they are called upon to do the job for their own community on a regular basis. It is not surprising therefore if non-Jews recognise this when deciding to have their own sons circumcised for prophylactic reasons (as was the case when the, then, Princess Elizabeth chose a Jewish Mohel over the recognised Palace doctors to circumcise Prince Charles).

Jewish doctors are as well aware of the medical pros and cons of circumcision as any other doctors and thus equally qualified to advise parents on the subject. That a large number of doctors are Jewish is simply a reflection of the fact that Jews in general study and work hard and thus hold many senior professional posts, not only in medicine but in law, accountancy, etc.

In many countries the Jewish population, and the number of Jewish doctors, is greatly outnumbered by the Moslems. Moslem doctors are also well versed in the practice of circumcision and recognise its benefits too. As one of the largest religious groups in the world, Islam has no need to try to hide itself and its practices and thus has nothing to gain by promoting universal infant circumcision - and it does not do so.

 

More and more Jews are abandoning circumcision.

Circumcision is the sign of the Covenant and thus something that every true Jew holds very dear. Indeed, so precious and important is it, that it is usually the very last of his religious observances to be abandoned by those who have ceased to practice their religion.

Even in Nazi Germany, where Jews were being persecuted and murdered, the Jewish population still had their sons circumcised. The same was true, as far as they were able, for the Jews in Communist Russia even though religious circumcision was prohibited. After the fall of Communism the majority of Jews of all ages eagerly sought circumcision where they had previously had to go without.

Naturally any religion has a few disaffected members (or former members) who seek to denigrate some of its tenets. The anti-circumcision group have seized on this handful and made them out to be representative of Jews as a whole, which they clearly are not.

In as much as the total Jewish population is growing world-wide so it is to be expected that the number abandoning their religion is also growing, however when expressed as a percentage it is very small and not proven to be increasing.

Doctors and Circumcision

The American Academy of Pediatrics has come out against infant circumcision.

This is a gross misinterpretation of the most recent statement of the Academy's Task Force on Infant Circumcision. Their statement made it clear that there are significant proven benefits from neo-natal circumcision. They also recognised that there are some risks (as with any surgical procedure) and that the net benefits did not warrant making routine infant circumcision a matter of public policy (in the way that immunisation is).

 

In no way did they condemn infant circumcision. They said it was a matter for the parents to decide, taking into account not only the medical benefits and risks but also religious and cultural factors.

 

No National Medical Association recommends circumcision.

True, but more to the point, no national medical association actually condemns infant circumcision. All recognise that there are some medical benefits but these do not warrant making circumcision a matter of public policy and thus encouraging parents to have all their boys circumcised.

 

Doctors make a tidy income from infant circumcisions.

A doctor, like any other worker, is entitled to be paid for his services. In addition to the doctor's own fee the total cost includes nursing services, the purchase of the Plastibell, instrument sterilisation costs plus the hospital's charges for use of the operating room.

There is no clear evidence that total fees are excessive when all the costs are taken into consideration, indeed many doctors could turn a bigger profit in the same time by not performing infant circumcisions.

It is interesting to note that in the USA, where the majority of infant circumcisions are performed by obstetricians, it is the urologists who are most vocally in favour of infant circumcision. If profit were their motive they would oppose infant circumcision so as to have a larger reservoir of uncut men who might present with penis problems in their adult life ­ when the urologists would be the ones to earn money from them.

 

The American Cancer Society has written to the American Medical Association opposing infant circumcision.

This is untrue. The American Cancer Society has no official position regarding infant circumcision.

 

What did happen was that two doctors opposed to circumcision, who happened at the time to be officers of the ACS, at the instigation of an anti-circumcision organisation wrote a letter to the AMA on ACS notepaper stating that circumcision played no part in preventing cancer of the penis.

 

This letter did not represent the official view of the ACS and had not been sanctioned by its Council. It was a purely personal view from the two doctors concerned. The ACS has officially distanced itself from that letter and has consistently requested that all web sites holding it out as their view cease to do so.

Other Statements

 

Circumcision prevents the baby bonding with his mother.

There is some evidence that circumcision within the first few days of life may somewhat disturb the bonding process. However, if circumcision is performed during, or after, the second week of life the bonding has already occurred and there is no disturbance to it. Indeed many doctors recommend that the boy should be suckled immediately after his circumcision - something that comes very naturally to the baby.

 

Male and female circumcision are equivalent genital mutilations.

Male circumcision removes only the foreskin from covering the glans penis. The exact equivalent in the female is the removal of the clitoral hood (and no more).

Both have been shown to be of benefit in providing better sexual stimulation. Male circumcision has been shown to have additional prophylactic benefits. No additional benefits, however, have been shown in the female case and the operation has higher risks (particularly in the infant) as the clitoris is internal whereas the penis is completely external and relatively larger, even in the infant. Routine removal of the clitoral hood is not therefore recommended or practiced.

The procedures, often incorrectly called 'female circumcision', involving removal of the whole clitoris, the labia and other parts are rightly referred to as genital mutilation since there is no medical benefit whatsoever to be gained from them. The nearest equivalent one could find to apply to the male would be total removal of the penis ­ something which has never been advocated for general medical, social or religious reasons.

 

The Bible tells Christians that they must not be circumcised.

The Bible actually says no such thing. The Acts of the Apostles and various Epistles of St Paul say that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision have any spiritual value for a Christian.

Christianity has never forbidden its members to undergo circumcision as a medical or social rite. Indeed most members of the Coptic branch of the Church are circumcised. One must remember that in the Biblical world circumcision had become synonymous with Judaism and thus what the Bible is saying is that conversion to Judaism is not a prerequisite to becoming a Christian.

 

Circumcision rates are falling all over the USA.

The national average recorded rate for neonatal circumcision in the USA has indeed been falling over recent years, but nearly all of this fall can be accounted for from the two States of California and Florida where the large Hispanic population has been growing rapidly. This group of people come from a less developed culture where circumcision had not been routinely available. It is expected that, as happened in the past with other immigrant groups, second or third generation families will see the benefits of circumcision and adopt it for their sons.

In the rest of the USA the recorded rates have fallen very slightly, but these records do not take into account the growing number of circumcisions performed in doctor's offices and clinics a few weeks after birth. Many parents still desire to give their sons the benefits of infant circumcision but want it done in a more loving way, when he is at least a week old, rather than the 'production line' techniques so sadly adopted in most US hospital maternity units.

There has also been a growth in the number of circumcisions being performed on teenagers and young adults whose parents didn't get them circumcised as babies but who now require it for phimosis or simply to fit into the cultural norm. These again do not show up in the published official statistics.

No hospital in the USA is actually required to keep statistical records of circumcisions and many don't, so all 'official' figures are estimates anyway.

Furthermore, what is happening in the USA is no guide to the rest of the world. In Europe, where circumcision rates had traditionally been very low, the demand is increasing and rates are slowly rising.

 

The USA, with the world's highest circumcision rate, also has the highest AIDS rate - so circumcision cannot protect against AIDS.

This carefully ignores the fact that the majority of AIDS cases in the USA are amongst intravenous drug users and the submissive partners of gay sex. The research done in Africa was amongst heterosexuals and related specifically to female to male transmission of AIDS.

Obviously, the victim's circumcision status is irrelevant when the virus is passed by infected needles and also when it enters via the anus. Circumcision has, however, been clearly shown to reduce the rate of infection acquired via the penis.

Nobody claims circumcision alone to be the answer to AIDS, but it provides an additional line of defence should a condom fail or, occasionally, be forgotten.

 

Circumcision is unknown in Europe.

This is blatantly untrue. Recent official figures for hospital neo-natal circumcisions in Britain showed a rate of about 11%. To this must be added those done later in the doctor's surgery as well as the religious ones for Jews and Moslems which are traditionally performed in the home from 8 days onwards. The real rate in Britain is in excess of 15% per annum.

Figures for Germany, France and Spain show rates of 10% or more, whilst those for Scandinavia are rising towards these figures.

There is also a growing desire for circumcision amongst teenagers and young adults which never gets reflected in the official figures for circumcisions.

It is significant that those most forcefully expounding this lie are from North America where media coverage of affairs in the rest of the world is very poor; so their ideas are based on their own prejudices rather than any hard facts.

 

 

Myths, Lies and Half-Truths about Male Circumcision (Part 1)