The first federal guidelines (ever) regarding circumcision have been drafted. After seven years of work, The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have released a guideline draft that says health insurers should pay for circumcision based on supporting medical evidence, primarily focused on sexually transmitted diseases. Currently, Medicaid programs in 18 states do not pay for routine infant circumcision.
Within the new guidelines, the CDC now claims there is strong evidence that circumcision can:
- Cut a man’s risk of getting HIV from an infected female partner by 50 to 60 percent.
- Reduce their risk of genital herpes and certain strains of human papillomavirus by 30 percent or more.
- Lower the odds of urinary tract infections during infancy, and cancer of the penis in adulthood.
They also point out big scary germs, only perpetuating the myth that men are dirty if they are left intact.
What the guidelines do not do is directly recommend that every parent circumcise their newborn sons. They tippy-toed around a full recommendation by stating there are cultural and religious reasons that influence parental decisions and then cite a complication rate of 0.5 percent for newborns undergoing the surgery.
All of this is well and good, if we place zero importance on body autonomy. If we stretch the imagination to believe that we have complete, and sole ownership over our children’s bodies, this works. If this were the case, we would have the right, and even obligation, to mark, scar, cut, or mold their being regardless of even the bare minimum of justification.
So, let’s review body autonomy. Are men capable of having a say over their own bodies? Can they choose to have cosmetic procedures? Is it possible for them to of weigh in on their own risks and benefits to having an elective, non-therapeutic procedure done on their own bodies as a preventative measure? If so, then shouldn’t such a personal decision be made by the man himself, rather than his parents?
A man of sexual maturity can certainly decide if he wishes to have as much as 80 percent of the skin on his penis removed, which is the estimated amount taken away during infant circumcision. Infants aren’t sexually active and therefore do not experience the benefits of the lowered risk of HIV, genital herpes, or HPV ? so these benefits really don’t apply to infancy or childhood.
But wait, the CDC also included things that may impact the man before he is of age to make decisions ? like Urinary Tract Infections and an overall risk of penile cancer. That has to be why it’s of great importance to make federal recommendations that are biased towards circumcising baby boys, right? But, their own website states:
- Overall, UTIs are not common among male infants, with estimates of the annual rate of UTI in ?uncircumcised? infants being 0.70 percent verses 0.18 percent for circumcised males.
- The lifetime risk for a U.S. male of ever being diagnosed with penile cancer is 1 in 1,437. That risk equates to 0.07 percent.
So, according to the CDC, circumcision benefits like lowering the risk of UTI and penile cancer below 1 percent, when it’s already below 1 percent is worth the risks associated with routinely circumcising male infants? Does this really make sense?
Information on this topic is vast. Dr. Christopher Guest, of Barrie Midwives, produced a very informative video titled Circumcision: The Whole Story.
Please note that the video does contain images of male anatomy for educational purposes, so viewer discretion is advised.
As pointed out in the video, here is a list of various ?ills? circumcision has remedied:
- 1845: Edward Dixon declares that circumcision cures masturbation
- 1855: Jonathan Hutchinson claims circumcision prevents syphilis
- 1865: Nathaniel Heckford claims circumcision cures epilepsy
- 1870: Lewis Sayre claims circumcision prevents spinal paralysis
- 1873: Joseph Bell claims circumcision cures bedwetting
- 1875: Lewis Sayre declares circumcision prevents scoliosis, paralysis of the bladder and clubfoot
- 1879: H. Kane claims circumcision cures nocturnal emission and abdominal neuralgia
- 1881: Maximillian Landesberg claims circumcision cures all eye problems
- 1890: William Gentry claims circumcision cures blindness, deafness, and dumbness
- 1894: P. Remondino claims circumcising blacks will prevent them from raping white women
- 1894: H. Rosenberry claims circumcision cures rectal incontinence
- 1894: Abraham Wolbarst claims circumcision cures tuberculosis
- 1914: Abraham Wolbarst claims circumcision prevents penile cancer
- 1926: Abraham Ravich claims circumcision prevents prostate cancer
- 1942: Eugene Hand claims circumcision prevents prostate cancer, venereal disease, and cancer of the tongue
- 1949: Abraham Ravich claims circumcision prevents cervical cancer
A few other points to ponder:
- Circumcision is an extremely painful procedure and is often performed with little to no pain management. Obstetricians perform 70% of circumcisions and only 25% of those doctors use any form of anesthesia for the surgery.
- Circumcision is a lucrative business with insurance reimbursements estimated at $677 million per year. Couple that with a nearly equal amount spent to correct complications and the total increases to $1.75 billion per year. This does not include the additional revenue created through?the sale of foreskins.
- The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis containing tens of thousands of nerve endings.
- 80% of the world’s men are intact. Globally, circumcision is well within the minority.
- Denmark’s parliament is currently considering a ban on male circumcision, much like the U.S. has banned female genital cutting.
Something more must be in play with the CDC’s new recommendations. Perhaps by removing any mention of body autonomy and the benefits of retaining one’s foreskin – the risk analysis is on target. However, when considering all the facts, it simply doesn’t add up.
Let us know your thoughts at the?Liberal America?Facebook page. Sign up for our?free daily newsletter?to receive more great stories like this one.
Elizabeth Preston is a thirty-something wife and mother of three living in Florida. She is a fierce liberal with a passion?for equality and justice. She is a skeptic by nature and often the Facebook friend that rains on the urban legend parade with fact checking. Give her?Facebook page?a?like, follow her on?Twitter?and check out her personal blog,?My Four Ha? Pennies.
