ZGram - 9/4/2002 - "Medical child mutilation declines"

[irimland@zundelsite.org]

ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny

September 4, 2002

Good Morning from the Zundelsite:

A sign of the times? 

[START]

The growing consensus against circumcision

Jackie Smith
National Post

Friday, August 30, 2002

Just 30 years ago, male circumcision was all the rage; as many as 90% 
of boys in the United States, 70% of those in Australia, 48% in 
Canada and 24% in the United Kingdom were circumcised (often without 
any anesthesia).

I remember the war that waged in my own mind when my son was born in the 1980s.
I had no religious reasons for choosing circumcision; I wasn't trying 
to guard against "unhealthy masturbation," as early proponents of 
circumcision were. I didn't care if he looked like dad, as some 
parents do. I wanted to know only one thing: What would be best for 
him -- medically.
If he wasn't circumcised, would I be responsible for increasing his 
chances of urinary tract infections and sexually transmitted disease, 
as some physicians had suggested? Would it mean he might need the 
operation later in life, when circumcision is more uncomfortable, not 
to mention unpleasant?

What if he had the operation and got an infection? What if the knife 
slipped? How would I live with myself?

More important, how would he live with himself?

It's the nature of parenting to always think, "What could I have done 
better?" So once I made a decision I worried over whether it was the 
right one. Like all parents, I tried to act in the best interests of 
my child.

When the Canadian Pediatric Society (CPS) reviewed the medical 
literature and came out against routine circumcision in 1996, I 
thought the matter was settled. The CPS looked at the effects of 
newborn circumcision on the rate of urinary tract infections, 
sexually transmitted diseases, cancer of the penis, penile problems, 
and decided the practice was inadvisable. This was in line with a 
recommendation made earlier by its Fetus and Newborn Committee and 
with 1971 and 1975 recommendations of the American Academy of 
Pediatrics.

Nevertheless, debates about the ethics of circumcision remain 
unresolved because of its connection to religion and culture -- 
because medical studies sometimes turn up different results, and 
because parents do think their kids should look like dad.

Still, I believe a consensus against circumcision is steadily 
emerging. In this new era of patient rights, circumcision has come to 
seem like an anachronism. Among doctors, there is a greater emphasis 
on informed decision-making, the limits on parents' rights to make 
decisions about their kids' health and the rights of children to be 
protected from parents who make wrong decisions. Even some adult men 
who were unnecessarily circumcised as children are asserting their 
rights to restitution. And since the balance of medical evidence 
suggests those who oppose circumcision have the facts on their side, 
doctors are increasingly refusing to perform circumcisions. 
Complications from bleeding, amputation, renal failure, sepsis and 
death are powerful incentives to stop.

With the death of an infant in B.C., possibly as a result of 
circumcision and currently under coroner's investigation, there will 
be more questions of circumcision's benefits and risks -- with a more 
pronounced focus on the latter.

Parents who opt for circumcision must, as a matter of both law and 
morals, make their decision based on the principle of respect for the 
rights and best interests of their child, according to the available 
information concerning risks and benefits. The death of the Kamloops 
baby may bring new awareness about the risks of circumcision (though 
the baby's death may ultimately turn out to have arisen from 
something far more complicated than a botched circumcision).

Indeed, the media coverage of the incident may speed circumcision for 
non-religious reasons into the dustbin of medical practice -- 
alongside many other once-popular procedures, such as the removal of 
the ovaries for hysteria, tonsillectomy for a sore throat, lobotomy 
for mental retardation, etc. In a few years, looking like dad or 
wanting to keep a boy "clean" may no longer be legally legitimate 
rationales for circumcision. It's about time they weren't. Parents 
who have had their kids circumsised can't be faulted for doing what 
they thought was right. But it is unethical to continue a practice 
that is no longer medically defensible and could harm our kids.

(Source: 
http://www.nationalpost.com/commentary/story.html?id={7CE083D0-0061-4426-B393-3CDF25A2B0EA}