Mayo Clinic Family Health Book, 1990, William Morrow pub., p32 Not long ago, male infants were circumcised routinely at birth. It was believed that circumcision--the surgical removal of the foreskin of the penis--helped prevent problems such as penile infection and cancer because a circumcised penis could be kept cleaner than an uncircumcised one. Today, however, we know that circumcision is usually not medically necessary. Good hygiene offers the advantages of circumcision without the potential risks. Thus, most circumcisions are performed for cultural and religious reasons. ========================================================================= The Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons Complete Home Medical Guide, 1985 Circumcision became an almost routine procedure in this country in the years after WWII. It is, however, not medically necessary to have a son circumcised, nor is circumcision required by any law. The procedure does not prevent penile infection or penile cancer. Moreover, the rate of cervical cancer among the sexual partners of circumcised men is no higher than usual, provided that the men practice good hygiene. ========================================================================= Oxford Textbook of Medicine, 1987, Oxford Univ. Press 4.109 {Cancer of the cervix} The rarity of the disease {cervical cancer} in Jewesses and its relative rarity in Moslem women suggest that male circumcision might materially reduce the risk of its development, but this is unlikely to be true as the state of circumcision of her husband has no substantial effect on the risk a woman runs of developing the disease in religious communities where only some of the men are circumcised. Cleanliness is likely to an important factor, as the disease may be relatively uncommon in communities that practise ritual ablution before and after intercourse and, within each community, it becomes less common with increasing economic status. ========================================================================= Encyclopedia Americana, "Circumcision" 1987 Circumcision for reasons of health continued in all English-speaking countries well into the mid 20th century. Today, however, the practice has been virtually abandoned in Britain and New Zealand, and circumcision rates have been reduced markedly in Canada and Australia. But in the United States about 80% [most sources say < 60% in 1990] of infant boys still are circumcised in spite of authoritative medical opposition to the practice. In 1975, the American Academy of Pediatrics reported that "there are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period." In 1978, the American College of Obstetricians endorsed the academy's position. Both of these groups reaffirmed this judgement in a 1983 report "Guidelines for Perinatal Care." Nevertheless, some U.S. physicians claim that circumcision is essential for penile hygeine; that it prevents venereal disease and premature ejaculation; and that smegma (the normal sebaceous gland secretion under the foreskin) is a carcinogen, causing cancer of the penis, prostate, and cervix. These claims are not supported by epidemiological data. Moreover, smegma is found under the clitoral foreskin of women, as well as under the foreskins of other mammals of both sexes, with no apparent harm. ========================================================================= Dr. Spock's Baby and Child Care, 1992 Scientists used to think that the wives of uncircumcised men were more likely to get cervical cancer, but modern research has disproven this. Studies in the late 1980's suggested that uncircumcised boys might get more urinary tract infections during childhood. But this research didn't take into account whether the boys had good routine hygiene, so there's no conclusive proof that circumcision would prevent urinary tract infections. (Circumcised boys also get urinary tract infections.) When caught early, these infections are easily treated with antibiotics. So it's best to keep in mind that good genital hygiene (routine washing during the bath) is more important than whether he's circumcised or not. In the ten years from 1980 to 1990, the number of boys being circumcised in the United States decreased from 90 percent to 60 percent..... The foreskin covering your baby boy's glans is a good protection. Irritations of the urinary opening occur in 8 to 31 percent of circumcised boys, and virtually never in boys with intact foreskins..... I feel that there is no solid medical evidence at this time to support routine circumcision. Some parents may choose circumcision for religious reasons. In other cases I recommend leaving the foreskin the way Nature meant it to be. ========================================================================= Book: 300 Questions New Parents Ask, 1991, William Sears MD Q13 We are still undecided as to whether or not to have our baby circumcised. Can you give us some pros and cons to help us make the right decision? A13 The Am.Acad. of Ped. advises that routine circumcision is medically unnecessary and we agree with this decision. First the cons: Circumcision is a surgical procedure and generally a very safe one, but, as with any surgical procedure, there are occasional problems, such as injury of the shaft of the penis, bleeding, or infection. Circumcision without the use of an anesthetic clearly causes pain to the baby. Lastly, circumcised babies often experience more irritation to the tip of the penis from strong urine or abrasive diapers. Normally, the foreskin covers the glans (the tip) of the penis and protects the glans from irritation. Now the arguments in favor of circumcision: Parents feel the foreskin is easier to keep clean when the baby is circumcised (Actually, this is not true-see question 15). Parents want to make him look like all of the other males in his circle or like dad. In response to this concern, I feel parents need not worry about the baby being different. If the current trend toward fewer circumcisions continues, our guess is that within the next decade about half the males will be circumcised and half will not. In our experience boys do not compare circumcised versus intact foreskins. Modern teenagers have a much more mature outlook about individual differences than we give them credit for. Parents may worry about the possibility of the uncircumcised child needing circumcision later on when it is a much more painful procedure. It is true that some boys need circumcision when they are older, but it is rare. Even so, if circumcision is necessary later in childhood or adulthood, the boy is involved in the decision-making process and anesthesia is used. Except in cultural or religious customs, routine circumcision is unnecessary. Your decision for your baby should be given the same attention that you would give to any other cosmetic surgery. ====================================================================== Babyhood, stage by stage, from babyhood to age 3, 1983, Penelope Leach, Random House ..... Although the risks are obviously necessary and acceptable when the procedure is _needed_ by the patient, few newborn babies _need_ circumcision. In many countries, including Britain, doctors decided long ago that while those who felt strongly in favor of circumcision should, of course, be able to arrange it, the operation should no longer be carried out routinely. They saw no benefit to the babies, and some bad side effects. They felt that the net sum balanced against the routine operation. Actual figures on side effects are difficult to assess. In a country such as Great Britain, where doctors are largely against the operation, every little problem is recorded. In a country such as the United States where it is taken for granted, only serious side effects like sepsis or hemorrhage will reach the statistics. In fact the actual reported figures for these two countries are 22 percent for Britain and 6 percent for America. An emotionally laden subject produces emotionally biased statistics! Probably, it is only safe to say that while serious side effects are extremely rare, minor ones are quite frequent. The baby is bound to be sore for at least a few days and may be so for much longer if mild infection or diaper irritation sets in. Certainly the circumcised baby boy will need much more careful diaper care than his uncircumcised friend. The foreskin protects the delicate end of the penis from the abrasive effects of ammonia in the urine; without it, irritation of the glans is much more likely and will remain so until he abandons diapers for good. Some pain on passing urine, or when bathed, is also likely; it will last until the wound is healed.....