Evidence suggests, US doctors have concluded, that it is the kindest cut: Circumcision can reduce the risk of urinary tract infections in infants, cut the risk of penile cancer and lower the risk of HIV and the human papillomavirus, which causes cervical and other cancers. So why is the removal of a tiny flap of skin at birth, both an ancient religious ritual and an apparently pragmatic hygienic practice, causing controversy around the world?
While the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has concluded that the health benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks and the procedure is a matter of parental choice, outraged opponents call it male genital mutilation, or child abuse. Many parts of Europe concur.
A court in Cologne this summer ruled that circumcision contravened the rights of a child to decide later in life on his religious beliefs. A German doctor has now filed charges against a rabbi for performing circumcisions on two infant boys, causing outrage in Jewish and Muslim communities and a delicate debate about intolerance, religious freedom and children’s rights in Germany.
Circumcision is an ancient ritual in Judaism and Islam, but there is no ritual circumcision in Hinduism and other religions that arose outside the Middle East. Aboriginal societies in desert areas of Australia also traditionally practiced circumcision and historians believe the procedure was originally an early public health measure to prevent balanitis, a swelling of the penis that can be caused by the accumulation of sand under the foreskin.
Until the 1950s, British men were routinely circumcised for health and hygiene (balanitis, easily cured and prevented with basic hygiene, occurs in about one in 20 infants, and is more common in uncircumcised boys). Circumcision is still legal with parental consent in the UK, but barely 5 percent of British men are circumcised now for medical reasons, although some religious circumcisions may be unrecorded if undertaken outside mainstream medicine.
The difference in statistics between Europe — in Scandinavia rates are as low as 1 percent — and the US, where most men are circumcised, is striking, and the attitudes of medical opinion in Europe and the US seem poles apart. Recent US research has added weight to the pro-circumcision case, but the number of newborn circumcisions is falling largely because of how much they cost — the public Medicaid program no longer pays for it in more than a dozen states.
In Europe, there is far less consensus on the medical benefits of the removal of a piece of skin filled with nerve endings.
“The medical harms or benefits have not been unequivocally proven,” the British Medical Association says in its guidance for doctors. “It is essential that doctors perform male circumcision only where this is demonstrably in the best interests of the child.”
The main principle of surgery is that no operation should be undertaken if there is no disease and the risk of the procedure cannot be justified without the risk of a disease, Australian general surgeon John Hutson said in a symposium on circumcision in the Journal of Medical Ethics.
“The surgical argument for circumcision of all neonatal males at present is very weak,” he said. “And with rising public health standards in the developed world, is likely to remain weak.”
Perhaps the most compelling evidence for the medical benefits for circumcision comes from a meta-analysis of studies that have found male circumcision at least halves the relative risk of HIV infection throughout sub-Saharan Africa.
“Is it ethical to dismiss a simple prophylactic surgical procedure that can halve male rates of infection?” distinguished Australian biologist Roger Short wrote in the Journal of Medical Ethics.
These findings are not replicated in the West, where the reduction in risk of sexually transmitted diseases is generally found to be 10 percent.
John Dalton, a researcher for the UK’s National Organisation of Restoring Men, a charitable support group for circumcised men, says that the studies showing that circumcision halves HIV infection have “no external validity” — they do not reflect what happens in the real world.
These studies have tended to recruit volunteers who want to be circumcised, performed the operation on half and then studied both cohorts to see how each fares. Dalton questions a number of potential biases in such studies: recruiting people who already believe circumcision will help stop HIV; terminating studies prematurely, which tends to overestimate benefits of a treatment; and losing significant numbers of participants to follow-up studies.
Dalton says that the AAP has “made a fool of themselves” with its selective review of evidence that neglects some evidence contradicting the health benefits and overstates the risks of, for instance, penile cancer, which is extremely rare. It has been estimated that 300,000 circumcisions may be required to prevent one case of penile cancer a year.
“They are saying that the benefits exceed the risks, but they haven’t quantified the benefits and they haven’t quantified the risks,” Dalton said.
If the medical evidence is disputed, why is circumcision so widely accepted in the US?
“I find it amazing,” said Tally, a pseudonym for a 56-year-old US blogger who was circumcised at birth and is restoring his foreskin through non-surgical methods.
He says that “pecuniary gain” is one factor in its popularity in the US: Circumcision typically costs between US$400 and US$800.
“I don’t see the social conscience [in the US] that you have in the UK or the Canadians have,” Tally said. “We’re [Americans] driven very much by a sense of independence and profit.”
It may be unfair to impugn the professionalism of US surgeons and broader factors clearly influence its popularity, including serious medical research, strong religious traditions and different conceptions of children’s rights. Dalton says it is telling that the US is one of three UN member states, with Somalia and South Sudan, that has not ratified the UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child.
While participants in the AAP review say they considered ethical issues, including whether parents have the right to make the decision without the child’s consent, Dalton said its findings do not “consider that children are human beings with rights and the right to decide whether they have part of their penis cut off. My personal view is there might be some partial protection against diseases that is conferred by circumcision, but you don’t cut off part of a child’s body to prevent disease.”
If circumcision has potential health benefits, but ethically requires consent, why not carry it out later in life?
According to the AAP, medical evidence suggests the procedure is riskier later on when the foreskin is thicker. This finding, too, is disputed.
“To be brutally frank, infant circumcision is ‘safer’ because infants don’t report complications,” Dalton said.
There will always be more questions than answers when modern medicine and conceptions of human rights collide with ancient religious practices. A final question: How does Tally restore his foreskin without surgery?
Circumcised men are increasingly sharing tips online about manual stretches and devices that apply tension with a brace to recreate their foreskin, a process that takes between one year and five years.
“If you stretch skin, the skin responds by getting longer,” he said. “I’m at the tail-end of the process. I don’t tug as often as I used to.”
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under