By Sasha Moedt (The Cascade) – Email
Print Edition: July 4, 2012
German courts ruled last Tuesday that performing circumcision on infant boys inflicts grievous bodily harm, igniting predictable fury from religious groups. According to an article in The New York Times, the ruling was centered on the case of a four-year-old boy, whose circumcision resulted in dire complications.
Meanwhile, Norway is proposing a ban on circumcision. As medical evidence of the harm circumcision exacts on infants emerges, an increasing amount of controversy is arising. Why is circumcision not banned?
Circumcision of females is illegal. Circumcision of males is legal, pushed as healthy and clean – a norm.
But in reality, removing an infant’s foreskin is damaging, with heavy short-term and long-term implications.
Immediately, the child is bleeding and in danger of infection. There is excruciating pain for weeks after. The child is at risk of excessive skin removal (causing painful erections as the child develops, and restricting growth of the penis at puberty), scarring, loss of the penis and death. But even without the immediate ramifications, the complications that accumulate as the child grows up are enough.
The foreskin is necessary to protect the tip of the penis: the urinary and reproductive tract as well as the head. Without the foreskin, there is less sensation, and the sensitive head of the penis is open to injury. The foreskin is a highly sensitive, specialized structure that has protective and sexual functions.
Trust me, the foreskin wouldn’t be there without a reason.
The male body does not need cosmetic surgery to function – and that’s what circumcision is, essentially.
No national medical organization in the world recommends circumcision: the potential benefits (potential, not proven) do not outweigh the risks and proven damage as a result of circumcision. Beyond a marginally lower risk of cancer in the penis (because there is literally less penis) and the prevention of foreskin infections or complications (because there is no foreskin) there are no real concrete benefits of circumcision.
Yet circumcision is perfectly legal. Why? Besides the religious question, it is because parents have the power to choose to circumcise their child. These parents (who don’t have a religious motivation) don’t know any better, have been swayed by myths and rumours, or choose to blindly follow the norm.
Part of me wants Canada to make circumcision illegal. It would stop non-religious parents who have it done in hospitals without thinking about it. But looking at the Jewish and Muslim communities, I don’t know if it would be wise.
Let’s compare circumcision to abortions (no value judgments, just in the sense that it is a difficult procedure to safely perform). Making abortions illegal in a country will not stop abortions – but it will increase the bloody deaths of back alley abortions. Those who want to circumcise their children have religious motivations, and this is very important to them. Circumcisions will be done whether it is illegal or not, but the safety of the child being circumcised might be jeopardized. Like abortion, circumcision will only cease when the need for it does.
Non-religious parents should not circumcise their children. Yet I believe banning circumcisions in hospital settings could also be dangerous. Though religious people generally have their children circumcised by an important religious figure, parents turned away by a hospital might try something themselves, with terrible results.
As far as Jewish and Muslim people’s tradition of circumcision goes, I don’t believe the religious rights of one individual should go before another person’s bodily integrity. A parent has no way of knowing whether a child will take their religion, or value that rite, when they are older.
A man cannot make himself intact when what’s lost is lost. On the other hand, a man can be circumcised when he is older by his choice. It is no more painful to a mature male than a child, especially because the mature man can handle sufficient levels of anesthetic (which infants cannot). He can also voice how effectively his pain has been controlled and ask for more painkiller if need be. He has control of the situation. Why not delay the tradition until adulthood?
Circumcision should be more heavily condemned in the medical profession. The public should be thoroughly educated about the damage circumcision inflicts. I believe an exhaustive education—actively supported by politicians and medical professionals—will deter the act of circumcision.
As fewer parents choose to cut their children, the norm will shift, and eventually the practice will die out. There is no medical evidence backing the practice; the only reason circumcision exists (besides a religious tradition) is a norm based on vague myths about health and aesthetic appearance.
I also believe doctors should use their right not to perform circumcision, and make clear why it is not recommended. This way, it will take a parent effort to find a doctor who will perform circumcision, deterring parents who might casually want to have their son look like the father, and perhaps that effort might stop them. If the government gives men the right to sue a doctor for circumcising them, this might increase the number of doctors who will refuse, as well as make the public more aware of the detrimental effects of circumcision.
A widespread effort to stem the practice might raise concerns of anti-Semitism or discrimination. But the motivations are clear, and they have nothing against religion or a specific belief system.
Circumcision is an act of bodily harm – an act of violence inflicted on a child too young to resist or protest. We as a society should not tolerate this.
