Ask a Beaumont Doctor: What Are the Pros and Cons of Circumcision?
Dr. Marlene Roth, a Beaumont pediatrician, answers questions about a decision parents make for their sons.
Photos
Few Patch blogs have generated more comments than guest blogger Jenn D'Jamoos' post on circumcision. "The Circumcision Decision" to date has generated more than 100 comments.
The sometimes volatile discussion has raised a lot of questions regarding the choice to circumcise baby boys, so Patch asked Marlene Roth, a Beaumont Health System pediatrician, about the decision parents make for their sons.
Patch: What are the pros/cons of circumcision?
Roth: The pros and cons of circumcision continue to be debated without a definite conclusion. Studies from various countries have shown a decreased incidence of infection, including sexually transmitted diseases, a decreased incidence of penile cancer – a very rare cancer – but none of these studies are considered significant enough for the American Academy of Pediatrics to issue a policy regarding circumcision. Circumcised males have more visits to the pediatrician in their first year of life for issue related to penile problems, but after that uncircumcised males have a higher incidence of visits. The issue of decreased penile sensitivity in circumcised male is still a matter of debate.
Patch: Can a circumcision ever be reversed?
Roth: No.
Patch: Do doctors ever advise for or against, or is it strictly a parent's choice?
Roth: It is purely the choice of the parents, but persuasion can go a long way.
Patch: Are there any trends compared to 10 years ago? Is the choice to circumcise happening more or less?
Roth: In the United States, the trend is toward fewer males being circumcised, especially in the last 10 years.
Patch: What is the percentage of male babies circumcised?
No accurate statistics exist and the ones we have vary greatly from country to country, but in the United States the rate is approximately 80 percent. The debate continues because the research remains inconclusive and so many variables exist.
More information
The Center for Disease Control (CDC) has not yet determined if male circumcision should be recommended for any population, ultimately leaving the decision to rest with individuals and parents. For more information, please see the CDC Fact Sheet on male circumcision.
Do you have a question for a Beaumont doctor? Send it to judy.davids@patch.com or text to 248-231-4667.
Lynn Vander Meer
10:22 am on Monday, July 16, 2012
For some, it is a religious rite. There is no discussion of right and wrong. For the remainder, it is a CHOICE, one that the child does not participate in.
Mary
10:33 am on Monday, July 16, 2012
In my opinion circumcision is really a cultural and religious choice, but I believe that every parent should be informed. This is the best video I have found that looks at the research and describes the procedure. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ceht-3xu84I&feature=player_embedded
Mark Lyndon
4:28 pm on Monday, July 16, 2012
The AMA says the rate of newborn circumcision is down to 55% and dropping.
What's wrong with letting everyone decide for themselves whether or not they want anything cut off their private parts. It's *their* body. It's not like it can't wait - the USA and Israel are the only two countries in the world where more than half of baby boys are circumcised. Other countries circumcise, but not till anywhere from the age of seven to adolescence.
USA: from 90% to 55%
Canada: from 48% to 17%
UK: from 35% to about 5% (about 1-2% among non-Muslims)
Australia: 90% to 12.4% ("routine" circumcision has recently been *banned* in public hospitals in all states)
New Zealand: 95% to below 3% (mostly Samoans and Tongans)
South America and Europe: never above 5%
Personally, I'd pay a year's salary rather than be circumcised.
E R
9:06 pm on Monday, July 16, 2012
American doctors are painfully unaware of the natural anatomy of human males. All they are taught is to cut it off, and they don't even know what they're amputating! Luckily, according to the CDC, 68.5% of male babies were kept whole by 2009, and the number is likely higher today. Find out why! Today's parents are becoming informed, and not erroneously cutting off body parts. Most of the world's men have their entire genitalia, and they (and their partners!) benefit greatly. The more you know about circumcision (male or female), the more you're against it. His body, his choice!
MrBBQ
9:23 pm on Monday, July 16, 2012
Wow. Shockingly misleading.
All we hear about are the supposed benefits of circumcision. But medical authorities are clear: There are NO NET BENEFITS (medically) of circumcising (the risk of infection or traumatic injury is at least as high as any supposed "protections"). But there is a loss: you've chopped off the most erogenous tissue of his penis. So you gain nothing but lose something. What's the point?
>> Roth: It is purely the choice of the parents, but persuasion can go a long way.
Why on earth would you persuade a parent to circumcise if it's not recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics, or anyone else for that matter?
Why does she want to persuade you? Yup, you guessed it, because she and her hospital get a sweet fee for every pointless circumcision they perform. And it's usually covered by the parents' insurance, so no skin off their back, right? (Just skin off their son's penis). And for absolutely no reason.
Juan
10:45 pm on Monday, July 16, 2012
Persuasion. Mutilating American babies since J. H. Kellogg.
Hugh7
4:56 am on Tuesday, July 17, 2012
"Circumcised males have more visits to the pediatrician in their first year of life for issue related to penile problems, but after that uncircumcised males have a higher incidence of visits."
Dr Roth is citing Fergusson, et al. Neonatal Circumcision and Penile Problems: An 8-Year Longitudianl Study Pediatrics Vol. 81 No 4, April 1988, pp 537-541
But boys left intact at birth were counted as intact throughout, and problems of delayed circumcisions counted as problems of intactness. Three percent of the "intact" cohort suffered "postcircumcision infection"!
Fergusson is also responsible for a widely publicised claim that circumcsed men get fewer STIs, but his study was refuted by a bigger and better one a year later that found no difference. Unsurprisingly, it got no publicity at all.
This discussion starts at the wrong, um, end. What are the functions of the foreskin? What is its value to its owner? Ask a few and you might be surprised. A much higher proportion of intact men is happy to be that way than circumcised men.
Stephen Hamilton
11:34 am on Saturday, July 21, 2012
I have discussed this topic ad nauseum with male and female friends. First, a major factor many don't think about is the boy's acceptance by females. Many girls I know use it as a litmus test on whether or not they would date a boy. The uncirced penis is dirtier and often has a smell or lint and other things caught in it. Many women don't want to deal with this their whole lives.
Second, the impact on males genitalia is moot. This is a little excess skin, and I've still yet to find a man who needs extra sensitivity down there. I understand the surgery could go wrong, but if it is done well there are no issues. And I would much rather my parents do it before I know what is going on then having to have surgery when I'm 18.
Mark Lyndon
12:13 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
1) There are countries where the men don't like uncut women, but that doesn't make it ok to cut parts off girls.
2) Women's genitalia are far harder to keep clean than men's, but they seem to manage without surgery.
3) that "little excess skin" contains the most sensitive and pleasurable parts of my penis (it's not just there to protect the glans), and there's no way I'd want less sensitivity. I'd pay a year's salary to avoid being circumcised - it's that important.
4) A Danish study last year found that "Conclusions Circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfilment."
5) At lot more American women are getting used to intact men as the newborn circumcision rate is down to 55% in the USA (Israel is the only other country in the world where more than half of baby boys are circumcised btw - other countries circumcise, but usually not till around the age of seven to adolescence)
Stephen Hamilton
2:37 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
I'm just saying most women I know won't give a man oral sex if he is uncircumcised. It might just be a Birmingham/Bloomfield thing, but it seems almost universal. I know most mothers aren't worried about their son's oral pleasures or appearance to female, but it is something to consider. I grew up with Ukranian friends who were uncircumcised, and their penises always smelled and had some kind of schmegma under the skin hood no matter how much they cleaned it. When the penis is uncircumcised it is more of a mucus membrane that is always wet. The other problem these kids developed later in life was premature ejaculation, which is apparently common amongst the uncirced.
Hugh7
11:17 pm on Monday, July 30, 2012
This preference is by no means universal. The only US study of the matter, of 145 Iowa mothers, included only 24 women who had experience of both, and is now known to have been rigged (at least one of the women wasn't asked to take part until after she'd said she preferred circumcised).
Most of the world's men are intact, and most of the world's women wouldn't have us any other way. The word smegma (sic) is not Yiddish (it wouldn't be, would it?) but Greek for soap. It is more copious and pungent in women, and about as toxic as earwax.
Premature ejaculation? The >20,000 nerves of the foreskin don't just confer "more sensitivity" but "a symphony of sensation" - more feedback and hence more control. Cutting off the foreskin is like ripping out the accelerator pedal and leaving an on-off switch. You can still get to your destination (and circumcised men seem to think the destination is all there is to the journey) but you don't enjoy the, um, ride so much.
Stephen Hamilton
8:14 pm on Thursday, August 16, 2012
Ha, well I've done the survey of good looking American women (not Iowa mothers) and I can promise most normal females are not looking for any stinky smegma with their love making...
Mark Lyndon
4:49 am on Friday, August 17, 2012
Women produce more smegma than men, but we don't cut parts off girls to make it easier for women to keep clean. There are countries where the men prefer cut women too, but that doesn't justify circumcising girls.
I'm intact, but I never had any problems with good looking American women in that department btw. For at least two of them, it was the first time with an intact man, and they were surprised at how little difference there was.