Jewish Groups Say it’s Time to Stop Circumcising Boys
The recent death of a baby boy in New York City has prompted some Jewish groups to call for an end to the practice of male circumcision. City investigators believe the boy died after contracting herpes from an infected mohel who sucked the blood from the baby’s circumcision wound. Two other boys circumcised by the mohel have also contracted herpes, including the dead boy’s twin brother.
San Diego, CA (PRWEB)
February 9, 2005 -- The recent death of a baby boy in New York
City has prompted some Jewish groups to call for an end to the
practice of male circumcision. City investigators believe the boy
died after contracting herpes from an infected mohel who sucked
the blood from the baby’s circumcision wound. Two other boys
circumcised by the mohel have also contracted herpes, including
the dead boy’s twin brother.
Also known as Brit Milah, circumcision is the surgical removal of
the foreskin from the penis. Although circumcision deaths in the
U.S. are rare, the ritual is facing heavy criticism as it becomes
synonymous with genital mutilation.
“What happened to this innocent Jewish baby in New York is
especially tragic,” said Gillian Flato, Director of Jews
Against Circumcision, an international organization of Jews who
have re-examined the practice and have found it to be immoral.
“I think this is a wake up call for the Jewish community.
Are they willing to blindly follow tradition and jeopardize their
sons' lives? Circumcision does not make one Jewish. Being born to
a Jewish mother makes you Jewish, or a Jewish father in the
Reform tradition. Being Jewish is in your heart, not in your
penis.”
Dr. Ronald Goldman, Executive Director of the Jewish Circumcision
Resource Center in Boston and author of Questioning Circumcision:
A Jewish Perspective, said that many Jewish parents feel
pressured to circumcise their newborn sons by family members or
others within the Jewish community.
“For a growing number of Jews, circumcision raises serious
intellectual, emotional, and ethical conflicts. A lot of parents
end up regretting their decision to have their baby boys
circumcised, especially if they witness the ceremony,” said
Goldman. “Those Jews that forgo circumcision are at peace
with their decision. Jewish parents who are questioning
circumcision have options."
One of those options is a Brit Shalom, a naming ceremony that
some Jewish families practice as an alternative to traditional
circumcision. Growing in popularity, it shares many of the same
ceremonial aspects of the Brit Milah, but without cutting the
genitals. It is similar to the naming ceremony used to celebrate
the birth of Jewish girls.
Attempts to protect boys from circumcision have now crossed into
the legal realm as well. While girls have been legally protected
from circumcision in the U.S. since 1996, a federal bill proposal
written by a San Diego group called MGMbill.org would extend that
protection to boys. Matthew Hess, the group’s president,
said that Jewish support for the proposed bill will be critical
to its success.
“Efforts to legally protect boys from MGM (“male
genital mutilation”) will be much harder without the support
of Jewish leaders,” said Hess. “Many politicians fear
that supporting a ban on infant male circumcision will upset
their Jewish constituencies and cost them votes in the next
election. But those attitudes can be changed if more Jews speak
out against the practice - just as Muslim women have changed
opinions on female circumcision in Africa.”
Hess himself is not Jewish, but he said that feedback and advice
received from Jewish members of Congress and their staff have
made him more aware of the need to encourage activism in the
Jewish community at large. “Concerns about the ethics of
circumcision are pervasive,” said Hess. “But
transforming those concerns into action requires people to speak
up.”
HIV Prevention a Poor Excuse for Circumcision, Activists Say
In response to recent studies linking male circumcision to lower HIV infection rates, health and human rights activists are warning that circumcision should not be used as a tool to combat the spread of HIV. Circumcision is the removal of the foreskin, a protective and highly erogenous zone of tissue that covers the penis.
San Diego, CA (PRWEB)
February 3, 2005 -- In response to recent studies linking male
circumcision to lower HIV infection rates, health and human
rights activists are warning that circumcision should not be used
as a tool to combat the spread of HIV. Circumcision is the
removal of the foreskin, a protective and highly erogenous zone
of tissue that covers the penis.
“Preventive circumcision makes even less sense than
preventive mastectomy,” said Matthew Hess, President of San
Diego based MGMbill.org. “Preventive breast removal would
actually prevent many cancers, while virtually all those exposed
repeatedly to HIV will still contract the virus, circumcised or
not. And despite the findings of a new study in Kenya,
circumcision clearly has not been effective in controlling the
spread of HIV in the United States."
MGMbill.org is a group pushing to add gender neutral language to
a U.S. law that bans circumcision of girls under the age of 18.
The study referenced by Hess appeared in the February 15, 2005,
issue of The Journal of Infectious Diseases. It concluded that
circumcised truck drivers in Kenya had a 0.5% chance of
contracting HIV from an infected female partner, versus a 1.3%
chance for intact men.
Hess also criticized a recent $5.4 million grant by the Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation to study the effects of male
circumcision on HIV rates in Uganda. “The Gates Foundation
has done a lot of good things for Africa over the years,”
said Hess. “But this ill-conceived grant is helping to
promote genital mutilation of males on a continent that is
receiving aid from other agencies to eliminate female genital
mutilation. I think it’s very counterproductive.”
George Denniston, M.D., a retired professor at the University of
Washington School of Medicine, said the HIV-circumcision link is
weak at best. “The United States is one of the only
developed nations that still routinely practices male
circumcision, and yet the U.S. also has the highest rate of HIV
infection among all developed countries. To suggest that
circumcision should somehow be used as a tool to control HIV is
highly irresponsible medicine, but that is what some of these
studies seem to be doing.”
Denniston has authored several books on the harmful effects of
circumcision. He is also President of Doctors Opposing
Circumcision, an international group of physicians that advises
against circumcision because of the damage it causes to sexual
function. The group also argues that circumcision of children is
a violation of professional medical ethics and basic human
rights.
Brian O’Donnell, PA-C, MHS, of New Haven, Connecticut, said
that research money would be better spent on ways to increase
condom use, which is a proven way to prevent HIV. “Whether
or not a man is circumcised, he has to wear a condom during sex
to prevent the transmission of HIV from an infected partner. The
most common reason men give for not wearing a condom is that it
reduces sensation and pleasure. Removing the foreskin only
reduces the sensation further.”
O’Donnell said he is planning to enter into a research
project designed to look at how circumcision has affected condom
use in the U.S. and may be contributing to the high rate of
sexually transmitted infections and HIV. “This may be
what’s happening in the U.S., where 70% of 18-24 year olds
are circumcised and the rates of HIV are 5 times that of Europe,
where less than 1% of the men are circumcised. It also could
explain why the rates of STD's and unintended pregnancies in the
USA are up to 74 times higher than in Europe.”
O’Donnell added that he sees less condom use among his male
patients who are circumcised, and that their rate of STD
diagnosis is higher than in intact men. He also warned that a
false sense of security is already starting to take hold in
Africa, where some people now mistakenly believe they can’t
contract HIV if they are circumcised.
NEW - I just found this article featured in Men's Health. Somewhat old, but relevant. Please read HERE.
(This article appears as it was published from Men's Health Magazine)
Canadian Press: Medical Ethics, July 30, 2004
Circumcision could violate human rights
New guidelines issued by the College of Physicians & Surgeons of British Columbia suggesting that infant male circumcision may be a human rights violation could make some doctors nervous about possible future lawsuits.
“Routine infant circumcision is an irreversible and unnecessary procedure,” says the College. “Many people see it as unwarranted mutilating surgery.”
“Many adult men are increasingly concerned about whether their parents had the right to give consent for infant male circumcision,” adds the College.
“Most physicians reading this are going to feel apprehensive about continuing to do circumcisions,” said Vancouver paediatrician Dr. David Smith. “No physician wants to be sued 10 years later for a procedure they did that was judged acceptable 10 years earlier.”
According to Dr. Peter Seland, deputy registrar in charge of ethics for the College, there is no medical benefit to circumcision after the risks have been taken into account. Two years ago, one-month-old Ryleigh McWillis bled to death after undergoing the procedure at Penticton Regional Hospital.
“People should make their own decision about the ethics of the procedure,” said the paediatrician.
For supporters of circumcision, the procedure is a tradition and an aid to cleanliness.
But provincial health officer Dr. Perry Kendall, compared routine male circumcision to the much-reviled practice of female circumcision in parts of Africa.
“It’s the same thing, you’re mutilating the genitalia,” he said.
Dr. Kendall’s position reflects the Proclamation of the first international symposium on circumcision, held in Anaheim, California, on March 3, 1989.
The proclamation affirms the inherent right of every human being to an intact body, free of any religious or racial markings. It adds that parents do not have the right to consent to genital mutilation of their children. As for physicians and surgeons, they are asked to refuse to perform any operation intended to mutilate normal genitals belonging to healthy children.
The Province
Vancouver, B.C.
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
Page A19
By Ethan Baron
Staff Reporter
-------------------------------
New B.C. doctors'
guidelines that suggest circumcising male babies
may be a human-rights abuse could put a chill on doctors who
perform the surgery.
"Routine infant male circumcision is an unnecessary and
irreversible
procedure," say the B.C. College of Physicians and Surgeons
guidelines."
Therefore, many consider it to be unwarranted mutilating surgery.
"Many adult men are increasingly concerned about whether
their
parents had the right to give consent for infant male
circumcision."
The guidelines refer to an infant's Charter and United Nations
rights to
security of person and bodily integrity.
"Most physicians reading this are going to feel a certain
degree of
apprehension about doing or continuing to do circumcisions,"
said
Vancouver pediatrician Dr. David Smith. "No physician wants
to be in
practice and sued 10 years later for a procedure they did that
was
acceptable 10 years earlier."
The blood-loss death of one-month-old Ryleigh McWillis two years
ago after a circumcision at Penticton Regional Hospital raised a
public outcry that led to the new guidelines, said Dr. Peter
Seland, in
charge of ethics for the college.
"There are no medical benefits when you balance the risks
and
benefits," Seland said.
"People can make their own ethical decisions but they need
to be
informed."
Provincial health officer Dr. Perry Kendall, speaking as an
individual,
drew a parallel between routine male circumcision and the much-
reviled
practice of female circumcision in sub-Saharan
Africa.
"You're mutilating the genitalia," he said.
4. Medical Post, July 6th
(The Medical Post is a tabloid distributed free of charge to
Canadian MDs.)
B.C. college tightens its circumcision recommendations
By Lynn Haley
VANCOUVER - Opponents of circumcision are applauding a new policy
statement issued by the B.C. College of Physicians and Surgeons.
Dr. Peter Seland, deputy registrar (ethics) of the college, said
the new statement is intended to help physicians navigate this
minefield.
The statement advises that circumcision may be carried out only
when it is in the best interests of the child. It also says the
procedure has no medical or prophylactic values and that doctors
must advise parents of the associated risks including urinary
tract infection, urinary retention, meatal stenosis and
hemorrhage (as was seen in a recent B.C. case that resulted in
the death of a one-month-old).
Doctors are under no obligation to circumcise the child at the
request of parents, the statement says.
"There is a never-ending stream of concerns that we get at
the college around this issue," said Dr. Seland. "There
is nothing in terms of the intensity of the debate that separates
this from abortion. People have very strong views about this
issue.
"But when you cut through it all and examine it, it appears
there is still a small portion of our society that might have
been making the decision without being fully informed as to its
implications, making decisions on such flimsy grounds as 'We want
him to be like daddy.' So we really wanted a tool for physicians
to look at, and think about where we're at, not just from a
medical point of view."
The trump of course, Dr. Seland said, is the cultural and
religious aspects of circumcision- unlike female genital
mutilation which, Dr. Seland says, is off-the-wall.
"Since male circumcision is neutral medically, you can't
really say that medical indications trump religious
preferences," he noted. "The flames were fanned when
that baby died in Penticton. It spurred us on to come out with
this guideline."
Such a procedure at birth could conceivably have a traumatic
effect in later years, said Dr. Seland.
"There is (also) the issue that a decision has been made by
the parents to do this on weak grounds, and the result is the
adult male is denied erogenous pleasure, though I don't know
whether anybody will ever know that for certain," he said.
Dennis Harrison, a spokesman for the Canadian group Association
for Genital Integrity, welcomes the changes in policy from the
college. He says the focus on bioethics and human rights will
help provide physicians with the tools they need to guide parents
around the complex issues surrounding the procedure.
"This is very difficult for many parents, because there is
often the conflict between the parents' rights and the child's
right," said Harrison. "But in a country like Canada,
the vast majority of circumcisions are not done for religious
reasons. . . . It's true that parents are responsible for making
decisions on behalf of their children, but there is no surgical
operation a parent can consent to without medical need, and
circumcision is not medically necessary. We applaud the college's
guidelines, but we think they could have gone further."
The college's statement can be viewed at http://www.cpsbc.bc.ca/ policymanual.
Vancouver, June 3, 2004
``````````````````````````````````````````
Today the College of Physicians & Surgeons of British
Columbia, B.C.'s medical licensing authority, issued a policy on
infant male circumcision. The policy, originally scheduled to be
released in February, expands on a statement that appeared in the
Fall, 2002 issue of the College's quarterly newsletter: http://www.cpsbc.bc.ca/physician/quarterly/cq-38.pdf
The new guideline outlines the ethical, legal, and human rights
problems associated with infant male circumcision, but unlike the
licensing authority in Saskatchewan, the B.C. college stops short
of advising physicians not to perform the procedure.
Excerpts:
"Routine infant male circumcision performed on a healthy
infant is now considered a non-therapeutic and medically
unnecessary intervention."
"Proxy consent by parents for a non-therapeutic procedure is
debatable."
"Advise parents that the current medical consensus is that
routine infant male circumcision is not a recommended procedure;
it is non-therapeutic and has no medical prophylactic basis; it
is a cosmetic surgical procedure; current evidence indicates that
previously-thought prophylactic public health benefits do not
outweigh the potential risks."
Full text: http://www.cpsbc.bc.ca/policymanual/c/c13.htm
College's correspondence with activists:
http://www.courtchallenge.com/letters/bccoll1.html
and ethicists:
http://www.courtchallenge.com/letters/somer1.html#99nov09
``````````````````````````````````````````
Association for Genital Integrity
http://www.courtchallenge.com
Doctor and Hospital Settle Circumcision Lawsuit
Stage Set for Men to Sue for Being Circumcised as Infants
SUFFOLK COUNTY, New York – After a two-and-a-half year legal battle with Plaintiff William G. Stowell, the doctor and hospital have settled the landmark circumcision case brought against them. The terms of the settlements have not been publicly disclosed. Twenty-one-year old Stowell filed suit December 19, 2000, in the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, against the hospital where he was circumcised and the physician who circumcised him as a newborn.
Stowell, born on December 22, 1981, in West Islip, NY, was circumcised the following day by his mother’s obstetrician. This case presented the issue of the legal validity of consent for circumcision obtained by a nurse from a mother who was debilitated by the effects of a Caesarian section and painkillers. It also questioned whether a physician could legally and ethically remove healthy, normal tissue from a non-consenting minor for non-therapeutic reasons.
David J. Llewellyn, one of Plaintiff Stowell’s attorneys, said, "William and I are very happy that we were able to resolve this case with both the hospital and the doctor. While a settlement is never an admission of liability, I believe it shows that our allegations were taken seriously. Never again can someone say that a young man who is dissatisfied with his circumcision as an infant is being frivolous when he objects to his mutilation and brings suit to obtain justice. This case should send a message to doctors that they run the risk of a lawsuit each time they circumcise an infant for non-therapeutic reasons, particularly when they rely on the hospital to obtain consent the day after birth. Social or cosmetic concerns provide no justification for harmful surgery. I would expect that this is just the first of many cases that will be brought by angry circumcised young men against their circumcisers."
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) first acknowledged that there was no medical justification for routine circumcision in 1971. Last year, the AAP reaffirmed that it does not recommend routine circumcision. The American Medical Association concurred this year, calling routine circumcision "non-therapeutic." No national or international medical organization recommends routine circumcision.
The case has received national attention from Good Morning America, Newsweek, The New York Post, and other prominent media sources.
Deconstructing circumcision
Tuesday, March 16, 1999
By Jon Delano
It was a tough week for American boys.
First, the Academy of Pediatrics issued its latest circumcision
policy statement, advising, too late for most of us, that there
is no real medical evidence to justify tampering with male
genitals in the United States.
Then, contrary to the old saw that infants don't feel pain, the
baby docs declared that when it comes to this little surgery,
yikes, it hurts. The Academy says that hospital circumcision
accompanied by tears and increased rates of heartbeat, blood
pressure and oxygen levels should now include local anesthesia to
reduce some of the surgical stress on a day-old boy.
Finally, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that a Boston
bio-engineering company is "harvesting" foreskins to
make a quasi-synthetic skin for burn victims and folks with skin
disorders. While this may be a medical advancement, the notion of
people walking around with someone else's foreskin is a bit
bizarre, especially if it wasn't necessary to remove it from the
kid in the first place!
Admittedly, I'm not an expert in these things. But like most
parents, we confronted the circumcision dilemma when my son
arrived a few years ago. After some Internet research, I
concluded that America's medical community, and many parents too,
have a hard time dealing with this issue.
How else do you explain why the United States is the only country
left in the world in which hospitals, with parental consent,
still circumcise boys without medical necessity?
While most Europeans, Asians and South Americans never picked up
the habit, Australia, Canada and Great Britain - countries that
once circumcised as much as we do - have dramatically reduced
their circumcision rates, primarily through strong statements
against the practice by their medical academies, good counseling
by doctors to parents and the refusal of national health
insurance to pay for it.
The result is that 85 percent of the world's males are left
intact at birth unless, of course, there is a religious reason to
circumcise - or you happen to be born in the USA. In America, 60
percent of baby boys go under the hospital knife. While that's
down from the high rates of the 1960s - and on the West Coast
only 36 percent of boys are circumcised - the national rate has
not changed much over the past decade.
In figuring out what was best for my son, I tried to surmise why
this country is out of step with everyone else. First, unlike its
counterparts overseas, the U.S. medical community seems unable to
speak with one mind on the subject. Trying to get a straight
answer out of a doctor about circumcision is harder than getting
the IRS to admit it's wrong on a tax bill.
"Don't do it," is the obvious conclusion after reading
the latest 10-page report from the pediatricians. But most
doctors use the "on-the-one-hand this and
on-the-other-hand" that approach, leaving parents more
confused than ever about the old myths of health and hygiene. And
parents rarely hear about the purported benefits of not
circumcising or the risks of the surgery.
Contrast this with other medical procedures, like tonsillectomy.
A few decades ago, children's tonsils were removed as fast as
their foreskins. Today, the procedure is rare, an absolute last
resort. Doctors, not parents, made that happen.
Part of the problem may be that the baby docs, who do the
research on the topic, are rarely present at delivery. In U.S.
hospitals, circumcision of males, ironically, is usually done by
obstetrician/gynecologists, experts in the anatomy of females.
These doctors are competent, but let's face it, doing
"circs" on boys is not exactly why they specialized in
women's health care.
Increasingly, doctors blame parents for insisting on an
unnecessary surgery for their sons. But if they are not given
clear medical advice, what are parents to do?
Frankly, we fall back on non-medical rationales. "The
everybody does it" refrain is still commonly heard if no
longer valid. With 40 percent of American males born today left
intact, 21st century high school locker rooms will have penile
parity.
Frankly, my recollection is that we were more concerned about
size, not style, anyway.
The other rationale for circumcision makes even less sense but is
better psychoanalyzed by others. "He should look like
me," some dads insist, but of all the places to look like
dad, well, you get the point. It's a peculiar argument anyway.
Most parents born in the 1950s and 60s had lots of things done to
their bodies that they should never wish on their kids. Besides,
if Prince Charles, who is circumcised, could leave his two sons
intact, why can't the rest of us?
In the end, what convinced us not to circumcise our son was the
ethical issue. If there is no medical or religious reason to do
it and the social justifications seem silly, then what right do
we have to remove a normal, healthy part of our son's body?
The latest pediatric statement recognizes the ethical issues in
circumcising a non-consenting infant, but defers the decision to
the parents. Still, when it comes to that body part, who better
to make the choice than the guy who has to live with it - or
without it!
Besides, my son can always have it done when he's old enough to
pierce his nose, tattoo his buttocks and knowingly donate his
foreskin to some biotech firm in Boston.
Jon Delano, a local
attorney, political analyst and parent of two, teaches at
Carnegie Mellon University's H. John Heinz School of Public
Policy & Management.