Doctor’s Corner: The case for circumcision

Print Friendly and PDF By: Andy Miller Published: Jan 21, 2013

After reviewing the evidence, the American Academy of Pediatrics last year revised its policy on circumcision.

The pediatricians’ group now takes the position that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks.

But the statement it released last year stopped short of recommending circumcision for all males, leaving it to the parents to weigh the risks and benefits.

Dr. Robert Wiskind, a leading Atlanta pediatrician, discusses the health benefits of the procedure in a new Doctor’s Corner column.

Here’s a link to Wiskind’s column.

Enjoy Georgia Health News? Sign up for free Email Alerts or follow us on Facebook or Twitter

Help support our nonprofit journalism -- your gift is tax deductible!

No related posts.

More Articles About:
  • d5810

    “If a male is taught proper care of his uncircumcised (please say “normal” or “intact”) penis, and follows those directions perfectly, his health risks will probably be the same as those of his circumcised peers.”

    So, you are recommending the amputation of essential erogenous and protective tissue, (which you say nothing about) instead of teaching good hygiene. Wow! Should we pull out an infant’s tooth buds in order to spare it costly dental work and health risks in the future rather than teach good dental hygiene? Oh, but teeth are essential, you say? So is the foreskin! The other potential health benefits you mention are not only questioned by many medical groups, but for the most part become relevant only at sexual maturity, when a male can make his own informed decision about preserving his genital integrity.

    Prospective parents, who are seeking to do what’s best for their child, cannot possibly make a truly informed decision with the biased and cherry-picked information you provide in your summary.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Hugh-Intactive/100002216540067 Hugh Intactive

    The AAP may “take the position” that the benefits of male genital cutting outweigh the risks, but they didn’t get there by measuring risks or benefits. In fact they admitted they have no statistics on the worst complications and death, so they just ignored them. They also ignored the many functions (and pleasures) of the foreskin – they consider only cutting if off.

    Before you even think about “health benefits”, think for a moment about human rights. Whose body is it? Whose choice should it be (when he is old enough, of course)? More and more men are mad as hell that this was done to them before they could have any say, and they’re not going to take it any more.

    Cutting normal, healthy, functional, non-renewing body parts off a child is not “a decision parents have to make” and in most of the developed world, it isn’t even offered. The rest of the English-speaking world tried it, found it did no good, and has given it up, with no ill-effects – certainly no outbreaks of any of the diseases it was supposed to be good against. (The result is that most of the British and European film and sports stars that Americans swoon over are actually intact.) The USA is behind the play on this.

  • michaelroloff

    Making it a taboo to compare male with female sexual mutilation is the biggest scandal of the controversy. In both instances the most sensitive and most erogenous zone of the human body is amputated and severely damaged. In both instances, what counts primarily is the cutting of human sexuality. The imposition of control by the patriarchy.

    What is lacking in all the talk about circumcision is discussion of its
    archeological dimension – that it is the left over of human sacrifice.

    Also, unfortunately it is / has been circumcision that has MADE for no end of anti-semitic sentiments. Freud found that it was the chief reason for unconscious anti-Semitism. And the myths surrounding it are at the core of the “blood libel.” Thus, it’s time to eliminate the Brit Milah because if that is the chief reason for being anti-Semitic or anti-Abrahamic [Islam too practices the rite] then why hang on to this left-over of human sacrifice? that traumatizesthe child, cutting off 5,000 nerves, that is the equivalent of female circumcision in the sense that it eliminates everything but the clitoris,and only serves the UltraOrthodox to maintain their power? After all, reform Judaism sought to eliminate the rite in the 19th century, and Jewish identity depends on being born by a Jewish mother, or converting. Here a link to an archive of the entire German and then some debate, note especially Michael Wolffsohn’s two pieces . Circumcision has been controversial also within Jewry forever.

    http://analytic-comments.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-circumcision-debate-links-and.html

    http://analytic-comments.blogspot.com/2012/10/michael-wolffsohns-foreskin-of-heart.html

    http://www.facebook.com/mike.roloff1?ref=name

    =======================

  • TLCTugger

    The US AAP reviewed SOME of the evidence. The German pediatricians’ group found the AAP analysis quite lacking: http://www.intactamerica.org/german_pediatrics_statement

    The Dutch pediatricians’ group reviewed ALL the evidence. They conclude infant circumcision has “an absence of medical benefits and danger of complications.” http://knmg.artsennet.nl/Publicaties/KNMGpublicatie/Nontherapeutic-circumcision-of-male-minors-2010.htm

  • Related posts

    No related posts.