Should Infant Male Circumcision be Mandatory?

Ads by Google

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is reportedly considering mandatory circumcision for all male infants born in the United States, as some studies show that uncircumcised males have a much higher rate of HIV infection than those who are circumcised. Advocates of mandatory circumcision believe this step will significantly reduce the incidence of HIV and subsequently, AIDS.

Circumcision is a surgical procedure in which the foreskin, a hood of skin that covers the head of the penis, is removed. The procedure is typically performed within the first ten days of birth. Circumcision that is performed later in life is a more complicated event.

Reasons parents choose to circumcise their sons include religious beliefs, concerns about hygiene, and cultural or social reasons. Hispanics, blacks, and foreign-born Americans are less likely to undergo circumcision than white Americans. For both Jews and Muslims, male circumcision is deeply ingrained in religious tradition.

According to the National Hospital Discharge Survey, which is produced by the National Center for Health Statistics (an agency of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), the overall rate of circumcision in the United States in 1994 was 62.7 percent and 56.1 percent in 2006. The western region has consistently shown the lowest rates, while the north central states have the highest.

Concerns about hygiene and disease transmission are the reasons being raised in the current debate; specifically, transmission of HIV, as some observational studies have reported an association between male circumcision and a reduced risk of HIV infection in female sex partners. In a study conducted by Johns Hopkins University in Uganda and recently published in Lancet (July 2009), researchers did not find this to be true, however. Circumcision of HIV-infected men did not reduce HIV transmission to female partners over a two-year period.

Other studies, however, have focused on whether African heterosexual men were less likely to acquire HIV after circumcision, but did not investigate whether they were more likely to transmit the virus to women. Most studies have also concentrated on heterosexual transmission of HIV in African men, but in the United States the higher risk is among men having sex with men.

Currently, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Family Physicians do not endorse circumcision as a way to prevent sexually transmitted diseases, urinary tract infections, penile cancer, or various inflammatory conditions that affect the penis. The procedure is considered to be neither essential nor detrimental of a male’s health. Rather than make male circumcision mandatory, a better route may be to present parents with information about the pros and cons of the procedure, including what researchers know and don’t know about the transmission of HIV related to circumcision, and let parents make up their own minds.

SOURCES:
American Academy of Family Physicians
American Academy of Pediatrics
National Hospital Discharge Survey
New York Times, August 29, 2009
Siegfried N et al. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009 Apr 15(2):CD003362
Wawer MJ et al. Lancet 2009 Jul 18; 374(9685): 229-37

eMaxHealth welcomes your comments and feedback on this story without registration, but keep the comments meaningful please. Links are not accepted.

Comments

#1 Re: Should Infant Male Circumcision be Mandatory?

I think it's just cruel. The skin is there for a reason. We are created perfectly.

#2 Re: Should Infant Male Circumcision be Mandatory?

Maybe leaving your son uncircumcised is cruel. It is often rather hard to get circumcised as an adult.

#3 Re: Should Infant Male Circumcision be Mandatory?

Yes it is. With good teaching of hygiene there shouldn't be a problem. Of course, it should be a choice. Since there is more than one school of thought...shown here, the issue again is should it be mandatory?

#4 Re: Should Infant Male Circumcision be Mandatory?

Yes, it should. Maybe postponed to 12-14 years of age, but parents shouldn't be able to deny their son circumcision.

#5 Re: Should Infant Male Circumcision be Mandatory?

So you don't have a problem with parents having their son circumcised?

#6 Re: Should Infant Male Circumcision be Mandatory?

No! I'm a nurse. I just have a a professional opinion about teaching hygiene that I've shared. Not so long ago they circumcised without giving any type of anesthetic. That's changed thankfully, but the procedure was undeniably cruel.

#7 Re: Should Infant Male Circumcision be Mandatory?

The CDC and other medical organizations know a catheter is easier to insert when the male has been circumcised. It doesn't rate high on the long list of compelling reasons to amputate the surplus skin, but shows how long the list is. The male is properly excluded in the decision to remove his foreskin at birth.

#8 Re: Should Infant Male Circumcision be Mandatory?

I agree, another good reason.

#9 Re: Should Infant Male Circumcision be Mandatory?

Thank you for sharing this important reason to consider circumcision. It is likely one parents don't consider when making their decision, and it should be presented to them when reviewing the benefits and risks.

#10 Re: Should Infant Male Circumcision be Mandatory?

Male masturbation diminishes female sexual power. Circumcision can curb the bad habit.

Copyright eMaxhealth.com 2005-2012. All rights reserved.

This website is certified by Health On the Net Foundation. Click to verify. This site complies with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health information:
verify here.