Leave that thing alone

I read an article on a blog yesterday, where the guy talked about circumcision — how he needed to get it done to his son when he was about 5, and he wished he had gotten it done when he was born. He says "I listened to all that nonsense about butchering and psychological damage and curcumcision being unnatural. What a mistake." I couldn't disagree more. I don't believe that circumcision causes psychological damage, but in general, there is no anaesthesia used, so (I'm guessing - I don't actually remember) it really freakin' hurts. Do you want to cause your son that much pain, even if there won't be lasting psychological damage? Not without a damn good reason — and thus far, I have not been able to find one.

The main argument that people use when arguing for circumcision is that it allows the child to avoid painful infections that could require circumcision later in life. When Gail was pregnant with Ryan, we asked our family doctor about this, and she said that most of the time, proper washing of the penis eliminates this problem. When Ryan was 3, he could wash his penis by himself, so it's not a difficult thing. She (our doctor) also said that people get ingrown toenails all the time, but nobody advocates removing them at birth.

Another argument I've heard (this, to me, is unbelievable) is that if the father is circumcised, it's important for the child's penis to look like that of his father. Hogwash. If that's true, then you'd better hope that your kids all have the same eye and hair colour as their father as well. Quite simply, people look different — my kids know this. Neither of my sons have ever asked why I look different than them.

It's true that in some cases, infections or inflammations or whatever may cause circumcision to be required in older children, or even adults. But that doesn't mean that we should just do the surgery in advance just in case it's necessary later. Hey, the tonsils and appendix serve no purpose in the human body, and they may also get infected (and if an infected appendix ruptures, it could be life-threatening), so we should remove them at birth too, right? Gail had her gall bladder removed 12 years ago because of gallstones, and she's just fine now, so should we remove all gall bladders from babies so that they avoid the pain of gallstones? The logic is the same.

Bottom line: it's painful for the child, expensive (health insurance doesn't cover it), and generally unnecessary. So why would you want to do this to your child? I don't believe that circumcision is butchery or psychologically scarring, I just don't understand why you'd elect to have it done to your child.

Note: Some people have the procedure done for religious reasons. That is not an issue for me, which is why when Ryan was born, I simply looked into the medical reasons to get it done (and found none). As an atheist, I can't say I understand it, but if your faith dictates (probably using the wrong word there) that your male children must be circumcised, then it doesn't really matter whether or not it is medically necessary. If you honestly believe that God wants your infant son to feel that much pain for no medical reason, then nothing I say in this article will mean anything to you.

Aside: I wonder how many more google searches will hit my blog now that I've used the word "penis". Maybe I should rewrite this article using various other words for penis, and watch my readership numbers skyrocket!

Update (Dec 2006): As Yappa pointed out in the comments, there have been studies that show that circumcised heterosexual men are less likely (some studies say half as likely) to get HIV than uncircumcised men. John mentioned in his blog (also in the comments) that Wikipedia lists other advantages, including lower incidence of penile cancer.

Here's a link (thanks John) to an article saying that the results were so striking that they actually ended the study a year early, saying that it would be unethical not to offer circumcisions to all the men in the study. These results are certainly interesting, and if I lived in sub-Saharan Africa, I would have to seriously reconsider having it done to my kids. However, incidence of HIV among heterosexual non-drug-using men is far lower here than it is there. I don't regret my decision not to have it done (and if I had another son I probably still would not get it done), but I must take back my (implicit) assertion that it's pointless and has no benefits.

I still don't generally agree with removing something just because it might cause problems later. Doctors believe the appendix serves no purpose, and later in life it can become infected, causing pain and if it ruptures, possibly even death, but doctors don't remove them at birth "just in case".