Need to circumcise newborns debated
Some say procedure fails to provide benefits
Two local philosophers and an anti-circumcision advocate say circumcision of newborn males is an unnecessary surgery that fails to provide any significant physical or emotional health benefits.
But some physicians disagree, writing in peer-reviewed medical journals that the procedure has been proven to help prevent disease.
Panelists at Utah Valley State College addressed the ethics of circumcision during a faculty seminar on Wednesday, contending that the decision to circumcise infants with no ability to understand or consent to the procedure is unethical and possibly profit-driven.
"Circumcision is an example of a social custom whose survival requires suspension of rational thought," said Steve Scott, educational outreach coordinator in Salt Lake City for NOCIRC — the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers. He said several pervasive myths continue to circulate as a justification for circumcision, including:
• Uncircumcised males have more difficulty with hygiene.
• If the procedure isn't done at birth, it will have to be performed later.
• Boys will suffer psychological or emotional damage if they're not altered to "look like their father" or don't match their peers.
• The foreskin causes disease.
"These social myths never would have existed if physicians didn't put this into our psyche," Scott said, adding the mandate doctors follow is "to do no harm." Yet those who perform circumcision violate that principle "when operating on a helpless individual and removing specifically designed body parts" without the child's knowledge or consent.
He said that, contrary to popular belief, the foreskin of circumcised babies isn't discarded but is sold to be used in medical research.
Jennifer Howard, an adjunct professor of philosophy and humanities at UVSC, said she and her husband allowed the oldest of their three sons to be circumcised as a baby — despite their concerns — because relatives, friends and health-care personnel told the couple it was necessary for the boy's physical health.
"They said he could get cancer and infection," so the couple consented to what they believed was "a necessary evil." The decision is one she regrets, she said. "I was misinformed. I know now I had no right to make that decision for my son." She said she was "able to protect my next two boys, but it wasn't easy."
Recent comments
"Any god that demands obedience over simple human decency is...
Tandy | Feb. 4, 2008 at 12:04 p.m.
"But to subject EVERYONE to the same drastic, potentially harmful...
Tandy | Feb. 4, 2008 at 11:56 a.m.
CW - also, I forgot to mention in my other comment, go read your...
Katherine | Feb. 4, 2008 at 10:20 a.m.
