Should Boys be Circumcised?

Recommend (4) Comments (0)

Morris argues that male neonatal non-therapeutic circumcision is simple and safe. This, of course, is an argument put forth by doctors who perform circumcision and who get paid for doing so. In reality, there are a myriad of well-documented complications, inevitable injuries, and other disadvantages and drawbacks that can and do arise from circumcision.[1]

Morris claims that parents have a legal right to authorize non-therapeutic circumcision. This is an argument put forth by doctors who perform circumcision and get paid for it, however, there is no law or court decision that gives parents such a power to authorize the amputation healthy body parts from a child. On the contrary, the notion that parents have such a power is inconsistent with the child’s right of protection and the parents’ duty to provide that protection. Lord Scarman says, “The principle of the law …is that parental rights are derived from parental duty and exist only so long as they are needed for the protection of the person and property of the child.”[2] In the absence of a need for a circumcision, therefore, no parental right to authorize a non-therapeutic circumcision can exist.

Morris then attacks the human foreskin as a source of a bad smell. This is, of course, an insult to the billions of men on the globe who enjoy intact foreskins. The repetition of this myth here indicates the desperation of the advocates of circumcision.

Morris correctly observes that the foreskin traps bacteria and infectious agents. The foreskin does do that because nature has made the foreskin to protect the body from infection through the urethra. The moisture under the foreskin contains substances that destroy pathogenic organisms.[3] The Langerhans cells in the foreskin prevent the entry of  HIV.[4] Breastfed babies have a substance in their urine that prevents the adherence of E. coli, the most common cause of UTI.[5] Health and well-being is best assured by retention of the protective foreskin and by breastfeeding.[6]

Morris cites the antiquity of circumcision as a reason it should be performed. To the contrary, a stone-age operation has no place in 21st century medicine.

Morris’ statistics are decades out of date. In the United States, only 56 percent of newborn boys were circumcised in 2006. In Australia, only 13 percent of newborn boys were circumcised.  The intact boys evidently enjoy better health because of the freedom from complications and improvement of breastfeeding.

Morris claims a “lifetime of benefits.” The problem is that these alleged benefits are conjectural benefits that cannot be proved to actually exist. As noted by the American Academy of Pediatrics, they are classified as “potential benefits”,[7] which means they do not exist in actuality. The long-term adverse physical and emotional consequences are well documented.[8]