Government mandating circumcision

Evidence suggests that circumcision can reduce the risk of urinary tract infections (UTIs) [16] and (when performed in adulthood) of female-to-male transmission of HIV in sub-Saharan Africa [27-29].

However, the first benefit has been questioned, and there is no evidence from controlled studies linking the second benefit to NTC in developed countries. noted that the only relevant benefit of circumcision in infancy is a reduction in the risk of contracting a urinary tract infection (UTI) in early childhood [16].

government mandating circumcision-25

Its contractible muscle fibers exclude contaminants [4], while its mucous surface provides a second, immunological layer of protection [5, 6].

The foreskin keeps the glans moist and facilitates a gliding action that promotes pleasurable sexual sensations [7-10].

Moreover, one of the RCTs found that NTC led to a 61.9 percent relative increase in male-to-female HIV transmission and an absolute increase in risk of 8.3 percent [38].

These latter findings suggest that any reduced risk of women infecting men can be counterbalanced by a correspondingly increased risk of men infecting women [32, 39].

Prominent AIDS researchers no longer consider circumcision a significant part of the effort in eradicating HIV [44-46], deeming the best preventive measures to be “condoms, treatment for HIV-infected individuals, or clean injection equipment” [47].

Since NTC provides no appreciable health benefits to the infant or young child, the procedure should be deferred until the affected individual can decide for himself.

Nontherapeutic infant or child male circumcision (NTC)—the removal of a child’s foreskin in the absence of a valid medical indication—is an unnecessary surgery that causes pain, permanently alters the penis, and needlessly exposes a healthy child to risk of iatrogenic injury [13].

If a man assigns value to the foreskin itself, as most noncircumcised men do, the loss of this tissue constitutes a harm, regardless of whether there are surgical complications [14].

Although risks and benefits are commonly compared in evaluating circumcision, the risk-benefit calculation was developed for therapeutic procedures and is not applicable to a nontherapeutic procedure, especially one that removes a genital structure with known functions [14].

Tags: , ,