RESEARCHERS have given a nod to infant male circumcision. A recent research of more than 1,200 infant male circumcisions performed at government hospitals in Nyanza province shows the procedure is safe among infants.
The study suggests that the best time for performing the procedure is below one month to avoid complications. The study was conducted by chief investigator Marisa Young of the University of Illinois at Chicago's School of Public Health and colleagues.
Others are the Nyanza Reproductive Health Society, CARE, International and Impact Research and Development Organisation. It was funded by the Male Circumcision Consortium, with support for co-author Professor Robert Bailey from the Chicago Developmental Centre for AIDS.
The study is part of the wider programme to fight HIV/Aids through circumcision. Research shows that circumcision reduces HIV infection by more than 60 per cent.
Comments Post a comment
Many professionals have criticized the studies claiming that circumcision reduces HIV transmission. They have various flaws. The absolute rate of HIV transmission reduction is only 1.3%, not the claimed 60%. Other methods to prevent HIV transmission (e.g., condoms and sterilizing medical instruments) are much more effective, much cheaper, and much less invasive. Please see http://www.circumcision.org/hiv.htm for more information and links to literature.
Studies show that circumcision causes significant pain and trauma, behavioral and neurological changes in infants, potential parental stress from persistent crying (colic) of infants, disrupted bonding between parent and child, and risk of surgical complications. Other consequences of circumcision include loss of a natural, healthy, functioning body part, reduced sexual pleasure, potential psychological problems, and unknown negative effects that have not been studied.
Some circumcised men resent that they are circumcised. Sexual anxieties, reduced emotional expression, low self-esteem, avoidance of intimacy, and depression are also reported. Some doctors refuse to perform circumcisions because of ethical reasons. Relying on presumed authorities (e.g., American Academy of Pediatrics or doctors who echo AAP views) is not sufficient because of personal, religious, financial, and political conflicts of interest. For more information see http://www.circumcision.org.
It may be safe, but it it ethical? This is a permanent reduction of a man's sexual apparatus. Shouldn't you ask the man first? There is NO evidence whatsoever that circumcising babies has any effect on HIV transmission. (The studies claiming benefit all involved men circumcised as adults.)
And "safe" is a relative thing. Even if the risk is fewer than one major complication in 1200 infants, that one is not a statistic, he's a human being whose life is ruined.
Is that anything like "safe female circumcision?"
Would we ever cut 1000 women to see if it were "safe?"
Complete self-serving hogwash masquerading as "science."
Safe? I doubt it. Here in the U.S. as a lawyer I make a living suing over botched circumcisions for my clients, both infant and adult. I see what seems like an endless parade of mistakes. A pediatric urologist from the American Academy of Pediatrics recently has been quoted as saying that some 20% of his practice involves circumcision problems. That percentage appears to be typical for pediatric urologists here in the U.S. from my experience. What do you suppose the rate of complications will be in Africa where there has been no history of infant circumcision and the health care system is already overburdened with real needs? And what gives anyone the right to circumcise a child, who cannot give his consent, to a permanent modification of his body to reduce in incidence (if indeed it does do so) his risk of acquiring sexually transmitted diseases when he matures? Shouldn't that be the child's decision when he grows up? His body, his decision! And who is going to profit, both monetarily and professionally, from the institution of infant circumcision? Africans should beware of Americans pushing circumcision at this time when many Americans are giving it up as outmoded, damaging, and useless. See www.intactamerica.org.
INFANT penis parts removal is is creepy, child abuse and a human rights VIOLATION. The parts of the penis that are cut off are some of the most highly innervated parts of the human. The lips, nipples and fingertips have similar touch sense. To take this away from another person without their consent is heinous.
SAFE????????????????????????
The International Journal of Men's Health published results of a study that showed circumcised men are 4.5 times more likely to experience erectile dysfunction due to loss of sensitivity. In a further study, The British Journal of Urology International reports that circumcised men can experience up to a 75 percent reduction in sensitivity compared to men who are not circumcised.
The knowledge of the this WOUNDING affecting sexual pleasure and function goes back years so there is NO IF as to SEXUAL HARM, it is a matter of HOW BAD IS IT for any particular guy. Maimonides (the Torah scholar) noted that the act that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. Kellogg declared a ‘war on masturbation’ at the end of the 19th century and advocated circumcision to curb male sexual urges by removing the main male pleasure parts.
See All Comments