Pediatricians: Boys Better Off Circumcised

Read the comment policy

Showing 3 of 89 comments

The health benefits of newborn mastectomies (i.e. cutting off the breasts before the breast bud forms) including eliminating the chances of mammary tract infections, breast cancer, and the transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, including HIV - outweigh the risks, according to a policy statement not published today by the American Academy of Pediatrics. Seriously, this is too primitive for words. These American idiots are being driven by their beliefs, customs and perhaps the dreadful fear that, post Kellog (who started the male genital mutilation fad in America in order to, excuse the expression, cut-down on the terrifying alleged clinical effects of masturbation), American paediatricians may have been behaving as unethically as superstitious primitive tribesmen. And as my introduction shows, of course, they have. There is NO other part of the body where surgeons still advocate preemptive removal of a body part as an alleged "health hazard"; even surgeons, who regularly recommended tonsillectomies and appendectomies have learned better and no longer do so. How much less they ought to support removal of over 85% of the nervous tissue of the penis. The deep suspicion has to be that those advocating male genital mutilation are, by-and-large, overwhelmingly members of groups advocating this for religious reasons - and if Christian, probably never read "Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all." (Galatians 5:2), which makes me wonder why, given how American politics are so dominated by supposedly "godly" values, this hasn't yet become a campaign issue. Especially given how other groups of paediatricians, politicians and the judiciary in other countries are at long last recognizing that parents and society have a duty to cherish and protect all infants, not just girls, and that equal-protection means that an assault on a little boy's winkie is still an assault, whether it is performed with a stone knife or a scalpel. One day, one hopes, some of those children will sue for damages, and if the world is equitable, they will be awarded vast damages. After all, we don't allow rapists to claim they were "helping" their victims lose their hymens or allow hospitals to hold down their victims. Even if, except to some religionist and traditionalists, the hymen is another "relatively useless" piece of tissue sometimes involved in health issues; and even if, having few nerves, it is not particularly significant as far as sexual satisfaction is concerned and its removal has far fewer probable complications than penis-slashing. I wouldn't recommend an insurance provider to provide coverage to a doctor, institution or parents who allow, or even encourage, such barbaric assaults. Even if those performing them assert support from gods or medicine.

Women get bladder infections so I suppose that means we should just cut off the labia and clitoral hoods of baby girls instead of teaching them proper hygiene. Come on, people. This isn't Africa and our boys don't need to have the most sensitive part of their body cut off out of fear of potential future infection of any kind. Teach 'em how to clean themselves properly and how to protect themselves and their partners when they are older. If any of them decide to chop things off when they are of the age to consent, it will be their choice.

Shouldn't that say say American pediatricians? Majority of the world do not mutilate children.