MEDICAL FRAUD and the criminal assault of boys
EXPOSING CIRCUMCISION MYTHS
Questions about circumcision...
1. If victims of circumcision in Canada and the United States were female instead of male, would we be discussing the pros and cons of circumcision?
2. Would any female in America undergo circumcision for any one of the reasons currently used to promote male circumcision, even if they were legitimate?
3. Would any male dare write an article debating the pros and cons of female circumcision in Canada or the U.S.A.? If not, why not?
4. Why are females in America who are so opposed to the mutilation of their own bodies or that of their daughters so willing to let their sons undergo a practice which they would find dehumanizing themselves? Surely what is good for the gander should be good for the goose.
5. If female circumcision would be considered a form of child abuse or aggravated assault, would not the law apply equally to males, and if not, why not?
6. Why would medical doctors require guidelines regarding unnecessary and mutilating surgery? Would not their professional ethics dictate that only medical necessary surgery be done, and only when there are no other forms of treatment are available? Does non-essential and mutilating surgery really have a place in modern medicine? Is this principle not already incorporated in the Hippocratic Oath , "First, Do No Harm"?
7. If the amputation of normal, healthy body parts is an ethical therapeutic procedure used to prevent disease, would the amputation of other body parts such as routine mastectomies or hysterectomies also be acceptable? Today one in nine females develop breast cancer, and of these one in three die. Or is the male foreskin the only target?
8. Is the amputation of normal body parts really a function of medical treatment? Would not the role of medicine in reality be more aptly described as one to preserve every part of our body as long as it is physically possible? Even a child would have no trouble understanding this concept?
9. The laws in North America do not permit unnecessary, non-therapeutic surgery on non-consenting individuals. Neither are patients required to accept medical treatments regardless of the supposed medical benefits. The patient's right of choice is the basis of "informed consent". Does the possibility that a patient may receive some medical benefit from this irreversible surgery have precedence over his/her civil rights?
10. Why is it that only in the U.S.A. and Canada there is the possibility of all these terrible things happening to intact males? Why are these problems seldom seen in any other nations of the world where most males remain intact? Do the advocates of circumcision really believe that they can eradicate all forms of penile cancer, AIDS, STD, urinary tract infections or any other so- called conditions attributed to the foreskin? If so, let's amputate all foreskins and totally eliminate these problems. Intelligent members of the medical profession readily admit that these conditions would still exist, and probably in the same numbers, but now only in circumcised males.
11. If it were proven that circumcision of females would prevent penile cancer in males, would they advocates of FGM recommend female circumcision in order to prevent cancer in males? If not, Why not?
The Facts About Circumcision
Advocates of circumcision have a unlimited number of reasons. It is difficult to keep up with them. And those endless studies that make the headlines..."there just may be some value to circumcision". We will deal with the more common excuses.
1. Circumcision prevents penile cancer..."we are told"
Advocates of circumcision know that if they are to perpetuate the practice of circumcision that they must associate it with the prevention of some devastating disease such as AIDS or cancer. Such claims have made victims feel that they have obvious benefits and have influenced parents to continue the practice. However analysis of the facts reveal a very different situation.
Statistics for the numbers of penile cancer in other countries of the world do not support these claims whatsoever. The rate of penile cancer in many countries where males are uncircumcised is actually lower than the rate in the U.S.A. where the circumcision rate is high.
The same type of statistics was used several decades ago to indicate that circumcision would prevent prostate cancer. But today prostate cancer is the second largest killer of males next to heart disease and soon will surpass that.
The deliberate misuse of statistics is frequently used in order to support the penile cancer theory. (1). Penile cancer is very rare in both circumcised and uncircumcised male. (2). Penile cancer is an age related disease which appears mainly in males who reached old age 70 - 80 years old and therefore rarely found in males in the younger age group, regardless of status. In the U.S.A. the majority of males over 50 are uncircumcised., therefore the greater number of males contracting penile cancer are obviously of the uncircumcised group.
As time passes - the majority of circumcised males are now reaching this vulnerable age. There appears to be little or no difference in the number of penile cancer cases. The American Cancer Society is warning advocates of circumcision not to use this reason or excuse , because it is not true. In fact many males with penile cancer have been harmed - with delayed medical treatment - because they were told: "It can't be penile cancer because circumcised males just don't get it". The penile cancer myth has now become just as obvious as the reasons previously given that circumcision will prevent prostate cancer.
If the assertion were true, how does one justify the needless surgery of millions of males just because one male in 100, 000 may develop penile cancer after 70 or 80 years of age?
2.Uncircumcised men have great risk of catching AIDS, study says..
C.T.V. News reported on November 18, 1993 -The U.S. Centers of Disease Control ( CDC ) in Atlanta Georgia, the agency of the Public Health Services that investigates epidemics, that AIDS was (and probably still is) the leading cause of deaths of American men between the ages of 20 and 45.
The World Health Organization reported in 1990 that the United States continued to account for more than half the global increase in the number of AIDS cases. The U.S.A. accounted for the fastest increase in the increase of AIDS cases in the developed world. West Germany, Britain were among European countries reporting below-average increases.
These reports are hardly consistent with the notion that circumcision prevents AIDS. If anything, medical experts indicate that circumcision can actually encourage the spread of the HIV virus. Surgery removes nature's natural barrier; the foreskin may actually deter the spread of the AIDS virus.
The question begs to be answered: "If circumcision actually prevents the spread of AIDS or STD, why in a country where most of the males are circumcised is the spread of AIDS and STD so rampant? Countries where circumcision is virtually unknown, should have been devastated with AIDS?. Again this is not the case.
Let's recall the famous Kenya studies which was widely reported and used to indicate that uncircumcised males were more likely to contract the AIDS virus.
This study dealt with uncircumcised males who frequented prostitutes in Kenya and who because they were uncircumcised were more likely to contract the AIDS virus. What relationship uncircumcised men and Kenya prostitutes had upon the possibility of males in America or anywhere else in the world contracting AIDS, was never explained.
An Israeli news story reported a similar situation which occurred in Tel Aviv where a prostitute infected thousands of men. Obviously a vast number of circumcised males contracted the HIV virus which could result in AIDS related diseases. Would the conclusion indicate that circumcised males were more likely to contract AIDS? If a study conducted in Kenya made the headlines in support of circumcision, then why not use the situation in Israel to support counter claims? Or must we only publish illogical and flawed studies in order to support only those aims we wish to promote?
Whether the studies have any validity or not is not really important. The media once again got the message that there just may be some benefits of circumcision. One has to throw fuel on the fire from time to time to keep the circumcision mills turning. And what can be more effective than some questionable study. In the meantime, it's business as usual in our hospitals, the mutilation of males continues, while the facts remain hidden.
3. Urinary tract infections (UTI)..
A study by Thomas Wiswell conducted in an American hospital concluded that uncircumcised infants were 10 - 20 times more likely to have urinary tract infections than circumcised infants.
The methodology employed in the study and the results questionable. In over 200,000 male infants the numbers of urinary tract infections were obviously so insignificant that no reputable doctor would have found the necessity for conducting such a study. Few doctors would have had the concern for the inactive urinary tract bacteria which obviously didn't manifest itself, or with patients lacking symptoms which required treatment. This redundant study was obviously designed to give circumcision some credibility at a time when many are questioning its merits.
Out of the 28 cases of UTI discovered, 4 were circumcised and 24 were not. Little mention was made of the fact that many of these uncircumcised males had congenital problems which may have contributed to the infections.
The findings in the military hospital do not concur with the incidence of UTI in males elsewhere. Nor have subsequent studies supported these findings. Yet this study has found its way into the media, achieving the desired effect of promoting circumcision because it may prevent UTI which is virtually unheard of in males.
There are many questions relative to this study: ( 1). Why was the incidence much greater at this military hospital than in any other hospital? (2). Why were parents instructed to retract the foreskins of intact males? This is a dangerous procedure which could result in serious complications, UTI being the least. (3). Why were catheters inserted in order to remove urine? (4). If males did indeed have urinary tract infections, did these infections not create visual symptoms which would make these conditions obvious, without the necessity of taking urine samples? (5). Did the males who had traces of bacteria (which cause UTI) suffer from any physical conditions requiring treatment? Or were these bacteria merely present, posing no health problems, and requiring no treatment? If so what was the concern? Is circumcision necessary to ensure that males do not contract the bacteria, even if no symptoms appear, or is it to avoid some severe threat to their lives?
In the Wiswell study, 200,000 females were also included in this study. Results indicated that nearly twice the number of females had urinary tract infections in comparison with males. There was no great alarm over this fact. Why is it that only males are targeted for mutilation just because a few males happen to possess harmless bacteria which may ( not will) cause urinary tract infections?
It is a fact that circumcision does not eliminate UTI's, even if all males were circumcised. Urinary tract infections are rare in most males and hardly ever occur. Why would we circumcise 100,000 males in order to prevent an insignificant number of urinary tract infections? Are UTI fatal in males and thereby of great concern? If antibiotics are effective in treating UTI in females, cannot antibiotics be similarly used to treat UTI in males? Why would the amputation of a vital organ be required to prevent possible urinary tract infections which seldom occur in males of any age?
Roy Isabell from Mobil, Alabama made the following comments in Shop Talk Newsletter: Most articles report the recent Brooks Army Hospital study indicating slight urinary tract infections in uncircumcised infants, but say nothing about the larger Kaiser-Permanente Hospital studies which refute that. They fail to mention that in the Brooks study babies' foreskins were forcibly retracted, a daily cleansing regimen contrary to AAP policy to leave the foreskin alone. This is a surprising point, since the physician's manipulation itself could have caused the increased UTI, according to doctors such as Paul Fleiss of California. Because of the UTI study and two uncircumcised babies died, it's logical that those misguided doctors would have a vested interest in blaming the foreskin.. If a baby girl's hymen were broken prematurely and her vagina scrubbed daily, would she fare as well?
4. Prostate cancer
Several decades ago numerous studies were repeatedly quoted to prove that circumcision would prevent prostate cancer. Millions of males were circumcised to prevent prostate cancer . However, once again the predictions were false.
What are the results today? Prostate cancer is the second greatest cause of death today, soon to surpass the leading cause of death in males (heart attack). Today when most American males have been circumcised, according to the proponents of circumcision, prostate cancer should have disappeared. However, several studies clearly indicate that the prime cause of prostate cancer is probably due to the failure of males to get rid of excess seminal fluids which stagnate and invade the prostate cells and fuse with their nuclei, giving rise to malignant changes. Nature has provided females with a way of getting rid of unused ova, but we must make it damn difficult for males to release excess seminal fluids by auto stimulation. Males were told that masturbation would cause all sorts of terrible conditions when in fact this is a natural way of getting rid of stagnate seminal fluids thereby preventing problems. It is common knowledge that priests who remained celibate developed prostate problems (priest's disease).
The price to pay for tampering with the design of the male anatomy appears to be taking its toll on males in numerous ways.
5. Impotency
Again, the rate of impotency in American males is unparalleled in any other nation. It is estimated that over 30,000 penile implants have been implanted in American males to date (1992). Today the modern solution is Viagra as well as other stimulating drugs.
What is the cause of impotency? Perhaps one need not look too far. Many physicians indicate that impotency is probably caused by penile damage suffered in infancy. The supposition is that the damage was caused by some accident which the male encountered as a child, or by physical damage during intercourse. Circumcision is never mentioned as the probable cause, when in all likelihood, it is the prime cause of impotency. What physical injury could be more devastating or traumatic?
It is during circumcision that a major vein to the glans, and the frenulum is destroyed, along with very sensitive foreskin laden with millions of sensory receptors. The glans penis subsequently becomes cornified and dry, and may contribute to penile damage during intercourse. Why is impotency so great in circumcised males, while the non circumcised males seldom suffer comparable problems, even in old age? Of course the advocates of circumcision would deny this. Adult males circumcised in infancy are now revealing a multitude of complications or injuries sustained during circumcision. Wasn't circumcision supposed to prevent problems in the future?
6. It is important that he resemble his father or his peers
This is another argument supposedly to consider in circumcision. Would this argument be a valid reason in favor of female circumcision in Africa where it is still very prevalent?
Most of the males over 50, the fathers of the current fathers, were not circumcised. Why was not resemblance an important factor when most males were intact? Or is resemblance only important when it supports circumcision? Why is this reason seldom given in countries such as Canada where the circumcision rate has rapidly declined and where most males are intact? If valid, circumcision should have reached zero level in Canada years ago.
Circumcision was once prevalent in Britain however, it declined rapidly in a few years. Why was resemblance not important to British males, but somehow very important to American males? Should not outmoded forms of medical treatment be discontinued when there is no medical justification for them?
Is not circumcision of a infant male in reality of greater importance to the father, who because he was a victim, wishes to deprive his son of something he himself was denied? (Few doctors who themselves were circumcised wish to see future generation of males enjoy something, they themselves were denied, therefore their determination to mutilate.)
Do fathers and son regularly share their penises making similarities important? What about baldness which is dominant in males? Is it not likewise important if the father becomes bald, his son should also shave his head? If resembling one's peers is so important, why do many males seek hair restoration or purchases hair pieces when most males have some sort of baldness? Seeking hair restoration hardly supports the theory that males need to appear similar in order to achieve emotional satisfaction. Rather it supports the argument of retaining one's normal body features as long as possible. If a visual comparison, such as hair color, lack of hair etc. is not important, then why would non-visible resemblances have such great importance?
Why are only circumcised males concerned that their sons look like them? The answer is obvious. Appearance is not the real reason, because few individuals are able to see and compare their status. It is penile envy - the knowledge that their son will enjoy the protection of and exhilarating stimulus by possessing a part of their body which they - the father - was unfortunately deprived. A concerned father would ensure that his son would not have to endure barbaric, painful, and useless mutilating surgery just to look like him - but as a victim - would ensure that his son (s) would not become similar victims. Is this not what we should expect from a caring father?
Why not carry this argument one step further and suggest that daughters of mothers who have undergone mastectomies also undergo mastectomies. If daughters need not resemble their mothers, then why must sons resemble their father?
We are also told that it is important for males to resemble their peers.
It is ironic that when most males were intact that it was not important that they resemble their peers. It was the prevention of masturbation, prostate cancer, and a host of other claims which are of importance. But as soon as the majority of males were circumcised, then suddenly it was important to resemble their peers.
The circumcision rate in Europe is very small. In Canada, the rate is rapidly declining. If resemblance is an important factor, then perhaps the circumcision rate in countries where circumcision is rare - the rate should fall to zero. In the U.S.A. the circumcision rate is also rapidly declining as parents are now understanding that circumcision is a destructive procedure with no medical value. Circumcised boys will soon be in the minority - even in the U.S.A.
7. He may require it later
What evidence is there that any male may require it later? Why should males have the certainty of having painful surgery now, because there may be some remote possibility of having it done later in life? Would it not be preferable to endure some pain only if the surgery is required when it can be performed with the use of anesthetic? There are numerous parts of the body which create far more serious problems. Why should any male be subjected to the amputation of a part of his body which in all likelihood may never pose a single problem during his entire lifetime? The majority of intact males may have a variety of problems with the rest of their body, but seldom penile problems.
Do parents really have the right to amputate a normal, healthy part of a non-consenting individual just because this organ may someday present a problem? Should we likewise remove the teeth of children to prevent problems in adulthood? If so, how far does this rationale extend? Just the foreskin?
8. Perverted ignorance at its worst..
One mother stated that : " I had my son circumcised. Even if you have very little experience with children, you've probably aware that it can be almost impossible to get them to do something as simple as brushing their teeth - much less properly cleaning their penis each day. And what self-respecting little boy is going to let mom or dad check to see if it's clean? To me, circumcision just eliminated one, more opportunity for parents and child to lock horns."
Another sick and tragic reason to deprive a male of a very vital part of his body because some parent feels that they must rip his foreskin loose to clean beneath it. Why not also extract his teeth or amputate his entire penis, not just "skin it" ?
Do parents probe into the vaginas of little girls to see if they are clean? What would happen to any father ( parent) who did so? Would not they be charged with sexual abuse. The foreskin is designed in such a way - fused to the shaft - making it unnecessary to clean beneath it (as are fingernails) until the male is old enough to retract it and bath his own body. Boys do not need mothers, doctors, nurses or anyone else probing into their foreskin. This is the ultimate form of humiliation and sexual abuse which no male should experience.
Such sexism is deplorable and at its worst. As a male, I take extreme exception to the callous attitude of the mother. Her actions can best be described as a " insult" to the integrity and the rights of males.
Males are denied the respect and the right to their normal, intact bodies at birth, but are expected to be tolerant and respectful as adults. An example, is a powerful teacher, and perhaps females who demand our respect should "put their money where their mouths are." If we are really sincere about zero tolerance of violence towards women and children, let's begin by expressing it when the child is born, not demanding it when he is an adult!" What part of No do you not understand?
"Care of the Uncircumcised Penis" by AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS
The Function of the Foreskin: The glans at birth is delicate and easily irritated by urine and feces. The foreskin shields the glans. With circumcision, this protection is lost. In such cases, the glans and especially the urinary opening (meatus) may become irritated or infected, causing ulcers, meatitis (inflammation of the meatus), and meatal stenosis (a narrowing of the urinary opening). Such problems virtually never occur in uncircumcised penises. The foreskin protects the glans throughout life.
Foreskin Hygiene: The foreskin is easy to care for. The infant should be bathed or sponged frequently, and all parts should be washed including the genitals. The external penile skin is soft and pliable and easy to wash. It is not necessary to retract any part of the skin in order to wash under it. The uncircumcised penis is easy to keep clean. No special care is required! Leave the penis alone. The body provides its own protection of the glans area because the foreskin is fused to it. As the shed of epithelial cells ooze from underneath the foreskin, clean away this infant smegma. No other manipulation is necessary. There is no need for Q-tips, irrigation or antiseptics, soap and water will suffice.
Foreskin Retraction: As noted, the foreskin and glans develop as one tissue. Separation will evolve over time. It should not be forced. When will separation occur? Each child is different. Separation may occur before birth; this is rare. It may take a few days, weeks, months or even years. This is normal. Although most foreskins are retracted by age 5, there is no need for concern even after longer period no harm will come in leaving the foreskin alone.
Summary: Care of the uncircumcised boy is quite easy. "Leave it alone" is good advice. External washing and rinsing on a daily basis is all that is required. Do not retract the foreskin in an infant. Forcing the foreskin back may harm the penis, causing pain, bleeding, and possibly adhesions. The natural separation of the foreskin from the glans may take many years. After puberty, the adult male learns to retract the foreskin and cleanse under it on a daily basis.
This is an excerpt from the brochure. For additional copies, contact: American Academy of Pediatrics, Publications Department P.O. Box 927, Elk Grove Village Il., 60007
* * * * * *
The uncircumcised infant male in fact requires less care than a circumcised male. He will in fact have fewer problems either as an infant, young male, or as an adult.
Many uninformed parents and doctors have mistakenly concluded that a non-retractable foreskin was a defect and as a result had to be amputated.
Parents or doctors who forcefully retract the foreskin create severe pain for the infant, analogous to loosening the fingernails in order to clean under them. Nature has provided each male with a foreskin which is tightly fused in order to protect him until he is old enough to care for himself.
Retracting the foreskin prematurely may cause severe complications which often require medical treatment. Permanent penile damage can also result by retracting the secured foreskin.
Enlightened parents have complained that doctors and nurses have forcefully retracted their son's foreskin even after they were instructed not to do so. This indicates the level of medical knowledge of many medical professionals. Pathetically inadequate.
Any similar manipulation or amputation of female parts in order to facilitate hygiene would certainly be described as sexual assault or criminal abuse. Females would be most vocal in their protests if this were to occur. Unlike the female, it is very difficult for males to retain their normal, intact bodies when the first option is to amputate this vital part, rather than to leave it alone.
There is a growing concern about the unethical medical treatment given to males in America along with the concern that their individual rights are being violated. There are proper medical procedures which should be practiced by each member of the medical profession. Each and every patient is entitled to the same professional treatment regardless of sex or age. Members who disregard the basic principles of human justice are giving the medical profession a bad reputation. Infants need to be protected by members of the medical profession who are in a position of trust. No individual should grow up to discover that this trust has been violated.
If a male should be unfortunate to develop a problem, however minor, at some time in his life, the solution prescribed by many physicians is circumcision. Why treat, just amputate is the obvious solution! What has happened to other more humane forms of treatment? Are there none? Is it not logical that the purpose of medicine should be to help each individual retain each healthy and normal part of his/her body as long as possible, and not to amputate it?
9. Circumcision would prevent masturbation
One of the most prevalent reasons for circumcision was that it was supposed to prevent masturbation. Males were to get rid of excess fluids by nocturnal emissions.
Rev. Edward A. Molloy, associate provost of the University of Notre Dame once said: "There has been a significant change in the evaluation of masturbation by the Catholic Church. At one time, masturbation, petting and various forms of orgasmic behavior were viewed as equally sinful.
In recent years, however, moral theologians have challenged that position and masturbation now is seen as a relatively common form of sexual release. In most cases, individual acts of masturbation do not involve the moral quality of the person in such a way that it constitutes a serious offense. Rather, it is a habit, and expression of the power of the sexual drive."
Numerous studies also indicate that masturbation plays an important function in relieving excess and stagnant fluids which may indeed harm the body. Circumcising the male may be preventing the male from doing precisely what nature had intended. Some believe that nocturnal emissions are the only moral way for the body to get rid of excess seminal fluids. We would not accept nocturnal urination or the nocturnal defecation of eliminating body wastes as being natural, so why must nocturnal emissions be the only method of voiding waste? Prostate cancer may be one of the results of circumcision, and which masturbation may well prevent. We are also told that sex plays an important role in keeping the body healthy. Are we to believe that "sexual intercourse " will enhance body health - but masturbation (or auto stimulation ) won't ?
10. Circumcision is still popular - or gaining popularity
Female circumcision in Africa still popular. Should we likewise use this reason to condone or ignore its practice, or do we not as intelligent humans beings have the right to demand an end to it, regardless how popular the practice may be? Should we condone sexual assault of females in America just because one out of every four are victims? Drug abuse is also very prevalent? Does this fact give drug abuse credibility? Does the fact that any practice exists mean that we should allow it to continue without questioning its usefulness or validity?
Physical effects of circumcision
The fact is that uncircumcised males, who have been left alone to develop naturally without having their foreskins damaged by parents or doctors, develop few if any physical problems during their lifetime. Intact males cannot understand the fears of those who proclaim the dangers of leaving males intact. These dangers seldom materialize. To listen to such ludicrous discussion is akin to the color blind explaining the dangers of having full color vision. These arguments are totally fallacious attempts to promote circumcision and have no basis in fact.
The foreskin which contains most of the sensory receptors in the penis plays an important part in the male anatomy. It protects a very sensitive and delicate part of his body. The loss of the foreskin obviously results in a major loss in penile sensitivity. The amputation of the frenulum provides further loss. Males circumcised in adulthood report a critical loss of penile sensitivity and pleasure. Many have become sexually dysfunctional, and have stated that they resented females (mothers) or their parents whom they blamed for the violation of their bodies. One male described his loss by stating that if circumcised males only knew what they were missing they would storm the hospitals with their outcry.
The complications resulting from circumcision are many. Leonard J. Marina M.D. in a letter to Contemporary Pediatrics , November 1989 stated: " In my private pediatric practice (middle to upper class), I see about 150 patients a week. For a one month period, I saw 22 male patients with a genitourinary complaint, 20 of whom were circumcised. In ten patients, the foreskin remnant adhered to the glans, covering the sulcus, so that when released, varying amounts of smegma appeared. Two could not be released and will need surgery to separate the foreskin adhesions.
Five of the 20 circumcised patients had meatitis and urinary frequency, which cleared after treatment with oral sulfa. Two males urinated with difficulty, one of them having two streams, the other three. One of those patients has had surgery (meatotomy) three times; the other is scheduled to have it done.
It is of interest that meatitis requiring surgery, because of the attendant meatal stenosis, is almost exclusive an illness of the circumcised. In 25 years, none of my uncircumcised patients has needed a meatotomy, compared to an average of three per year in the circumcised group. All of those patients have had four or more of the following symptoms or findings: dysuria, frequency, hematuria, meatitis, meatal stenosis, and urinating in more than one stream....
My experience reinforces the practice of discouraging routine circumcision, a cause of more morbidity than benefit."
The complications of circumcision are many, including damage to the glans penis, accidental amputation of the glans penis, septicemia, scar tissue, keloid tissue, severe brain damage, a gastric rupture resulting from screaming during circumcision (one documented case lasted 90 minutes), and a loss of a part or their entire genital organs. Numerous infants have died during the past few decades. (There are many more deaths resulting from circumcision than members of the medical profession would care to admit. Cause of death - (of course not circumcision), but rather some complication which uneventfully came some time later. The circumcision is usual dismissed as a routine procedure. ) It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that these deaths and complications would have never occurred had the infant not undergone the unnecessary surgery?
All these complications are a great price to pay for the nation's ignorance. And tragic indeed is the fact that many males will have to suffer during their entire lifetime from a procedure which supposedly was to prevent future problems. As one noted Canadian physician has quoted: "There are no simple surgeries, only simple surgeons."
11.Emotional scars
As a former principal of a high school I was approached by a dozen senior high school students who were bitter and resentful because they were victims of unwanted circumcision. (I did not bring up the subject, nor instruct subjects which involved the topic of circumcision. I had any idea that any males were circumcised, as one female writer berated me.) Nor were they any less resentful because they resembled their peers. Their objections were unequivocal: "Why should we respect the rights of others, when our own rights were so blatantly violated? Who gave others the authority to mutilate our bodies?" they demanded. "Would you do something to end this dehumanizing practice?"
Several years later, a male in the elementary school where I was principal, was very rebellious and hated females, his mother in particular. A staff member called me to deal with his defiance one lunch hour. I called him into the office and questioned him regarding his hostility towards females and his open hatred of his mother. He too, stated his objection very loudly and forcefully. "My mother butchered my body by circumcision. She would never do that to my sisters".
During a recent radio call-in show, a male called and explained to the host that he felt cheated and violated by his circumcision. Ironically the next caller was a mother who wanted to know if her two year son should be circumcised in order to match his father. They just don't get it. Do they?
The following are quotes which serve as a tragic indication of the deep emotional trauma many males expressed about their circumcision:
"If you think I' m a deeply disturbed man, you are right. If you want your son to grow up disturbed like me, by all means circumcise him!'
"I think I could have accepted a deformity that was an accident by nature, but I can't accept that someone did this to me."
"I have never been able to accept the fact that when I was a baby someone cut part of my penis off. The sheer monstrousness of it haunts every waking moment of my life. Sometimes I'm beginning to make some sort of adjustment to it, but when I see an unmutilated man in a shower or magazine, I become overwhelmed by uncontrollable feelings of outrage and disbelief that I was made a victim for life of something so sick. Sometimes I feel I'm at the edge of madness and just can't handle it."
"Imagine how the elephant man would have felt it he had found out that he had been born normal but that someone had done that to him. That's how I feel.
"I was circumcised when I was five---seventy years ago. I felt rage then and I still feel rage now."
"What circumcision did to my body is bad enough, but what it did to my head is worse."
"Why would anyone cut up a baby's penis? How could anyone allow himself or someone else to do it?"
"Anger is a pallid euphemism for what I felt. More accurate would be overwhelming fury, rage, and desire for vengeance, desire to torture, main and utterly destroy any human being who ever had anything to do with performing, ordering, or requesting circumcisions, or who even thought about circumcision and "health benefits" in the same context. I am still dealing with these feelings as I dedicate my life to ending infant circumcision, the ultimate child sex abuse.
"If I ever find the S.O.B. who had done this to me, I will castrate the bastard."
To the naive who still believe that it is morally right and that you have the right to advocate the mutilation of another's body without his knowledge or his consent. I suggest that you think again. Males who for decades remained silent, are now speaking out more vocally than ever. They won't be silenced or intimidated by anyone, even by those who sincerely believe what they are doing is best for their sons.
12. Question of choice
Many advocate male circumcision because many males have remained silent about their circumcision or wished they were circumcised when they became adults. This claim is made to somehow justify the continued and mass circumcision of males.
The conspiracy of silence is obvious. Males have been conditioned that they are not to touch their bodies or talk about their private parts. Because the sensitivity of the topic, and as most victims of rape or incest understand, it is very difficult to admit that you have been sexually molested, raped or mutilated. It took decades before females began to understand and express their feelings about sexual abuse, rape, incest and other forms of violence. Males too, have been very reluctant, but now are speaking out for the first time.
To those "cocky" individuals who state that males who were not circumcised later wished they were circumcised, we do not understand the problem. They have not been denied the right to do so, the option is still there. They are able to make this decision and can blame no one for a decision which may later have a serious impact upon their lives.
The ultimate question is what should males do who have discovered that they were victims of unwanted circumcision? The procedure is almost irreversible and most males suffer from extensive tissue damage or scar tissue, as a result of the amputation. Surgical and non-surgical procedures will never be able to restore what most normal intact males enjoy. They can only enjoy partial sensitivity through the restoration of nerve tissues which may occur when a foreskin is replaced. Unfortunately they will never again experience full sexuality which intact males enjoy.
Intact males who had undergone circumcision report a 70%+ loss in penile sensitivity. Imagine a society which would permit a major loss of vision by promoting the amputation of eyelids because they may someday develop a problem. Loss of a vital part of one's body through ignorance is a great price to pay. The real tragedy is that the victim is the one who pays the price both physically and emotionally and not the one who inflicts it upon the unconsenting male.
Instead of finding reasons to legitimize circumcision, we should end the practice. Many doctors are seeking ways to end the pain of circumcision. The only sure way to end the pain of circumcision is to stop circumcising..
We study the effects of birth trauma upon infants and do everything possible to minimize it. However, the advocates of circumcision refuse to admit that circumcision compounds the birth trauma. The U.S.A. has one of the highest infant mortality rates among the most affluent nations of the world. Infant males are its greatest victims. Why would we subject infant males to a barbaric and painful surgery which could have very serious consequences. One medical columnist noted : "That there are no simple surgeries - just simple surgeons".
13. Religious reasons
Many individuals who believed that circumcision is a necessary part of their religion are now questioning the practice. No religious practice should be allowed to main or mutilate their children or non consenting individuals. As laws in the USA and Canada do not permit female circumcision for any religious or social reason, so too should laws unequivocally ban male circumcision. There are other humane and acceptable rituals which can be substituted for circumcision . Body piercing, body amputations, tattooing of children, are also unacceptable in a civilized and democratic nation. We do not abuse our children in the name of religion. Many mohels and doctors have bragged that they have mutilated thousands of boys over the years. No one else can get away with abuse of this nature - even unwanted touching of the body - so why do we tolerate or permit harmful practices?
These sexual predators must be stopped. If circumciser of males do not have the moral decency or ethics to end their deviant practices, then stiff penalties under the law must be provided to punish these sexual offenders in the same manner as all other sexual offenders. Mayhem which is the amputation of maiming of body parts is a criminal offence. Circumcision of non consenting individuals is clearly mayhem - and as such the perpetrators need to be charged with the criminal offence. A list of circumcisers should be published to warn all parents of these sexual predators.
No individual is born with a religion. In a democracy each is free to choose (later in life) what he/she wishes to believe. Many individuals refuse to adhere to the same religious or political beliefs as their parents. We do not permit the withholding of medical treatment because of religion - because the parent believes that God will cure the individual - nor do we permit parents to deny blood transfusions or medical treatment to their children because it is against their religion. In Canada, parents have had their children removed from their custody because they believed in : "spare the rod and spoil the child". A catholic nun was also charged with child abuse because she also beat children in her care because she believed that it was the will of God.
In North America, it appears that any practice can be justified in the name of religion or democracy. We condemn other countries in which barbaric inhumane practices are carried out as undemocratic and the violation of individual rights. Perhaps examples of justice and equality which are true indicators of a democratic society should be demonstrated in North America.
Even today in Saudia Arabia and other countries individuals are beheaded or have body parts amputated as punishment for their crimes. Genital mutilation as well as the amputation of any body part ( on non consenting minors ) for which there are no medical reason must come to an end. Circumcision as well as the amputation of body parts as a punitive measure must be condemned and outlawed. Concerned individuals of every walk of life must speak out against these dehumanizing practices.
14. A decision parents must make like vaccination and other medical decisions?
Really? Is the amputation of normal, vital, body parts of children a decision which parents or anyone must make? Is this a decision which has to be made for girls too - or just boys? Since when has the amputation of normal body parts on non consenting individuals become a decision which parents must make? This is probably the most ludicrous reason used today to justify circumcision. The removal of body parts cannot be compared to the necessary treatment of illnesses - vaccination which may prevent disease but does not involve the removal of a part of the human body which the individual may gravely resent when he/she becomes aware that this has been done. In the Province of Quebec in Canada, the law states that parents may not remove non regenerative body parts - unless there was an absolute medical necessity for it caused by disease - or that a child may have his life endangered by not doing so (cancer treatment e.g.). All children must be guaranteed the right to this form of protection. Anyone amputating normal, healthy body parts on non consenting individuals is guilty of mayhem and should be prosecuted under the law. The Criminal Code does not permit this action - therefore it cannot be a responsibility of a parent, doctor, or any other individual to make a request to amputate body parts of children.
15. Reasons for genital mutilation are endless
The reasons to mutilate are endless, and tragically whenever one tries to convince others that there is no need for circumcision, you will always hear statements such as these: "Yes, we know that there are no valid reasons for circumcision, but we did it anyway." Other reasons often given are : "The only reason why males object to circumcision is because we haven't done a good enough job explaining it to them." "Male circumcision isn't as severe as female genital mutilation". Why one practice should be permitted just because it isn't as severe as another - has not basis in law. Unwanted touching is not as severe as foreskin amputation - so why not legalize that?
We are told that we should circumcise males because "women prefer circumcised males". Would we also permit the surgical alteration of our daughters if males preferred this? Males are indoctrinated that "females - and only females have the right to determine what is in their own best interests." Why is it so difficult to understand that perhaps males have the same right in the self determination of what they choose in their own best interests . Why not permit them to make this decision when they are mature enough to understand the ramifications of this irreversible procedure. If they make a wrong decision - then they have no one else to blame but themselves.
Another reason used to ridicule objectors of male circumcision is stating that it is like comparing "apples to oranges". The fact is that genital mutilation, regardless of sex or severity, is still genital mutilation. Then again there are those who claim that male circumcision is not a mutilation. If one amputated part of a child's ear, would this also not be a mutilation? Perhaps these individuals need to look up the definition of "mutilation". Damaging any normal part of the human body can be considered a mutilation. Even the wanton amputation of parts of pets - ears etc. could result in criminal charges for cruelty to animals. So why should cruelty to children be permitted?
A number of pro circumcision web sites justify male circumcision because most males in America are happy with their status. How can any male not be happy - when he has no idea or knowledge of what he is missing? Only when males have experienced what intact males enjoy ( the pleasure of the foreskin filled with millions of receptor), they would be in a position to know what they are missing. It appears that the advocates of circumcision have one major motive - to prevent future generations of males from ever experiencing the value of the foreskin.
Color blind individuals are also happy with their status, but this does not mean that they are not missing anything - the entire color spectrum which most intact individuals experience. What about the thousands which have and are undergoing foreskin restoration ( at least 10 000 from a recent indication) or the hundreds and thousands of males who resent their circumcision and are now speaking out and condemning the practice. Is the fact that countless males resent their circumcision - have become resentful - angry - rebellious - etc. worthy of consideration? Not all female prostitutes claim to suffer emotional harm or trauma from their practices. Many young females and young subjects used to create "kiddy porn" claim that they enjoy what they are doing. Would we on the basis of these claims legalize teenage prostitution and child pornography - or do we have a moral obligation to protect young people regardless of their claims?
During the past few years I have read many articles written by women ridiculing men who were trying to end male circumcision. "They should confine their views on internet" we were told. "We should be more concerned with the starving children in Africa and other parts of the world." "Or that by speaking out against male circumcision, we are somehow detracting from women's issues." Does this mean that we should only be concerned about women's issues - and that the issues of children who are tortured and mutilated at the whims of their parents are of little concern? Is this really the attitude of caring women? Or should our concern be for all - to make certain that no one is abused physically or emotionally? I wonder how receptive these statement would have been if the individuals were female instead of male?
The articles which I and others have read have done nothing to enhance respect for females in general. Respect and tolerance is a two way street and not as feminists would have us believe.
Conclusion:
It is our hope that you will be enlightened as a result of this publication and demand an end to circumcision. Males who have remained silent, are now speaking out, more vocally than ever. They won't be silenced or intimidated by anyone, even those who sincerely believe what they are doing is best for their sons. "Enough is enough", they are saying. "And what part of NO of sexual assault do members of the medical profession who still circumcise not understand?"
During the Iran-Contra Hearings we were frequently reminded :"What is our obligation with regards to the truth? In a democracy, we have to be able to depend upon the truth - and we have the responsibility to tell the truth." The truth is that there is no place in modern medicine for non-therapeutic surgery on non-consenting individuals in a democratic society. This is a tragic commentary on the professional ethics and the callous attitudes of many physicians in America today.
However, during this past decade we are seeing many influential members of the medical profession, medical organizations, professional people, men, women, children, all speaking out against the dehumanizing practice of circumcision. Some of the greatest supporters of men's rights are women. They understand the meaning of equality, tolerance and justice. Men no longer feel that they must remain silent because they were victims of sexual assault or abuse of which circumcision is the worst. In light of the overwhelming information pointing out that circumcision male or female is no longer an acceptable practice in a democratic society - one has to wonder what type of deviant person would still dare advocate circumcision today.
This document was written in "layman's " language. Even young children should be able to understand the contents of the information provided. There are hundreds of excuses to circumcise - and it is impossible to deal with them in this document. We covered a number of other reasons "circumcision for hygiene" etc. in our Home Page. A thoughtful study of other information on this and other web sites will indicate ...that there are no valid medical reasons for circumcision ...only excuses. MALES HAVE RIGHTS TOO!
John Sawkey: Director of Medical Ethics Network