Is Circumcision an Abuse against Boys' Rights?

Religious circumcision is universal in Muslims and Jews and for medical reasons it is also common amongst Christians in US. But while many say it is a genital mutilation, decreasing penis sensitivity and causing both physical and psychological damage, similar to what they do in west/central/northeastern Africa to women (in order to decrease sexual sensitivity and pleasure), others see its benefits, as in a recent debate published in the British Journal of Medicine.

"There is now rarely a therapeutic indication for infant circumcision, yet ritual (non-therapeutic) male circumcision continues unchecked throughout the world, long after female circumcision, facial scarification, and other ritual forms of infant abuse have been made illegal", Geoff Hinchley, a consultant at Barnet & Chase Farm NHS Trust, wrote in BJM. "The law and principles pertaining to child protection should apply equally to both sexes, so why do society and the medical profession collude with this unnecessary mutilating practice", he asks.

He points that such claims that circumcision impedes penile cancer, masturbation, blindness, and insanity are not scientifically proved and that the decision should be taken by the individual when he is old enough to make his own choice. "Male genital mutilation is not a risk-free procedure. Far from being a harmless traditional practice, circumcision damages young boys. And in terms of legal protection, both the US and the UK legal systems discriminate between the sexes when it comes to protecting boys and girls from damaging ritual genital mutilation."

Scar tissue formed from circumcision, but also the functional and mechanical changes linked to sexual activity, are factors that could have secondary effects on the genital sensitivity. Five locations on the uncircumcised penis that are routinely removed through circumcision surgery are more sensitive than the ventral scar of the circumcised penis (the most sensitive area of the circumcised penis). Research suggested that intact penises have four times more sexual sensitivity as compared to the circumcised ones.

Controlling a boy's level of sexual sensitivity because of personal bias or prejudice is something not so well regarded in progressive societies. Others have different opinions. "If competently performed, circumcision carries little risk and cannot be compared with female circumcision. Although any surgical operation can be painful and do harm, the pain of circumcision, if done under local anesthesia, is comparable to that from an injection for immunization", wrote Kirsten Patrick of the BMJ.

Some researchers connected male circumcision with a decreased risk of sexually transmitted infections, like human papilloma virus, chancroid, syphilis and even HIV. Still, some warn that false security conferred by these studies can in fact boost STDs. Circumcised men, with a decreased sensitivity, could also refuse to wear further-desensitizing condoms.

There is also a wrong belief that circumcision is made for hygienic reasons, to protect against diseases like urethritis, retained smegma, penile and cervical cancer, phimosis or paraphimosis. The complication rate for infant circumcision is believed to be between 0.2% and 3%, most of them minor, even if some can be really severe. "Furthermore, no robust research exists examining the long term psychological effects of male infant circumcision." she said. Medical bodies say that if effectuated by a competent operator employing adequate anesthesia, the procedure is safe. Male circumcision is legal in many countries, being a choice made by parents as a result of cultural or other motivations.