The Science of Circumcision

I would like to comment on the science of circumcision. Circumcision of infant males was first medicalized in this country starting in the 1870s as a way to prevent masturbation. Before that no one was doing it in the U.S. except for the Jews. Yes, that’s right, all those Civil War soldiers hunkered down in the muddy battlefields without any hygiene going on at all for months and years at a time all had intact penises. Many of them did not survive the war, but I’ve never read yet in any medical journals of the time or soldiers diaries of any of their penises becoming infected and falling off. My guess is that if an intact penis can survive those conditions, your son’s is pretty safe. So how did all these ideas come along over the years that the intact penis is somehow a medical liability, at great risk of infection, etc., etc.? Well, here’s my opinion.

Having been aware of the political, emotional and regional complexities of the circumcision issue for many years, I’ve had a little time to digest some things that on the surface may appear quite confusing to people who are researching this topic for the first time. My intention of writing this is to help put in perspective all the so-called scientific studies that exist extolling the medical benefits of infant male circumcision.

When you read the American Academy of Pediatrics position statement on male circumcision, you’ll notice that they refer to “potential” medical benefits. They use the word potential because there still aren’t any known benefits. A further reading of the AAP's public statements on this topic exposes the very interesting and revealing human tendency for ethnocentricity. In a brochure published by the AAP describing these “potential” benefits of male circumcision, the AAP gets caught red handed by making the following statement regarding female circumcision: “The Academy is absolutely opposed to this practice in all forms as it is disfiguring and has no medical benefits.”

Any form of genital cutting is disfiguring. However, the ethnocentricity is revealed by their absolute assertion that it has no medical benefits. Please understand that I do not support the cutting of female genitalia, however, the truth is that the AAP cannot prove this statement and they know it. In their zeal to take a strong stand against a practice in which their members have no vested interest, they have made a serious leap in logic. The AAP has not tested this hypothesis and has zero bases for their “no medical benefits” conclusion. First of all, you can NEVER prove anything with the scientific method. The philosophy of Western scientific method acknowledges that assertions cannot be proven. What the scientific method provides is a formal structure for formulating hypotheses, testing them, and reporting the results of these tests. If the results of a particular test can be reproduced by independent examiners, then the validity of the hypothesis increases. For instance, a long time ago some smart guy in Europe hypothesized that the world is round. Since then, that hypothesis has been tested six ways from Sunday and the round earth conclusion has been consistently reached. Therefore, we accept this assertion today. However, there is always the possibility someone will put forth new evidence tomorrow that will challenge this assertion. Therefore, even the obvious conclusion that the earth is round is not yet proven beyond scientific doubt.

My point is that of course there are “potential” benefits to circumcising females. But there are no legitimate medical journals that would consider publishing such studies because the research would be considered frivolous if not outright unethical. Even if there were “potential” benefits, it would be inexcusable to allow doctors to perform cosmetic surgery on the healthy genitals of baby girls, right? So then why have there been literally dozens upon dozens of studies published in American medical journals examining the “potential” benefits of forcibly circumcising baby boys?

I have been looking into this issue for over 25 years (circumcision - not earth geometry!) I have seen the studies that have been put forth proclaiming the benefits of routine infant male circumcision. In EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM there is shameless abuse of the Western theories and philosophies of the scientific method in an effort to “prove” some nebulous claim or benefit. If you read enough of the history, you will see that the proponents of circumcision have employed what I often refer to as a Pony Express strategy. They will ride one horse until it becomes tired (for example, prevents masturbation) then they’ll mount another horse (prevents epilepsy). When that horse wears out, they’ll find another (intact penis causes cervical cancer in women). This horse soon becomes tired and so they mount another horse (prevents penile cancer). This one gets tired and they then decide to jump on the UTI pony. Finding even that not to be the thoroughbred that it appeared, they choose yet another horse (prevents HIV infection and other STD’s). Do not expect it to end there. There are an infinite number of ponies yet to be ridden and you can be sure they are being saddled up as we speak.

So why are so many engaged in this type of deceit? Well, my observation has always been that there is a vested interest in protecting the status quo. There are millions of circumcised men in the U.S. (including most U.S. male doctors). If suddenly male circumcision is concluded to be harmful and unnecessary and we stop performing it on our infants, then we put those men (from their perspective) in an unenviable position. Who wants to be pitied for the rest of their lives? Certainly not me. So, in that way, I have always understood why most circumcised men tend to want to continue the tradition. Something is revealed in the statement “I want him to be like me.” You bet he does. He doesn’t want to be viewed as the poster boy of a past cultural mistake and I can’t say that I blame him.

It has not escaped my notice that the most common reason mothers or mothers-to-be cite in deciding not to circumcise their sons is that it is painful. It’s difficult to deny that subjecting an infant to having part of his penis cut off is painful stuff. However, pain would not necessarily be reason enough to reject circumcision in and of itself, if there were real measurable benefits that outweighed that negative aspect. When the veneer is stripped away and the purported benefits fall by the wayside, I agree, the barbarity of the act is truly disturbing.

for more original articles by vincent bach, return to regarding circumcision and intactness.