Is circumcision ethical?
 

I have been reading a lot about opposition to male circumcision happening lately at this time, with the story about a young boy called Chase in the US whose mother was jailed for trying to stop him being circumcised galvanizing many across the online world.

I have to say the more I read about the horror stories of what can go wrong with circumcision the more I find myself agreeing that circumcision of men and women is completely immoral and unethical.

When I read that the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is fast tracking male circumcision in Africa, as a false promise to stop AIDS, I can't help but wonder about the ethics of all this when everyone knows that circumcision doesn't stop AIDS, only a condom does. So why not use a condom and put the money spent on unnecessary and costly circumcisions to better use?

A quick read through of the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation and I came across this passage which says how they are using a barbaric device the PrePex/ Shang Ring to facilitate this surgery in countries with a shortage of trained health professionals, with the WHO justifying the use of this device because it is "easy to use". To my mind it is a stone age device that has no place in the modern world.

source http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-W...al-Letter-2012

I find it hard to stomach these kinds of statistics when evidence shows more circumcised men get AIDS than uncircumcised men

http://joseph4gi.blogspot.nl/2011/05...event-hiv.html

I find it distasteful the way they are using the campaign posters of wives to tell guys why they should be circumcised, would the opposite work if we were to implement female circumcision?

http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com.au/201...campaigns.html

The whole industry is based around selling as many PrePex devices as possible, with countries embracing the practice and the promise of the lucrative handouts doing so will bring.

http://joseph4gi.blogspot.nl/2012/01...orts-with.html

I came across this organisation PEPFAR which is using more than $100 million dollars donated to 14 African countries to increase the rate of male circumcision to 80% as a way to prevent HIV.

source http://www.pepfar.gov/press/strategy_briefs/138399.htm

According to the WHO website, they are using the PrePex device to perform adult male circumcision and state that they developed it because of the shortage of surgically trained health workers; so now they are allowing non surgically trained health workers such as nurses to perform the procedure. I can just imagine how many botched MC will occur as a result of this.

source http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/maleci...ice_update/en/

Also the WHO website justifies the use of MC to prevent HIV by saying that it is 60% effective in preventing heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men. That percentage doesn't seem very high to me to justify such a extreme procedure, and especially not high enough to normalise such a procedure. Especially when men have available other non surgical options such as condoms which minimize the risk of HIV transmission by 99%. Then the WHO contradicts it's own argument later on by saying that MC provides only partial protection. So why pursue something that only offers partial protection when you can pursue something that offers 99% of protection. It sounds like WHO don't have a clue what their talking about.

source http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/

The argument for circumcision seems completely devoid of logic. I still can't believe MC is being justified by governments and WHO, UNAIDS, PEPFAR, Bill and Melinda Gates in 2015, on the false basis it is more hygienic, I never knew any of this was still going on. It just seems so unethical. Women are likely to suffer more urinary tract infections than men, yet nobody is calling for mandatory female circumcision.

I think circumcision is unethical and will be boycotting Microsoft products as a result of their support for it. I thought Bill was a logic based rational person who only took on scientific fact to base his decisions on, he has really let us down here. I won't purchase Microsoft ever again, even if it means they change their stance on this in the future. #BoycottMicrosoft #WHOhasnoclue

I only just discovered this information so my first post is a little long, but I am interested to know what others here think, I hope we can have a constructive discussion.

My overall opinion about circumcision is that it's stupid. It should only be done when it's actually causing problems to the person. When it comes to hygiene, that's no longer a good excuse as it's very easy to clean and most people have access to a shower these days. I guess you can say that it's genital mutilation when it's being done while it's not necessary. (Which still happens to a lot of babies these days, especially in America.)

Circumcision is no more unethical by argument than a Gender Reassignment Surgery.

I'm no expert on the matter, but I am thinking sex changes are done voluntarily by adults whereas circumcision is most often done to infants who obviously cannot consent. I disagree with taking a knife to the genitals of a baby for any reason with the exception that it has been determined (by a doctor) there is a medical reason to do so.

Hi Mark,

Do you hold to your ethics even for adults? Just curious about how some regard the Hippocratic oath, "I disagree with taking a knife to the genitals of a baby for any reason with the exception that it has been determined (by a doctor) there is a medical reason to do so."

Children as well as adults are circumcised. In the Old Testament, children were to be circumcised on the 8th day. On the eighth day, the amount of prothrombin present actually is elevated above one-hundred percent of normal—and is the only day in the male’s life in which this will be the case under normal conditions. If surgery is to be performed, day eight is the perfect day to do it. Vitamin K and prothrombin levels are at their peak.

How did they know that back then? Besides the point, no pun intended, most circumcisions are done for religious reasons (not arguing that the sign of circumcision still pertains), but there are certain health benefits.

I simply mean if an adult wants to undergo a procedure that alters his/her body, then fine...no problem here.

I would argue that a baby has no religion, it is another person's religion (presumably that of his parents) that is being imposed. It is a barbaric iron-age practice that should be abolished, IMHO.

One could argue that there are vestigial parts of the human anatomy that we are better off without since evolution is a continuous and ongoing process (e.g. widsom teeth, appendix), but I would not put the human foreskin on such a list.

I understand what you're suggesting, but I am not going into Theology here. However, I will suggest not putting much stock into a society that legally redetermines what it is to be a person (let alone male or female), when they argue for the rights of children all the while supporting the murder of 56 million babies in the U.S. alone. I am referring to Roe vs Wade. If it is the parent's right to perform an abortion, the argument would suggest the right to circumcision.

Shim

I am speaking from my own personal opinion only...I am not interested in what a bunch of lawyers and/or clergy have to say about it, this is a medical issue, and so the opinions of medical experts is what interests me here. They have done the science.

It's like global warming...I don't care what politicians or philosophers or musicians have to say about it because they are relatively ignorant on the matter, I care what climatologists, who are the experts in the field, have to say.

Hi Mark,

These same scientist suggest one acknowledge the resemblance of a monkey to that of a human, and reject the resemblance of an unborn baby to a human being.

I wish you would hold to your original position. If you are for withholding the knife in all circumstances, but for health reasons, another words, if only the mother's life was in jeopardy, I would support your position more, because that would result in a decline of 98% of all abortions.

I respect you having an opinion, but again, I will not hold much stock in a social or scientific agenda that rejects the obvious (observational), and that includes weather projections beyond 7 days, which they cannot get right, let alone projections of 75 thousand to millions of years.

Shim

That makes no sense. Your rejection of the principle of evolution makes it no less an indisputable fact. If fact goes against faith, which is the purposeful suspension of critical thinking, then it is faith that must be discarded.

When did I say anything for or against abortion? Please don't put words in my mouth.

You are confusing weather with climate.

This thread is not about abortion or climate change though, it is about genital mutilation, and my opinion on it has not changed one bit. Please, let's just stay on topic.