Skip to main content

Abstract

Advocates for circumcision employ the veneer of science in an attempt to conceal that they are apologists for the procedure rather than impartial researchers. Furthermore, unlike genuine scientists who would welcome all evidence about circumcision’s consequences, advocates ignore and actively work to suppress scientific evidence demonstrating the short-term and long-term negative sequelae of the surgical alteration of the penis. Consequently, the public is largely ignorant of the extent of the harm caused by circumcision. While the reality of immediate surgical error, such as injury to the glans, loss of the entire penis, gangrene, severe hemorrhage, and even death are grudgingly acknowledged, though downplayed as rare, advocates for circumcision refuse to acknowledge the large body of scientific research showing long-term and permanent negative sequelae to the penis and to sexual function caused by destruction and amputation of the prepuce. Moreover, in addition to the physical and sexological consequences, a body of research now documents that the surgery also has psychological and cultural consequences. This would naturally be expected when such a psychologically significant part of the body such as the penis is surgically altered. These deleterious physical, sexological, psychological, and cultural sequelae of circumcision not only affect the individual, but also affect human relationships and the ethics and mores of the afflicted society, as is demonstrated by the peculiar dynamics of societies that tolerate, encourage, or enforce circumcision.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Auvert B, Taljaard D, Lagarde E, Sobngwi-Tambekou J, Sitta R et al (2005) Randomized, controlled intervention trial of male circumcision for reduction of HIV infection risk: the ANRS 1265 trial. PLoS Med 2:e298

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey RC, Moses S, Parker CB et al (2007) Male circumcision for HIV prevention in young men in Kisumu, Kenya: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 369(9562):643–656

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Boyle GJ, Hill G (2011) Sub-Saharan African randomised clinical trials into male circumcision and HIV transmission: methodological, ethical and legal concerns. J Law Med (Melbourne) 19:316–334

    Google Scholar 

  • Cansever G (1965) Psychological effects of circumcision. Br J Med Psychol 38(4):321–331

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • DeMause L (1996) Restaging fetal traumas in war and social violence. Pre Per Psychol J 10(4):227–258

    Google Scholar 

  • Denniston GC (1999) Tyranny of the victims: an analysis of circumcision advocacy. In: Denniston GC, Hodges FM, Milos MF (eds) Male and female circumcision: medical, legal, and ethical considerations in pediatric practice, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Deuchert E, Brody SA (2007) Lack of autodisable syringe use and health care indicators are associated with high HIV prevalence: an international ecologic analysis. Ann Epidemiol 17(3):199–207

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Falliers CJ (1963) Routine circumcision. Am J Dis Child 106(12):47

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman R (1997) Circumcision the hidden trauma. Vanguard Publications, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman R (2004) Circumcision policy: a psychosocial perspective. Paediatr Child Health 9(9):630–633

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gray RH, Kigozi G, Serwadda D et al (2007) Male circumcision for HIV prevention in men in Rakai, Uganda: a randomised trial. Lancet 369(9562):657–666

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grimes DA (1978) Routine circumcision of the newborn: a reappraisal. Am J Obstet Gynecol 130(2):125–129

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Newell TEC (2004) Judgment of inquiry into the death of McWillis, Ryleigh Roman Bryan, B.C. Coroner’s Service, Burnaby, 19 Jan 2004

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Hara K, O’Hara J (1999) The effect of male circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner. Br J Urol Suppl 1:79–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Paediatric Death Review Committee (2007) Office of the chief coroner of ontario. Circumcision: a minor procedure? Paediatr Child Health 12(4):311–312

    Google Scholar 

  • Persad R, Sharma S, McTavish J et al (1995) Clinical presentation and pathophysiology of meatal stenosis following circumcision. Br J Urol 75(1):91–93

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rhinehart J (1999) Neonatal circumcision reconsidered. Transactional Anal J 29:215–221

    Google Scholar 

  • Richters J, Gerofi J, Donovan B (1995) Why do condoms break or slip off in use? An exploratory study. Int J STD AIDS 6(1):11–18

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ritter TJ, Denniston GC (2002) Doctors re-examine circumcision. Third Millennium Publishing, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Scurlock JM, Pemberton PJ (1977) Neonatal meningitis and circumcision. Med J Aust 1(10):332–334

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Seabrook C (1991) $22.8 million in botched circumcision. Atlanta Const

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherman J, Borer JG, Horowitz M, Glassberg KI (1996) Circumcision: Successful glanular reconstruction and survival following traumatic amputation. J Urol 156:842–844

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sotolongo JR, Hoffman S, Gribetz ME (1985) Penile denudation injuries after circumcision. J Urol 133:102–103

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tagami TY (2010) Atlanta lawyer wins $11 million lawsuit for family in botched circumcision. Atlanta J Const (19 July 2010)

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor JR, Lockwood AP, Taylor AJ (1996) The prepuce: specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision. Br J Urol 77:291–295

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Van Howe RS, Storms MS (2011) How the circumcision solution in Africa will increase HIV infections. J Public Health in Africa 2:e4. doi:10.4081/jphia.2011.e4

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to George C. Denniston .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Denniston, G.C. (2013). The Harm of Circumcision. In: Denniston, G., Hodges, F., Milos, M. (eds) Genital Cutting: Protecting Children from Medical, Cultural, and Religious Infringements. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6407-1_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6407-1_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-007-6406-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-007-6407-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics