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.
Keywords
- Circumcision
- Harm
- Sexology
- Ethics
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buying options
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
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
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
Cansever G (1965) Psychological effects of circumcision. Br J Med Psychol 38(4):321–331
DeMause L (1996) Restaging fetal traumas in war and social violence. Pre Per Psychol J 10(4):227–258
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
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
Falliers CJ (1963) Routine circumcision. Am J Dis Child 106(12):47
Goldman R (1997) Circumcision the hidden trauma. Vanguard Publications, Boston
Goldman R (2004) Circumcision policy: a psychosocial perspective. Paediatr Child Health 9(9):630–633
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
Grimes DA (1978) Routine circumcision of the newborn: a reappraisal. Am J Obstet Gynecol 130(2):125–129
Newell TEC (2004) Judgment of inquiry into the death of McWillis, Ryleigh Roman Bryan, B.C. Coroner’s Service, Burnaby, 19 Jan 2004
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
Paediatric Death Review Committee (2007) Office of the chief coroner of ontario. Circumcision: a minor procedure? Paediatr Child Health 12(4):311–312
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
Rhinehart J (1999) Neonatal circumcision reconsidered. Transactional Anal J 29:215–221
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
Ritter TJ, Denniston GC (2002) Doctors re-examine circumcision. Third Millennium Publishing, London
Scurlock JM, Pemberton PJ (1977) Neonatal meningitis and circumcision. Med J Aust 1(10):332–334
Seabrook C (1991) $22.8 million in botched circumcision. Atlanta Const
Sherman J, Borer JG, Horowitz M, Glassberg KI (1996) Circumcision: Successful glanular reconstruction and survival following traumatic amputation. J Urol 156:842–844
Sotolongo JR, Hoffman S, Gribetz ME (1985) Penile denudation injuries after circumcision. J Urol 133:102–103
Tagami TY (2010) Atlanta lawyer wins $11 million lawsuit for family in botched circumcision. Atlanta J Const (19 July 2010)
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
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
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights 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)