Undue Suffering: Circumcision for Non-Medical Reasons Is Wrong

A Commentary By Dr. Maximilian Stehr

As the debate over the medical ethics of circumcision rages in Germany, some have argued that the practice provides health benefits. But many in the medical community disagree. Circumcision is not in the best interest of boys who undergo the procedure.

Photo Gallery: Is Circumcising Young Boys Unethical? Photos
DPA

In July 2011 a mother took her 2-year-old son to a pediatric clinic in Munich. Up to that point he had been the picture of health. There was absolutely nothing wrong with him. His parents simply wanted him to be circumcised at a medical facility on religious grounds.

But something went wrong when the boy was anesthetized, and the surgical team suddenly couldn't ventilate him anymore. The oxygen levels in his blood dropped, and his heart stopped beating. A dramatic scene unfolded in the minutes that followed, as the doctors tried to reanimate him, eventually calling in the emergency pediatric specialist. By the time the specialist arrived, the boy's body had been starved of oxygen for at least 10 minutes. The team finally managed to resuscitate the boy, and he was taken to our hospital by ambulance. But the child never regained consciousness. The lack of oxygen had caused too much damage to his brain.

I'm not telling this story to be sensationalist. I'm telling it because it moved me deeply. A healthy child that had probably happily crawled out of his bed that very morning had been anesthetized unnecessarily a few hours later, and by midday he lay in our intensive care unit, severely disabled for the rest of his life.

This shocking tale makes one thing absolutely clear: We doctors must never unnecessarily endanger the patients entrusted to our care. After all, had this boy not been circumcised, there would have been no emergency during his anesthetization. Every surgical intervention and every anesthesia is associated with a certain amount of risk. In this case the risk is not very great, but should nevertheless be taken only when justified. Under no circumstance should the dangers be overlooked because we think "It's only a minor operation." It's not.

'First, Do No Harm'

Munich's university hospital, the Klinikum Grosshadern, stopped circumcising boys without medical indication back in 2001. Many renowned pediatric hospitals had taken similar steps even before the Cologne Regional Court recently declared religious circumcision of children illegal. The medical community has been debating the issue for almost a decade. It's only thanks to the judges in Cologne that the matter has been brought to the attention of the public.

One of the fundamental principles of medical ethics is that no one should be harmed. The oath formulated by Hippocrates (approx. 460-370 BC) and sworn by all doctors includes the following statement: "I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone." Another key idea lies at the heart of all ethical behavior by medical personnel: "Primum nihil nocere," or "First, do no harm," a phrase coined by Scribonius Largus, a doctor at the court of the emperor Tiberius Claudius. The treatment of patients must be with their welfare in mind, and must therefore have priority over other interests, such as science, financial gain or profit.

Medically unnecessary circumcision causes damage because it results in an irreversible loss of healthy bodily tissue. Some people may consider it insignificant because the foreskin serves no discernible purpose. But the foreskin does indeed have a number of functions, although very few of the people engaging in the debate are aware of them.

No Medical Benefit

After birth, the foreskin protects the head of the penis (the glans) and prevents the external urethral orifice from abrasion and drying out. Following circumcision, the surface of the glans regularly thickens and calluses. This can lead to a constriction of the opening of the urethra, the most common complication associated with circumcision in infancy, occurring in up to 30 percent of cases. It's not unusual for several operations to be required before affected children can empty their bladder properly.

The foreskin also plays a role in arousal. In contrast to the glans, which has deep sensitivity, the foreskin has what are known as tactile corpuscles which can only be found in similar density in the tips of the fingers, the lips and the eyelids. It's therefore hardly surprising that the foreskin is considered a male erogenous zone. A significant majority of men who are circumcised in adulthood, and are therefore in a position to make comparisons, say they are less sensitive in this area after surgery. But that's not the only reason why circumcision affects sexuality: Couples in which the man is circumcised uniformly report a loss of male secretions during sex and therefore greater friction and resulting pain. It can therefore be assumed that circumcision can indeed have a negative impact on sexuality and the sex life of both circumcised men and their partners. These findings are not new. Major studies and surveys have been conducted and published as far back as the 1990s.

But the direct consequences of an operation must also be considered. Post-surgical complications occur in between 0.19 and 2 percent of circumcisions, but rise to 11 percent for patients circumcised in infancy. These complications primarily involve secondary bleeding or infection. In rare cases the urethra or the glans may be damaged or even need to be amputated. I see such complications time and again at our clinic, even though they occur in less than one percent of medical procedures. They mean painful surgery for the child.

Often enough, circumcision is deemed to be of medical benefit, for instance in preventing infectious diseases or cancer. But it's worth taking a closer look at the figures and the findings of related studies: Circumcised infants may have only a tenth as many urinary tract infections in their first year, but these infections generally occur so rarely that 100 circumcisions would be needed to prevent a single urinary tract infection. This doesn't make sense in otherwise healthy babies. There is no medical benefit to routine circumcision.

Wait For Consent

Nor does it reduce the likelihood of passing on or contracting sexually transmitted diseases. As early as 1855, a study suggested a possible link between circumcision and the transmission of venereal diseases. Since then, more than 30 studies have been published on the matter. However, the findings of these studies are extremely inhomogeneous. In effect, circumcision doesn't have any effect on the incidence of most sexually transmissible diseases (gonorrhea, syphilis, herpes and AIDS).

In 2007, the World Health Organization recommended circumcision as a prophylactic measure against HIV infection. This recommendation was based on studies from Kenya and Uganda that suggested that the risk of infection with HIV was 50 percent lower in circumcised heterosexual men than in non-circumcised ones. But demands for routine or blanket circumcision don't take into account the fact that the WHO considers circumcision only for adult males who can decide for themselves and are at a high risk of infection.

From an epidemiological perspective, the practice makes no sense for Germany. Furthermore, circumcision for this purpose could also be carried out at an age at which the person in question can make their own decisions. The same concern also applies to the supposed preventative nature of circumcision with regard to penis carcinoma or even cervical cancer: If circumcision had an unambiguously positive influence -- and not all scientists agree it does -- this operation would only make sense at an age when the man is sexually active, in other words at an age when the young man can consent himself.

A Chance For Dialogue

Medically, there is no evidence of advantages for boys. Therefore non-medically indicated circumcision is not in the child's best interests either. This is the key argument against the inadmissible comparison of circumcision with a recognized vaccine. The effectiveness and therefore the utility of the vaccine for the child have been scientifically proven.

Doctors have to weigh potential risks and benefits. There are no medical benefits to circumcision on religious grounds. For this reason it's all the more significant that it's a serious surgical procedure fraught with risks and complications. Whether it's carried out under local or general anesthetic, circumcision causes boys undue suffering. This procedure must therefore be rejected from both a medical and an ethical perspective.

As a devout Catholic, I have great respect for the concerns of religious communities. As a scientist, I feel discredited by Chancellor Angela Merkel's comments about how the circumcision ruling makes Germany "a laughing stock." The Cologne Regional Court presented us with an opportunity to work together with the various religious communities to consider the rights of physical inviolability and religious freedom. Some Muslims have already shown a willingness to accept that boys be circumcised only when they are old enough to give their consent. But in Berlin the debate is at risk of being stifled politically, robbing us of the chance for dialogue.

Translated from the German by Jan Liebelt

Article...
For reasons of data protection and privacy, your IP address will only be stored if you are a registered user of Facebook and you are currently logged in to the service. For more detailed information, please click on the "i" symbol.

Post to other social networks

Comments
Discuss this issue with other readers!
10 total posts
Show all comments
    Page 1    
1. No medical benefit to child circumcision
michaela6 07/26/2012
Those promoting child/infant circumcision love to state it has medical benefits, but those supposed 'benefits' were never the reason for religious groups to circumcise. Ancient societies knew little or nothing about health or any medical benefits. It actually started as a pagan blood ritual and alternative to child sacrifice, then was used to mark slaves, then incorporated into the Bible. A thorough, objective review of the medical literature shows NO medical benefits: no decrease in STD's (actually increases urethritis, GC, etc.), HPV, HIV higher in many circumcising countries, no decrease in cervical cancer risk in all 16 studies, no prevention of penile cancer (caused by HPV, smoking, BXO), UTI's lower in intact countries, no decrease in phimosis rates. It is perfectly easy to keep clean despite rumors to the contrary. But circumcision does prevent a normal sex life and sexual function is adversely affected for males and females. Circumcision causes many problems including meatal stenosis/meatitis, erectile dysfunction, hidden penis, bleeding, infection, etc. and death. All mammals have foreskins for reasons of protection, immunologic function to prevent infections, sexual function. It serves many purposes and continues to be present on all males born. Nature, or God, intends for the foreskin to be there. We don't remove any other normal healthy tissue from children to prevent some unforeseen problem or disease and we consider it wrong to even discuss removing other healthy body parts. Circumcision of children is harmful. Respect children; leave them whole.
2. Missing from national debate: foreskin's value
geborgen 07/27/2012
It is wonderful that Dr. Stehr has written this clear, thorough explanation of why circumcision of children represents actual damage. The insinuation of the religious groups has been that the foreskin has no value beyond religious (in its removal) and is undesirable and prone to problems and disease. The obvious message of the Merkel administration is that having or not having a foreskin - and a scar on the penis - is neutral to the boy. Both parties are dangerously wrong. The foreskin is functional and valuable, and designed to be an integral part of the penis and the male/female sexual universe. One thing I would add, however, is that it is high time the medical profession stopped repeating the claim that infant circumcision reduces urinary tract infections tenfold in boys. This discredited statistic can be traced back to a retrospective chart review by Dr. Thomas Wisell 30 years ago. The study failed to take into account that many or most of the intact boys may have been premature births (a common reason in the USA not to circumcise) and thus prone to urinary tract and bladder abnormalities. Also, the bad advice to American parents at the time was to strip back the foreskin daily of intact boys, from birth, to clean the glans. In fact, this introduces far more pathogens. The foreskin should be left alone to develop and separate on its own timetable, which could take 5, 10, or more years. No boy should be cut before the age of 16 except for rare medical emergencies. Simply put, German boys do not suffer more UTIs per capita than American or Israeli boys. Doctors should emphasize this. Finally, even if religious groups agree to wait until adolescence to submit sons for circumcision, what sort of pressure will the boys face? Will the German government somehow ensure that the teens are free, and protected, to say "No"?
3. Is it a change - or has nothing happend?
rimona 07/28/2012
Isn't it gratifying - millions of Germans and Austrians are worried sick about the integrity my sons foreskin. Only two generations ago the could not care less about my parents and grandparents lives.
4. Circumcised is a masked racism!
h.navoiseau@gmail.com 08/09/2012
http://sigismond.multiply.com/journal/item/514/Circumcision-a-masked-racism Miriam Pollack showed that circumcision is a matter of sexism: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miriam-pollack/circumcision-identity-gen_b_1132896.html It is not astonnishing that racism also is implied. A priori, circumcision is intended to make supermen, assumed to me morally superior, elected by God. Actually, the myths of circumcision are an odious manipulation aiming at making young women believe that the "non-circumcised" are profligate, without hygiene, bad lovers, and, in African and Muslims ethnic groups ("A non-circumcised is not a man."), coward. All this in order to make sure about the possession of women, endogamy, cohesion and perpetuation of the community. Circumcision is an artificial racism masked behind religion, tradition and folklore. That this identity racism, more insidious than ordinary racism, should give rise to a counter racism is not astonishing; Spinoza, Freud and Rozenberg[1] mentionned it. So, the child has to pay for the confrontation of the various far-rights. [1] Rozenberg J. Biologie de la race et psychopathologie. Archives de Philosophie 64, 2001.
5. Homosexual Activists
lwjr 08/29/2012
Homosexual activist Lloyd Schofield tried to get circumcision banned in San Francisco. After Primal Thereapy revealed the memory of his painful circumcision, American Psychiatrist Ronald Goldman has worked to eliminate circumcision. What does Dr. Stehr have in common with these guys? Religious hatred maybe? Antisemitism maybe? Maybe he is a closet goose stepper?
Show all comments
    Page 1    
Keep track of the news

Stay informed with our free news services:

All news from SPIEGEL International
Twitter | RSS
All news from Germany section
RSS

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2012
All Rights Reserved
Reproduction only allowed with the permission of SPIEGELnet GmbH



  • Print Send
  • Feedback
  • Comment | 10 Comments
From DER SPIEGEL


European Partners
Presseurop

Politiken

Corriere della Sera

Napolitano’s Positive Balance

A&F Guilty of Age Discrimination


Facebook
Twitter