Circumcision complications

Drs say complications are rare. NewsMedia says complications are rare. Families say complications are rare. Consent forms say complications are rare. Medical books and websites say complications are rare.
However, rare complications are pretty scary to the parents and children they affect.
Rare is not rare enough when it is your child.
Infant/child Circumcision is unnecessary surgery on a healthy child. The foreskin is not an issue, disease or defect.































Soggy mamas 2.0

My heart is aching for those children. Click on the link and read the screen shots. Many babies are bleeding heavily and getting infections from circumcisions. Mothers are saying how their babies are screaming in pain.
Look at the screen shots. Your heart will break too.








Circumcision gone wrong

💥💥💥graphic! Warning!! Tragic! Warning! Graphic


You cannot unsee these so tread carefully

“These selected photographs were taken in various health institutions in Pondoland during 2012 and 2013. They illustrate the magnitude of the problems faced by health care practitioners during the initiation seasons. After viewing some of the pictures you will understand what is meant by ‘male genital mutilation’.



Another boy injured by infant circumcision and another boy dead because of a pain med overdose given for his circumcision






Newborn male circumcision is the most common surgical procedure performed in the U.S. It’s a common misconception that there are tangible health benefits to male circumcision, but the truth is no medical society in the world recommends it. This invasive procedure carries serious health risks, including infection, hemorrhage, surgical mishap, and death, as well many ethical considerations.

Another baby dead. It’s so sad and horrible. He died from a pain med overdose. The pain meds were given to him to help him during his circumcision. Since, there is no medical reason for circumcision this baby would still be alive if he wasn’t circumcised and given pain meds.


Penile amputation

Excerpt from: Land of Yu-phonia

I did not write this. I love this piece. Click the link below the excerpt to read the entire piece.

Land of Yu-Phonia
by Rosemary Romberg (Wiener)
illustrations by Linda Tagliaferro

I once went to visit a far off land. As soon as I arrived there I noticed that the people all looked just like us except for one thing. Hardly any of them had ears. On the sides of almost all of the people’s heads were small holes surrounded by small scars where ears should be. I imagined that this was probably an unusual breed of people who were born that way.

I had been visiting for a few days when I came upon a group of children. All of them were earless, just like nearly all the inhabitants of Yu-Phonia. Some of these children stared at me with fascinated curiosity. I soon realized why. I have ears. Soon a woman came along and scolded the children. “It’s not nice to stare at people! Now, go away and leave her alone!”


Click below link to read the rest

Another reason newborn infant circumcision is wrong

(Excuse typos- spell checking now. I was using Siri voice to text earlier)

I feel for this family. I really do. What a horrible way to find out your son has a heart condition. However, it didn’t need to be discovered in such a stressful way for the child.
It just goes to show that just because a baby seems healthy and perfect doesn’t mean he is or should be subjected to cosmetic elective surgery.
Poor baby. Poor family.
I hope he continues to do better.


Another heart defect discovered during an infant boy’s circumcision

And another

Sunday, October 16, 2011

Newborn Baby Survives Heart Failure Following Circumcision

“About 15 minutes after they circumcised him, he crashed,” Bond said. “Luckily, we had someone here that knew what was going on and saved his life.”

now before you think “thank goodness they circumcised him so they found out about the heart condition
I want you to think about baby girls.
Girls can have heart conditions too but we don’t try to discover them by electively cutting their genitals.

Circumcision exacerbates these heart conditions. If these babies were not circumcised the body wouldn’t have been under the stress that caused the episode. Yes, they still would have had a heart condition but at least they would not have stressed the heart and baby.

I don’t blame the parents. They are duped by the medical community here in United States. They are feed that circumcision is the right thing to do. They are told its healthier, cleaner and more visually appealing. They aren’t told that having foreskin is normal, natural and appropriate. They aren’t told that the foreskin is part or the penis. They are told it is a flap of skin with no function or purpose.
The foreskin or prepuce protects the glans or penile head keeping it warm, moist and covered.

A review of the scientific literature, however, reveals that the actual eVect of circumcision is the destruction of the clinically demonstrated hygienic and immunological properties of the prepuce and intact penis. (this is a medical site)

In addition to its long term immunological handicap, neonatal circumcision immediately compromises the immune system, making the circumcised male neonate vulnerable to infec- tion, often with tragic consequences.94 95 Even if the circumcisionists’ studies were valid, the real and unavoidable risks of circumcision out- weigh, both quantitatively and ethically, the alleged risks of intact genitalia. Amputation of the prepuce neither inhibits risky sexual behav- iour nor confers immunity after exposure to pathogens. This is demonstrated by the fact that the United States has both the highest number of sexually active circumcised males and the highest rates of genital cancers, STDs, and AIDS of any first world nation.96 97
Mass involuntary circumcision has failed to achieve any of the public health benefits its advocates have claimed for it; but even if it had achieved them all, there can be no scientific or ethical justification for depriving anyone of sovereignty over his own sex organs. Neonatal circumcision violates bodily integrity and imposes on an unconsenting individual a diminished penis for life. In the wake of the Nuremberg trials, it is inappropriate and unethical for doctors to persist in performing or advocating involuntary penile reduction sur- gery on healthy, normal individuals. The totali- tarian concept of involuntary prophylactic sur- gery espoused by circumcision advocates has no place in modern medicine or the civilised world. The key to decreasing the transmission of STDs is education, not amputation.


The prepuce traditionally has been described as a simple fold of skin,1 for which the purpose and function are unknown. This is inaccurate. In reality, the prepuce is a complex structure with multiple anatomical and physiological functions.2

The prepuce is a portion of the entire covering of the penis. It is specialized tissue, composed of skin, mucosa, nerves, blood vessels, and muscle fibers.2 It is anchored by the abdominal wall at the proximal end of the penis and at the proximal end of the glans penis. It is not attached to the shaft of the penis, so, after puberty, it is free to slide back and forth, everting and inverting as it does.3 The sliding/rolling back and forth is called the gliding action.3,4

A frenulum is found on the ventral side of the penis. The frenulum serves to tether a movable structure to a non-movable structure. The penile frenulum returns the foreskin to its normal protective forward position.2 Most men report that the frenulum is highly erogenous tissue.

Peripenic Muscle

In the skin of the penis, there is a sheath of dartos fascia muscle fibers — the peripenic muscle.2,3,5 The muscle fibers keep the prepuce snug against the glans penis.3 The fibers of the peripenic muscle sheath form a whorl at the tip of the prepuce, which act as a sphincter,3 especially in infants and children. The sphincter also serves to prevent inadvertent retraction of the prepuce. The peripenic muscle gives the prepuce great elasticity, allows it to stretch, and helps to return the prepuce to its forward, protective position after retraction.2 The elasticity of the prepuce plays an important role in the erogenous and sexual functions of the prepuce.


The prepuce covers and protects the glans penis and urinary meatus. In most males, the prepuce protects the sterile urinary tract environment in infancy and maintains the moistness — beneficial to good health — of the mucosal surface of the glans penis throughout life.6 Fleiss et al. (1998) have identified immunological functions that help to protect the body from pathogens:7

sphincter action of the preputial orifice functions like a one-way valve, allowing urine to flow out but preventing the entry of infectious contaminants;
apocrine glands of the inner prepuce, which secrete lysozyme, an enzyme that breaks down cell walls of pathogens (and also acts against HIV8);
sub-preputial moisture that lubricates and protects the mucosa of the glans penis; and
high vascularity to bring phagocytes to fight infection.
The epidermis of the prepuce contains Langerhans cells that secrete cytokines,2 hormone-like low-molecular-weight proteins, which regulate the intensity and duration of immune responses.9 de Witte and colleagues (2007) report that the Langerhans cells produce langerin, a substance that provides a barrier to HIV infection.10


The prepuce of the newborn male has extensive innervation. Winkelmann (1956) reported, “[t]he principal form of innervation of human newborn prepuce consists of a deep and superficial network of nerve fibres in the dermis.”11 Moldwin & Valderrama (1989) reported an extensive neuronal network in the prepuce.12








Care for baby boy and child

Caring for your uncircumcised boy is easy: Do NOT pull back the foreskin. Simply wash the outside ONLY

We do not douche girls! You do not need to clean underneath the foreskin on boys. Too much cleaning of genitals for either sex messes with the body’s natural balance causing issues that never need be.

A teen or adult man should pull back the foreskin, rinse and replace.
Just as a woman should wash her labial folds but NOT stick soap up her vaginal canal. (Ouch)

How do I teach my son to wash his penis?
There is no need to clean inside the foreskin in young boys. Just wash the penis the same as any other part of your son’s body and be careful to wash off any soap. When a boy is old enough to bathe himself, he can wash his own penis.
Once your son can retract (pull back) his foreskin, you can talk to him about retracting his foreskin and washing. A simple explanation of “how to” may be helpful:
gently slip your foreskin back
rinse the head of your penis and the inside fold of your foreskin with warm water
slip your foreskin back in place over the head of the penis
Tell him to make sure he rinses off any soap before pulling the foreskin back over the head of the penis.
Back to top ↑
What happens if someone retracts (pulls back) my son’s foreskin too early?
Forcing the foreskin back before the natural separation of the foreskin from the glans has occurred causes tearing of the connective tissue. This is painful and can lead to problems:
tearing the foreskin from the head of the penis leaves an open wound which can lead to infection
the raw surfaces touching each other can heal together and form adhesions (areas that stick together) between the foreskin and the head of the penis leading to permanent problems with retraction (pulling back)
small tears in the opening of the foreskin can heal to form non-elastic (non-stretchable) scar tissue, possibly causing acquired narrowing (phimosis)
the foreskin can get “stuck” behind the head of the penis (paraphimosis)
– See more at:

The case against infant (male or female) circumcision plus Indonesian FC study


There are 2 issues here.

1 Cultural values. Some western cultures value male circumcision, but most do not. All western cultures view female circumcision as a human rights violation.

2 Availability of data. The truth is there is very little reliable or valid data about the health benefits of female circumcision because no-one is interested if there are any benefits.

Given that cultural values determine where research money is put and what research is done, you’ll find lots of western research into male circumcision and virtually none except for 2 isolated studies on female circumcision, which follow. Since the rich west, in particular the USA has a culture of male circumcision, lots of money goes into trying to find or prove health benefits for male circumcision. Whereas female circumcision is unfamiliar, and seen as a human rights violation, therefore no money is placed to determine whether any such health benefits exist. Infact the opposite is true, Stallings (2005) were given research money to find that circumcised women had a greater susceptibility to HIV (Probably to confirm our moral superiority in the west vs the barbaric female circumcisers) But alas the researchers were devaststed when they found that circumcised women had half the rate of HIV infections compared to uncircumcised women.

Again no celebrations, and “NO” demand for RCT’s, WHY = Cultural Values!!!!!!!

So the issue here is that Cultural Values determine whether research money is devoted to finding health benefits for any procedure. Given female circumcision is rightly seen as a human rights violation, no research or money is devoted to investigating the health benefits of circumcision on women. Human Rights correctly trump health benefits when it comes to female circumcision, but certainly not when it comes to male circumcision.

At least this is some PROOF that there are some higher values than Health Benefits from genital surgery, and YES Human Rights are considered more important!!!!!! Unfortunately when it comes to circumcision though, only the human rights of females are considered important. SADLY!!!!!!

Stalling’s research in FGM aka female circumcision

4.Stallings RY, Karugendo E (2005) Female circumcision and HIV infection in Tanzania: For better or for worse? [poster] 3rd International AIDS Society Conference; 2005 24 July–27 July; Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. International AIDS Society. Available:​.htm. Accessed 13 December 2005 .


Study on female circumcision in Indonesia

Fully informed about circumcision?


I don’t think you can be fully informed about circumcision and its “possible, maybe, for some” pros and it’s very real cons.
I do think you can be fully informed about the purpose of the foreskin and its function in infancy and in adulthood.

If you take circumcision of infants or the act of cutting infant/child genitals out of their entrenched cultures and erased the cultural prejudices most people would be horrified at what circumcision entails.

With all that said. I post the question from opinionated moms and my answer. The analogies I use are not a 100% correlation…. But I’m sure you’ll get the point”20130409-082032.jpg20130409-082040.jpg






Babies hurting….. Poor babies






My heart breaks… These moms mean well but they are so mistaken. Poor babies.

The original poster in the previous discussion forum screen shots wrote this:




Just a snip? Really? **graphic pictures***

WARNING: graphic surgical photos below

I feel sick anytime some fan page on Facebook posts things like this but then I repost to help get the message out that this is NOT okay! That this practice is harmful and if no one wants to listen to that then we are inhumane ….. These are our children whom we should be protecting……

Check out this video on YouTube:

These are screen shots from the video above. The baby is screaming throughout the entire thing except for the very end where the baby becomes ominously and freakishly quiet…. In Shock? Shock sleep?
Poor baby.
Supposedly, this child is actually the dr’s son. I’ve heard that before but don’t quote me on it.
The baby was given a pain relief injection at the base of his penis.

Remember when looking at these pictures that this is a helpless baby who is strapped down and awake during this painful surgery
graphic pictures below


















“My son asked about his circumcision”

Yesterday, my ten year old son asked me if we could look through his baby albums. Every baby book has that one picture of the new baby, completely stark-naked, right? (Fingers crossed you just nodded to yourself.) When we got to that one, my son looked at it, then looked a little harder at it. Then he said, “Mom, what happened to my penis? It’s all red!”
I swallowed real hard. (My mom-pride doesn’t go down easy and we all know that I feel I made a mistake when I had my son circumcised.) Took a deep breath and said, “That’s where you were circumcised.”
He asked me what that meant.
I told him, “When you were born, you had a covering on the end of your penis called a foreskin. When you were circumcised, the doctor removed that covering.”
“What?!” He was shocked. “You let them cut off part of my penis off?! Why would you do that!?”
I explained to him that at that time most parents did, because doctors told us that we should. I told him they said it would prevent infection.
My ten year old said, “It would seem like cutting my penis could give me an infection. Plus, look at my face, I looked like I was in pain. It probably still hurt then, Mom.”
I said nothing, just listened.
Then he said, “Also, mom, I bet if that skin was there, it wouldn’t hurt sometimes when it rubbed against my underwear. I bet that was supposed to protect it.”
“You’re probably right,” I said.


This link tell of the “mother above’s” motives and regret about circumcising her son. The comment section is most insightful.

A Father (not related to the above family) explains cultural quirks, customs, traditions and circumcision to his son.
Click the link below for the actual pictures and the full story of the slide show power point presentation.

When my son came home from school today, he packed up for his camping trip and I called him downstairs to my home office area.
The Circumcision Slideshow

After a brief overview of “growing up” and all, I walk him through the following (with pics):
– Dogs with normal ears and cropped ears (the term used when ears are shortened)

– Dogs with normal tails and then docked tails (the term used when tails are removed)

– Baby girl with normal ears and the with pierced ears

– Baby boy with normal skin and one with tattoos (I just stumbled upon this); crazy to think that someone would REALLY do that!

At this point we discuss the pain that would be involved with these modifications and the idea that PERHAPS the dogs/children would not have wanted this to happen, had they been given the choice
– I then show a few pics of tribal body modification (funny neck rings) to show how different cultures do different things; one pic is of a little girl ~7 or so, with some rings on her neck and another pic is of an adult female, with ~15-20 rings on her neck (truly disturbing! And we both wanted to look away!)

We then discussed those ear lobe things and lip plate things – I did this to highlight that different cultures do different things
– I then showed a few pics of out dated medical procedures; first being “barbers” (bloodletting and all as it was thought that “bad blood” made you sick) and another with medicinal leeches (but saying that some people still use leeches since they think it can be helpful)

At this point I give him a GOOD warning that we will now get into some very private stuff
– Pic (drawing) of intact infant penis (with foreskin) and I introduce the term (foreskin; which he had never heard before) and explain that it covers the tip of the penis

I then mention that sometimes, for some reason moms/dads/doctors alter this “natural state”
– I next show him a drawing that shows 3 steps of circ (normal foreskin, skin pulled forward with a line where the cut occurs and then the circed penis, with glans exposed) – again, just drawings, did not think REAL pics were appropriate!

He gets this look of horror on his face! We spend a few minutes talking about this. I had also brought down with me a VERY LONG sock so I could try and explain how the foreskin works (folding over to protect the glans, etc…; I slid the sock onto my hand and rolled it BACK over my fist), then I explained that the glans is like the tongue and is supposed to protected, etc…. I then explained that some cultures do it (this cut thing) and that some doctors think that it is better (I left it at that); but I added that his mother and I did not want to have that done to him because we just did not think it was the right thing to do.
– I then show another picture the shows the cross section of a penis (intact, cut or circumcised) showing how the skin overlaps and protects the glans.

– Finally I show him a graph that shows that circ rates are different as per area, but that (in general) ~50% of boys are and ~50% of are not… I never used the word “uncircumcised” just “natural” or “circumcised” (using UN – IMO – suggests that circumcised is the normal way to be).

We then spend a few minutes chatting it up about how this is a private matter. I explained that sometimes when dads are one way, the boys are that way, but other times, dads can be this way and the boys can be that way. At that point I assumed he was going to ask about myself. I had always been torn as to how I would answer that question if asked by anyone (my son or a doctor). I had decided earlier in the day that IF he did ask me, I would simply say “I have a foreskin” (to say I was “normal” would be a lie and to say “I was cut” would be too painful for me). Anyway, it did not come up… and probably never will.
I then went on to say that no one should ever be teased about this, whether they are one way or the other; that if he were in a room with 10 boys and all were normal but one, that few boys (at this age) would really know why that was and that this one boy should not be teased because he was cut; then, I reversed this and asked him, if he were in a room with 10 boys and he was the only one that was “normal” and they teased him, what would he think?
My Son’s Reaction

The words that came out of his mouth warmed my heart and crystallized my decision 10 years ago (as I had always worried about his reaction to this decision).
“Well, I would know that they were the ones who got hurt.”

We spoke for a few more minutes and then he wanted to LEAVE (he had had enough of this “private” discussion). I followed him upstairs and he goes and hugs his mom….
I asked him why he was hugging her. He said, “for not doing that to me.”
He then came over and hugged me (and did not let go until I made him).
As much as I’m so proud of him for understanding and happy that I had realized ALL of this before my son was born, I’m saddened.


Joseph4gi: religious freedom? Parental choice?


this man is awesome click on the link above

Often, those who defend the forced circumcision of male children appeal to people’s resentment of government intervention. They would like to pretend like being a parent is a carte blanche for parents to do whatever they want with their children, and the government never intervenes.

The blunt fact of the matter is that, if being a parent justified everything one does with their children, there wouldn’t be need for child protective services.




Joseph4gi: blame game

(Side note: I never realized we are the same age. It’s cool)

click the link for the entire article and diagrams

For what other medical treatment or procedure are parents in a position of entitlement to “decide” at whim, without any kind of clinical indication or medical diagnosis? For what other surgery are surgeons slaves to demanding parents? Do parents actually wield so much power?

Aren’t parents usually given the power to choose a method of treatment for their children AFTER a doctor has determined that there is some kind of clinical or medical necessity?

For these reasons and more, I believe Jonathon’s image is a false paradigm. This delusion of “parental choice” is a false paradigm invented by doctors, the trade unions they belong to, and it is perpetuated by the media.

In the special case of circumcision, however, physicians get away with profiting from this non-medical procedure on healthy, non-consenting individuals, by pawning off their responsibility on parents. Doctors push the paradigm of “the great parental decision” forward, and the media helps perpetuate it.

In their latest statement, the American Academy of Pediatrics came very close to, but stopped short of recommending infant circumcision for all infants (contrary to popular belief). Despite touting over and over again that “the benefits out weigh the risks,” they must still admit that the “benefits are not enough to recommend the procedure,” concluding that “the final decision should be made by parents.” (This was their exact position in their last statement in 1999.)

The result is a spineless, non-committal statement that sounds like an endorsement, if not outright recommendation, but is actually nothing more than self-absolution of professional responsibility, and the undue placement of an onus on parents.

One man’s blog: Recovery from a botched infant circumcision

You should really read his story from begining to end.


A radio show talking about circumcision–and-its-impact-on-sex


below is a link to pictures of a circumcision…. Look at it and realize this torture is happening to a child Routine circumcision: the opposing view

The link below is from a site i usually post as non-biased but leaning towards pro-circ. I only put the conclusions but the circumcision complication rates were interesting to note. Click the link below to read the full article.

Routine circumcision: the opposing view

Andrew E MacNeily, MD, FRCSC, FAAP


Newborn circumcision remains an area of controversy. Social, cultural, aesthetic and religious pressures form the most common reasons for non-therapeutic circumcision. Although penile cancer and UTIs are reduced compared with uncircumcised males, the incidence of such illness is so low that circumcision cannot be justified as prophylaxis. The role of the foreskin in HIV transmission in developed countries is unclear, and safe sexual practice remains the cornerstone of prevention. There remains a lack of knowledge regarding what constitutes the normal foreskin both among parents and among primary care providers. This lack of knowledge results in a burden of costs to our health care system in the form of unnecessary urological referrals, expansion of wait times and circumcisions. Routine circumcision of all infants is not justified from a health or cost-benefit perspective.
Go to:





below is a link to pictures of a circumcision…. Look at it and realize this torture is happening to a child

Mogen clamp

Adding 4/14/2013

Another baby hemorrhaging… Lucky to be alive and yet supposedly the risks are worth it? How is almost dying worth it? How is almost dying because of a medically unnecessary surgery being performed on a healthy infant worth it?



Ethics and science shouldn’t be mutually exclusive.

Please click on the provided link to read the whole article on….

Very nice:

I would argue that being so involved in science, making your living off of interpreting studies, would make you less objective because you have chosen to focus on science as a way of knowing, which normalizes and privileges that epistemology over all else. My major disagreement is that you seem to be treating the whole topic of routine infant circumcision as an intellectual exercise, which is immoral, because we are talking about real people who are being harmed. I know that the point of your blog is that you think there are objective scientific judgments to be made on parenting hot topics, but that, in itself, is a choice to judge science as a better arbiter of parenting practices than emotions or ethics. You laid out all the science you liked, claimed the other studies were useless, drew a conclusion, then claimed that your conclusion on your chosen science was more valid because you have more authority on the topic. Logical flaws abounded and I could not resist pointing them out.

Science is not a valid way to answer the question of whether babies should be circumcised for non-therapeutic reasons. Apparently you also think it is not ethical, but this only came out after you got attacked for awhile in the comments, and then you wondered why so many people were so angry. As a scientist, you should be aware of all of the times science failed us, and how science cannot exist without ethics, nor can it ever be severed from its cultural underlay.

Science is useful and can answer a lot of questions with great precision and accuracy, but it is not the only epistemology available to us, and not the best, either. It always must be accompanied by ethical concern and a holistic understanding of the phenomenology of the issue being studied.

damn straight!!!! Preach it! See, written way better than I could!





Very informative Blog on circumcision.

Much has already been said on the flaws in the AAP’s revised policy statement on non-therapeutic male child circumcision. (Here’s an additional plug for the exceptional rebuttal by Brian D. Earp.) I want to comment directly on its recommendations and the ethical issues addressed – or unaddressed – in the technical report. First, from page 757:

AAP are idiots…

….Poor babies

So supposedly the AAP will release a statement saying that while they don’t recommend routine circumcision for all infant makes, they state that the medical benefits outweigh the medical risks….

(um, I’m sorry, death or deformity is not a risk I’m willing my son to take for the sake of unnecessary cosmetic surgery. Moreover, both intact and circumcised males can get UTIs, and both need to practice daily hygiene and safe sex. Wrap it up! No need to cut babies.
Anyone who has an intact husband and/or son knows that 1/2 of these benefits are bogus. They say circumcision prevents, prevents, prevents… Prevents means 100%… Circumcision only has the possibility of reducing not preventing penile problems. Most intact men will never have a problem. There is no need to cut babies on the possibility of a problem. Circumcised men have problems as well(skin bridges, scars, painful erections, meatal stenosis, dry glans, hairy shaft- these are circ complications)
Point being- babies don’t have sex. Babies are not retractable so there is no penile hygiene to worry about. Babies are human beings. Babies grow into adults. Let the adult make the decision to modify their body or not based on current medical thinking)

The AAP’s treatment of the issue is in sharp contrast to that of other countries, such as the Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG), which roundly condems the practice. In May, a court in Cologne, Germany, ruled that circumcision of a healthy boy was bodily harm under the Basic Law.

One member of the task force on male circumcision, Dr Douglas Diekema, has hinted that the policy would lean further towards recommending genital cutting of healthy babies in the USA, in the light of studies of male volunteers for the adult operation in high-HIV-prevalance areas of Africa that seemed to show a reduction in their – but not women’s – acquistion of HIV by heterosexual intercourse. (To the contrary, one study suggested male circumcision might increasethe risk to women. USAID surveys of HIV rates show higher rates among circumcised than non-circumcised men, in a majority of the countries for which it has figures.)

Dr Diekema was the chair of the AAP’s Bioethics Committee in 2010 when it issued a policy that would allow a token, ritual nick to girls’ genitals “much less extensive than neonatal male genital cutting”. An outcry by anti-FGC organisations, led by Intact America, caused the policy to be “retired” within a month.

Speaking in more general terms, Dr Diekema has said under oath “I fully agree with the Bioethics Committee of the American Academy of Pediatrics when they state:

“…[P]roviders have legal and ethical duties to their child patients to render competent medical care based on what the patient needs, not what someone else expresses. … The pediatrician’s responsibilities to his or her patient exist independent of parental desires or proxy consent.”

– but he has never applied this to male infant circumcision.







“Ethical and human rights concerns have been raised regarding elective infant male circumcision because it is recognized that the foreskin has a functional role, the operation is non-therapeutic and the infant is unable to consent.

The Dutch:

. Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors conflicts with the child’s right to autonomy and physical integrity


�The BMA does not believe that parental preference alone constitutes sufficient grounds for performing a surgical procedure on a child unable to express his own view


�Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed.�