Ending Routine Infant Circumcision
Many are unaware of the origin and reality of male circumcision and are under the impression that it is a painless and necessary procedure. While providing his explanation of a routine infant circumcision, Dr. Paul M. Fleiss reveals the gruesome truth that “…his foreskin must be torn from his glans, literally skinning it alive”(43). Most people do not imagine the brutality that a circumcision intails, nor are they aware of how the procedure originated. Male circumcision began in the US during the Victorian Era, as a preventative measure for masturbation, since the practice desensitizes the penis. As time and society progressed, circumcision proponents provided more medically relevant reasons for this unnecessary …show more content…
A lack of education, coupled with perceived social pressures and the advice of doctors, that stand to gain monetarily, have led to countless circumcisions of baby boys, without medical need.
Routine infant circumcision violates basic human rights, which befall every person. The United Nations themselves have addressed concerns with the procedure, citing that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, (Italics) declares all human beings hold the following rights; the right of “security of the person,” “freedom from inhuman, cruel, or degrading treatment,” and the right of “children to receive special protection” (qtd. by Milos and Macris). Surely the right to security of the person covers the right of a person to preserve their own private parts. Furthermore, while some still argue that infants do not feel the pain of circumcision and that they even sleep through it, this notion has been discounted. In reality, Milos and Macris explain, infants do experience pain, and at an even higher intensity than adults. The reality is that the babies that appear to sleep have submitted to shock and have entered a “semi-comatose state.” Milo and Macris …show more content…
Often family and friends will offer their opinion, citing outdated notions of circumcision being necessary for hygienic or medical reasons. Others see circumcision as a tradition and believe leaving a child intact would indicate exclusion. Some of these parents, who have chosen circumcision in the past, often declare that the son should resemble his father, without considering the ridiculousness of this notion. Allowing for an elective surgery to have a child mirror someone else is physically and emotionally damaging. If the child becomes curious later, a simple explanation of why the parents found it unnecessary to circumcise him would suffice, and provide a teachable moment regarding differences. Bombarded with misinformation and the unwanted pressure of family and friends, it can be difficult for parents to perceive any other option. Parents often assume if their family and friends circumcised their children, surely the rest of the world does the same. This often leads parents to worry that if left intact, their child would become an outcast, ridiculed in the locker room or later in their dating life. However, the majority of infants being born US today will remain intact, as Fleiss shares the current “neonatal circumcision rate in the western US has now fallen to 34.2 percent” (41). Outside of the
Many are unaware of the origin and reality of male circumcision and are under the impression that it is a painless and necessary procedure. While providing his explanation of a routine infant circumcision, Dr. Paul M. Fleiss reveals the gruesome truth that “…his foreskin must be torn from his glans, literally skinning it alive”(43). Most people do not imagine the brutality that a circumcision intails, nor are they aware of how the procedure originated. Male circumcision began in the US during the Victorian Era, as a preventative measure for masturbation, since the practice desensitizes the penis. As time and society progressed, circumcision proponents provided more medically relevant reasons for this unnecessary …show more content…
A lack of education, coupled with perceived social pressures and the advice of doctors, that stand to gain monetarily, have led to countless circumcisions of baby boys, without medical need.
Routine infant circumcision violates basic human rights, which befall every person. The United Nations themselves have addressed concerns with the procedure, citing that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, (Italics) declares all human beings hold the following rights; the right of “security of the person,” “freedom from inhuman, cruel, or degrading treatment,” and the right of “children to receive special protection” (qtd. by Milos and Macris). Surely the right to security of the person covers the right of a person to preserve their own private parts. Furthermore, while some still argue that infants do not feel the pain of circumcision and that they even sleep through it, this notion has been discounted. In reality, Milos and Macris explain, infants do experience pain, and at an even higher intensity than adults. The reality is that the babies that appear to sleep have submitted to shock and have entered a “semi-comatose state.” Milo and Macris …show more content…
Often family and friends will offer their opinion, citing outdated notions of circumcision being necessary for hygienic or medical reasons. Others see circumcision as a tradition and believe leaving a child intact would indicate exclusion. Some of these parents, who have chosen circumcision in the past, often declare that the son should resemble his father, without considering the ridiculousness of this notion. Allowing for an elective surgery to have a child mirror someone else is physically and emotionally damaging. If the child becomes curious later, a simple explanation of why the parents found it unnecessary to circumcise him would suffice, and provide a teachable moment regarding differences. Bombarded with misinformation and the unwanted pressure of family and friends, it can be difficult for parents to perceive any other option. Parents often assume if their family and friends circumcised their children, surely the rest of the world does the same. This often leads parents to worry that if left intact, their child would become an outcast, ridiculed in the locker room or later in their dating life. However, the majority of infants being born US today will remain intact, as Fleiss shares the current “neonatal circumcision rate in the western US has now fallen to 34.2 percent” (41). Outside of the