Why is circumcision not necessary

Mounting research over the past decade has shown that surgical removal of the penis's foreskin has potential health benefits, including decreased risk of urinary tract infections UTIs , penile cancer, and sexually transmitted diseases. Yet there are risks, and the percentage of American families choosing to circumcise has actually decreased in recent years.

In fact, The cost of circumcision may be one reason for the trend, especially because fewer insurance companies are covering it, says Ronald Gray, M. But America's changing demographics also affect the number of boys undergoing the procedure.

Gray says. The American Academy of Pediatrics AAP released a task force report in recognizing the potential medical advantages of circumcision, primarily related to preventing UTIs. But even though the AAP says the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks, they decided that circumcision shouldn't be routinely recommended. They encourage parents to make their own decision based on religious, ethical, and cultural beliefs.

Still held up on the circumcised vs. We broke down some advantages and disadvantages of the procedure. The AAP reports that circumcised boys have a lower chance of getting a potentially serious urinary tract infection during their first year than uncircumcised boys do.

Left untreated, UTIs could introduce bacteria into the bloodstream, possibly leading to kidney damage. It's difficult enough for most moms to picture their tiny newborn saying Mama, much less growing up to have an active sex life, so prevention of STDs is almost too abstract to contemplate. But the results of three randomized clinical trials of adult men in Africa were sufficient for the World Health Organization to endorse male circumcision as an effective way to reduce the risk for HIV acquired through heterosexual sex in regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV rates, and few circumcised men.

Although the research was conducted in Africa, where the risk of AIDS is much higher, American experts believe the findings are relevant for us, too. This foreskin is thought to increase a man's risk of HIV contraction for two reasons. First, the underside of the foreskin contains immune system cells to which HIV cells can easily attach.

Second, the foreskin often suffers small tears during intercourse, allowing the HIV cells to enter the bloodstream. Circumcising your baby can eliminate these two risk factors. And studies have also shown a lower risk of cervical cancer in female partners of circumcised men with a history of multiple sexual partners. HPV is associated with an increased risk of cervical cancer.

Newborn circumcision provides some protection from penile cancer, which only occurs in the foreskin. However, the risk of this cancer is very low in developed countries such as the United States. Circumcised men have no chance of developing foreskin infections. Of course, circumcision also has some downsides. Here are common reasons parents choose not to circumcise their sons. As with any surgery, circumcision comes with some side effects and potential complications, says Dr.

If the circumcision is performed by an experienced physician in a sterile environment, though, the risk of complications should be low. Not Available. After analyzing nearly 40 years of medical research on the practice, the American Academy of Pediatrics AAP has concluded that circumcision does not merit a routine recommendation.

Studies show that the relative risk of developing a urinary tract infection in the first year of life is higher in male infants who are not circumcised. Similarly, uncircumcised men are at higher risk for penile cancer. But, because only 9 to 10 cases per year per 1 million men are diagnosed in the United States, the overall risk of penile cancer is extremely low. The AAP policy also stated that behavior is more important than circumcision status in the risk for contracting a sexually transmitted disease.

Voelker R. Circumcision Isn't Necessary. Coronavirus Resource Center. Our website uses cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to use our site, or clicking "Continue," you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy Continue. Men without a foreskin do appear less likely to get penile cancer. But the disease is uncommon —affecting roughly one in , men in the US each year—and fairly treatable. For a bit of perspective, women are times more likely to get breast cancer.

And while it is true that three randomized trials in Africa found that circumcision more than halved the risk of men getting HIV , it is harder to justify a prophylactic procedure in a place with considerably less HIV risk. In addition, the trials found that circumcision helped men who have sex with infected women.

In America, however, HIV is transmitted primarily via nonsterile syringes or sex between men, and there is no evidence that a foreskin affects either mode. Johnson, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Michigan who has authored several reports on the subject. A closer look at how this religious rite became a national practice reveals some uncomfortable truths about health care in the US.

Apparently, all it takes to popularize an elective preventative surgery with questionable health benefits is a mix of perverse incentives, personal bias, and ignorance.

First, it helps to know a bit of history. Although religious practitioners have been snipping foreskins for thousands of years, the medical practice dates from the late 19 th century—a time when the causes of most diseases were poorly understood.

Mystified by everything from epilepsy to madness, some physicians in both America and England began to suspect that the real trouble was phimosis, a condition when an overly tight foreskin hinders normal function. By removing the foreskin, surgeons believed they could heal all sorts of maladies, from hernias to lunacy. Around the turn of the 20 th century, American epidemiologists were also trying to explain why Jews lived longer than other groups of people.

Jews tended to have lower rates of infectious diseases, such as syphilis and tuberculosis, in part because they had little sexual contact with non-Jews. But some scientists began to suspect their rude health was a product of circumcision.

At the time, surgical interventions of all kinds were becoming more popular, owing to better anesthesia and greater concern over cleanliness, which reduced hospital contagion. Doctors began recommending the operation as part of the neonatal routine. Not only did the procedure prevent phimosis, but it was also believed to make the penis more hygienic and less tempting for wayward masturbating boys a notion that might have been quashed by something known as the scientific method.

In Britain, too, circumcision became a habit of the upper classes, including the royal family. Anyone who could afford to have a child delivered by a doctor rather than a midwife was keen to heed the latest scientific advice.

Because British doctors could not agree that circumcision was necessary, the practice was not covered. At a time when most Brits were financially strapped, few cared to pay for something that suddenly seemed frivolous.