Pulling Back The Curtain On The AAP’s New Pro-Circumcision Stance

For some excellent context and more backstory on the American Academy of Pediatrics’ new recommendations on circumcision, listen to Radio Boston today featuring the very knowledgeable Marvin Wang, co-director of the newborn nurseries at MassGeneral Hospital for Children. (As for his credentials, when asked how many circumcisions he’s done, Dr. Wang said he stopped counting after the first thousand.)

The AAP on Monday updated its 1999 circumcision policy statement (which said the data weren’t sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision) and now asserts that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks and insurers should cover the procedure. However, the influential pediatrician’s group stopped short of recommending universal circumcision for all baby boys and said the ultimate decision should be left to parents.

Wang says that much of the push for the new AAP recommendations came from clinical studies in sub-Saharan Africa that showed male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Wang also put circumcision in a global context, noting that while the rate of hospital circumcision in the U.S. has dropped from about 79 percent two decades ago to about 55 percent today, in the U.K only about 9 percent of men are circumcised.

Of course, religious, cultural, ethical and parental preferences — and a growing “genital autonomy” movement — have all conspired to make circumcision one of the most controversial surgeries around. A thoughtful BBC article earlier this month on the global controversy and ethics of the practice offers this history:

In the U.S., the popularity of circumcision dates back 140 years to Dr Lewis Sayre, one of the founders of the American Medical Association, says David Gollaher author of Circumcision: A History of the World’s Most Controversial Surgery.

Sayre believed that many medical conditions had their root in a dysfunction in the genital area, and that circumcision could be used to treat a startling array of problems, from depression to mental health issues, syphilis and epilepsy.

Circumcision was also promoted as a way of discouraging masturbation, and was regarded as clean and hygienic. It was particularly popular among the higher classes, and was seen as a sign of being well-off enough to afford a birth at hospital rather than at home.

Sayre’s theories were later debunked, but not before being widely picked up in other English-speaking countries, in particular in the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, Gollaher says.

US troops also took male circumcision to South Korea after WWII, where it remains extremely popular.

In the UK, around one-third of men were circumcised just before the introduction of the National Health Service in 1948. But the newly-created NHS ruled that circumcision was not medically necessary, and therefore would not be covered. Rates plummeted after that, says Gollaher.

About 9% of men in the UK are now circumcised according to WHO figures (other estimates are slightly higher).

Meanwhile in the US, circumcision came to be so widespread, “it became part of how people viewed the normal body,” says Gollaher.

The Radio Boston segment airs at 3 today. Listen and then continue the conversation here.

  • Restored Robert

    I must take issue with your statement that male circumcision reduces the chance of catching HIV. Studies done in Africa have shown that male circumcision increases a woman’s chance of contracting HIV by 50%, thus negating the theorized benefit of male circumcision. You have dropped women out of the equation because of your male-oriented world view.

  • Crunchy Frog

    So the UK must have a dramatically higher rate of HIV than the United States. Is this the case?

  • TLCTugger

    Hundreds of thousands of men are enduring a tedious process of non-surgical foreskin restoration to undo just some of the sexual damage of circumcision. Leave your baby intact. He’ll thank you. Foreskin feels REALLY good.

  • Not in denial

    Said the good doctor: parents might consider that circumcision (amputation of the foreskin of the penis) carries some risk of damage to the penis. Apparently, he thinks that the foreskin isn’t part of the penis This is a classic example of emotional denial as a response to loss. We might as well say that cutting off a finger won’t damage the hand, or cutting off the lips won’t damage the face.

    The head of the penis may appear visually to be the most important part in generating sexual pleasure, but there is now careful research supporting the empirical evidence that the
    inner face of the foreskin is the most sexually sensitive part of the penis. The inner face of the foreskin and the head of the penis are meant to
    protect each other and only to be exposed when the penis is erect.

    Sex without a foreskin may satisfy, the way a meal satisfies hunger, but a much of the intense pleasure of the act itself is lost, as with a meal for a person who has lost the sense of taste. The sense of touch is not a single sense, and it differs from one part of the body to another. A man need only try this simple experiment to begin to understand this: in a hot shower, retract the foreskin, or what remains of it. Place the hand so hot water falls on the head of the penis, shielding the foreskin, then reverse. The head of the penis cannot feel heat — the foreskin can and also has unique stretch receptors.

    There are many men who can’t construct denial, and deeply resent having been circumcised in infancy, without their consent. This is not something I would choose, or did choose to place between myself and my own son.

    Sure, circumcision can reduce the chances of catching HIV, but there are other, much more effective and kinder ways. By the time a baby boy born today is old enough to be sexually active and to make his own decisions, prevention of HIV infection is likely in any case to have progressed much further than it already has.