This is obviously a continuation on "Common lies about circumcision". Just when I thought intactivists couldn't come up with more lies, they out do themselves.

1) Doctors who perform circumcision violate the AMA's Code of Ethics:

First of all, I'd like to specify that when I read this, the person who said it claimed that circumcision violates all 7 principles of medical ethics. This shows the total ignorance as there a 9 principles, not 7 (thank you, anippy for pointing that out!)

Having said that, let's review them, one by one:

(Source: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/2512.html)

Principles of medical ethics

1. A physician shall be dedicated to providing competent medical care, with compassion and respect for human dignity and rights.
   
   
2. A physician shall uphold the standards of professionalism, be honest in all professional interactions, and strive to report physicians deficient in character or competence, or engaging in fraud or deception, to appropriate entities.
   
   
3. A physician shall respect the law and also recognize a responsibility to seek changes in those requirements which are contrary to the best interests of the patient.
   
   
4. A physician shall respect the rights of patients, colleagues, and other health professionals, and shall safeguard patient confidences and privacy within the constraints of the law.
   
   
5. A physician shall continue to study, apply, and advance scientific knowledge, maintain a commitment to medical education, make relevant information available to patients, colleagues, and the public, obtain consultation, and use the talents of other health professionals when indicated.
   
   
6. A physician shall, in the provision of appropriate patient care, except in emergencies, be free to choose whom to serve, with whom to associate, and the environment in which to provide medical care.
   
   
7. A physician shall recognize a responsibility to participate in activities contributing to the improvement of the community and the betterment of public health.
   
   
8. A physician shall, while caring for a patient, regard responsibility to the patient as paramount.
   
   
9. A physician shall support access to medical care for all people.

I. Circumcision DOES NOT violate any human rights (see "Common lies about circumcision" for details). Therefore, a doctor performing a circumcision doesn't violate this principle.

II. Obviously, circumcision doesn't violate this principle, which refers to interaction between physicians.

III. Circumcision is legal. Seeing as there isn't enough evidence to consider circumcision harmful, there's no need for a doctor to fight to make the procedure illegal.

IV. Circumcision doesn't violate doctor-patient confidentiality

V. Seeing as recently many studies have come out proving the medical benefits of circumcision (especially in relationship to HIV transmission), a doctor performing one doesn't violate this principle.

VI. How exactly does circumcision violate this particular principle? Three words: In any way.

VII. Circumcision doesn't violate this principle. A doctor performing acircumcision is simply abiding by the patient's/parent's wishes and that's not an issue of community/public health.

VIII. And seeing as all medical organization agree that the "best interests" of the patient in the cases of infant circumcision are to be determined by the parents, a doctor abiding by the wish to circumcise doesn't violate this principle.

IX. Again, circumcision cannot relate to this principle, unless a physician refuses to circumcise.

 2) Circumcision violates the Nuremberg Code of Ethics

Actually, this borders on laughable.

Let's see what the "Nuremberg Code" is, shall we?

http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/nuremberg.html

The Nuremberg Code is a set of research principles, the accepted ethical code for human experimentation. It was created after WWII as a response to the experiments performed by Dr. Mengele.

This should give you an idea of why this argument is stupid to say the least. Male infant circumcision isn't "human research"! The Nuremberg Code doesn't apply to therapeutic/prophylactic procedures. That would be like saying vaccinations violate this code, simply because no consent is obtained from the patient (more on proxy consent later on). It's a pathetic lie. Parents have the legal and ethical responsibility to make choices on behalf of their children when they feel these choices will result in an overall improved quality of life.

3) Considering male circumcision acceptable and FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) wrong is a "double standard".

First of all, what IS "double standard"? Here are some definitions.

4) Adhesions happen in 70% of circumcised boys

This is a very common word twisting argument. The number was taken from this study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=10893633&cmd=showdetailview&indexed=google

Intactivists throw the 70% number without bothering to look at the details of the study. First, the classification of adhesions: "A standard form was used to classify adhesions as grade 0-no adhesions, 1-fine adhesions to the corona, 2-adhesions covering less than 50% of the glans and 3-adhesions covering greater than 50% of the glans."

Sure enough, the researchers say that in the group of children younger than 12 months, the rate of adhesions was 70%. But this includes grade 1 adhesions, which are so mild, most parents wouldn't even realize it's there and it releases on its own. In this group, the rate of adhesions higher than grade 1 was 30%. Finally, this study concludes that adhesions usually resolve on their own and don't require treatment. Hardly a "complication" of circumcision.

Finally, adhesions happen in uncircumcised boys as well, and even with the same frequency.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3946358?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA

"Problems with adhesions were uncommon (1.5%) and equal in both groups."

5) Adult circumcision is easier and safer than neonatal circumcision

Nothing could be farther from reality.

The rate of complications for adults is higher than in children. These include complications from the general anesthesia and the sutures, both not done when circumcision is performed in the newborn period.
AAP reports the rate of complications for infant circumcision as being between 0.1 and 0.6%, these include the two most common ones, bleeding and infection, which are easily corrected.
A study reported the rate of complications from adult circumcision as being 3.8%
http://www.i-base.info/htb/v6/htb6-9/Adult.html

Another one was more specific: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1464-410x.2005.05810.x

"Overall, 17 (3.5%) of the 479 circumcisions were associated with adverse events judged definitely, probably or possibly related to the procedure. The most common adverse events were wound infections (1.3%), bleeding (0.8%), and delayed wound healing or suture line disruption (0.8%)."

As for it being, easier, that's also not true. Circumcision in older children and adults is more complicated process. For example, a traditional bris with an experienced mohel will last about 30 seconds. It's just a cut, there's not much else to do. the procedure in adults takes longer and requires more steps, including sutures.
http://www.upmc.com/HealthManagement/ManagingYourHealth/PersonalHealth/Men/?chunkiid=14134
"In newborns, circumcision takes only a few minutes, but the procedure in older children and adults is a more intricate operation."

http://www.circumcisioncenter.com/faq.htm

"The reason adult circumcisions require suturing is that adults get powerful erections during the REM portion of the sleep cycle, which would disrupt a wound held together only by a crushing of the skin edges. The fact that the wound edges must be sutured in adult circumcision creates one of the largest challenges in the operation, specifically, placing sutures without causing scarring."

6) "Every year boys lose their penises altogether from botched "circumcisions" and infections accidents happen. They are then "sexually reassigned" by transgender surgery and must live their lives as females." (http://www.cirp.org/pages/parents/lostlist/)

There's only ONE documented case- David Reimer. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer)

This shows the intactivist tendency to exaggerate the information to further their cause. This statement went from ONE case reported in history(thousands of years of history, billions of circumcised men) to "every year boys loose their penises...." Lack of perspective is common in intactivism.

7) Circumcision is a "cosmetic" procedure

No. Circumcision is a MEDICAL procedure, with proven HEALTH benefits acknowledged and admitted by every single medical organization in the world. Therefore, it's not just "cosmetic", it's prophylactic.

Why the intactivists' insistence that it's just "cosmetic"? Very simple, really. By saying that parents are doing something "cosmetic" to their children it makes the choice seem shallow, selfish and useless. By even admitting that there's one advantage to being circumcised, they would be giving some validity to circumcision and there's no way a self-respecting intactivist will ever agree to any validity. Therefore, they spread the lie that it's just "cosmetic".

8) Doctors encourage circumcision to sell the foreskins

BS.

The origin of this myth is based on an Oprah show where she showed a face cream "made out of foreskins". This is a gross exaggeration and misinterpretations of the truth. Foreskins can be used to create firbroblasts- a type of cell that works as a culture to grow other types of cells. The face cream contains the hormonal residue resulting from the growth of skin cells from the foreskin fibroblast. The skin cells can be used for burn victims and wound healing. So it's a far cry from the little pieces of chopped foreskins anti-circs will want you to believe.

Anti-circ activists Dr. Paul Tinari claimed that one foreskin is worth $100,000. Lies, lies, lies. An obvious display of ignorance in simple business administration. One foreskin can be used for years, evendecades to produce miles of skin and generate as much as $100,000. However, that doesn't mean that's what it's worth. A machine may produce millions of dollars of a single product, however, that doesn't mean that the machine itself is worth millions. What it generates, is worth millions, the actual worth of that machine is much less.

Finally, as stated above, one foreskin can produce miles of skin for decades, therefore not many are needed. Doctors are certainly not making the big bucks with the couple of bucks they could get from a foreskin. Furthermore, foreskins are usually donated by the parent, meaning that the doctors dont' see a penny from those. Conclusion? Doctors who recommend circumcision either as a therapeutic or prophylactic procedure certainly don't do it get their greedy hands on a buck and a half. It's more likely that many of them have enough experience to realize that there are indeed medical benefits to circumcision.

9) Circumcision goes against AP ("Attachment Parenting")

As every other statement analyzed here, this is a LIE.

According to Attachment Parenting International (API), in their guide for AP leaders, "When issues such as diapering options, homebirth, home schooling, circumcision, vaccinations, specific diets, etc. come up during a discussion, the Leader should state that API takes no stance on these issues, but encourages parents to educate themselves to make informed decisions about them."

http://www.attachmentparenting.org/groups/leaderguidelines.php

The idea that circumcision is incompatible with Attachment Parenting is just a scare tactic. AP is "in" right now, more parents want to feel more involved in their children's lives and love some or all of the ideas associated with AP (baby-wearing, co-sleeping, etc). Attachment parenting is style (or rather a "tool" as Dr. Sears refers to it). That focuses on spending quality time with out children. It has nothing to do with the medical choices we make. Other association strongly associated with AP, like La Leche League (LLL) also don't have a position regarding circumcision. They simply acknowledge it as a parental choice. Even one of the most stronger supporters of AP, Dr. Sears, says about the decisio nto circumcise: "Either way, your little boy will be just fine." (http://www.parenting.com/article/Pregnancy/Care/Ask-Dr.-Sears-The-Circumcision-Decision)

Bottom line? Circumcised boys can be raised in a strict AP home. One has nothing to do with the other.

Sharon

Tags: circumcision, ethics

Add A Comment