FGM/MGM: Similar Attitudes & Misconceptions

The male (left) and female (right) clitoris/penis and prepuce are analogous and homologous organs throughout life. During the first trimester, they are also visually the same. Both are natural, normal, purposeful body organs that equally contribute to the health, functioning, and well-being of their owner.

The following chart highlights similarities in attitudes and misconceptions about MGM (male genital mutilation) in the United States and FGM (female genital mutilation) in Africa.


Comparison by Hanny Lightfoot-Klein, author of Secret Wounds

Clitoridectomy and Infibulation in Africa	Infant Male Circumcision in the United States
"She loses only a little piece of the clitoris, just the part that protrudes. The girl does not miss it. She can still feel, after all. There is hardly any pain. Women's pain thresholds are so much higher than men's."	"It's only a little piece of skin. The baby does not feel any pain because his nervous system is not developed yet."
"The parts that are cut away are disgusting and hideous to look at. It is done for the beauty of the suture."	"An intact penis is a real turn-off. It's disgusting. It looks like the penis of an animal."
"Female circumcision protects the health of a woman. Infibulation prevents the uterus from falling out [uterine prolapse]. It keeps her smelling so sweet that her husband will be pleased. If it is not done, she will stink and get worms in her vagina."	"An intact penis causes urinary infections and penile cancer. It generates smegma and smegma stinks. A circumcised penis is more hygienic and oral sex with an intact penis is disgusting to women."
"An intact vulva is unclean and only the lowest prostitute would leave her daughter intact. No man would dream of marrying an unclean woman. He would be laughed at by everyone."	"An intact penis is dirty and only the lowest class of people with no concept of hygiene leave their boys intact."
"Leaving a girl intact endangers both her husband and her baby. If the baby's head touches the uncut clitoris during birth, the baby will be born hydrocephalic [excess cranial fluid]. The milk of the mother will become poisonous. If a man's penis touches a woman's clitoris he will become impotent."	"Men have an obligation to their wives to give up their foreskin. An intact penis will cause cervical cancer in women. It spreads disease."
"A circumcised woman is sexually more pleasing to her husband. The tighter she is sewn, the more pleasure he has."	"Circumcised men make better lovers because they have more staying power than intact men."
"All the women in the world are circumcised. It is something that must be done. If there is pain, then that is part of a woman's lot in life."	"Men in the 'civilized' world are circumcised."
"Doctors do it, so it must be a good thing."	"Doctors do it, so it must be a good thing."
Sudanese grandmother: "In some countries they only cut out the clitoris, but here we do it properly. We scrape our girls clean. If it is properly done, nothing is left, other than a scar. Everything has to be cut away."	My own father, a physician, speaking of ritual circumcision inflicted upon my son: "It is a good thing that I was here to preside. He had quite a long foreskin. I made sure that we gave him a good tight circumcision."
35 year old Sudanese woman: "Yes, I have suffered from chronic pelvic infections and terrible pain for years now. You say that all if this is the result of my circumcision? But I was circumcised over 30 years ago! How can something that was done for me when I was four years old have anything to do with my health now?"	35 years old American male: "I have lost nearly all interest in sex. You might say that I'm becoming impotent. I don't seem to have much sensation in my penis anymore, and it is becoming more and more difficult for me to reach orgasm. You say that this is the result of my circumcision? That doesn't make any sense. I was circumcised 35 years ago, when I was a little boy. How can that affect me in any way now?"

Circumcision: Already Illegal?

By Jennifer Coias © 2010


I often come across parents who do not agree that circumcision should be illegal. They usually argue by saying it is a parental decision like vaccination, homebirth, etc. Here is my response:

Vaccines cannot be compared to a cosmetic surgery that removes healthy organs for non-therapeutic purposes. This is like comparing apples to oranges. Let's stick with comparing other actions that are considered bodily modifications of non-consenting minors when contemplating the legality of circumcision.

Piercing is a body modification, but because it does not alter the function of a body part, nor does it remove any tissue or organs, it is generally accepted within reason (earlobes, for example).

Tattooing is much more extreme in that it is permanent, yet it still does not remove any organ or alter the functions of any healthy body parts. However, most people agree that parents should not be able to tattoo their infants or children. In fact, a Florida family was recently charged with cruelty to children for tattooing their 6 kids.

And then you have circumcision - a genital surgery which does alter the function of the primary sex organ, does remove otherwise healthy tissue and the prepuce organ, does alter appearance forever more and is permanent. If you aren't allowed to tattoo your children, why on earth would you be legally able to remove healthy, functioning tissue from your son's genitals?

Besides being creepy that a parent would have the say over the cutting of their child's genitals, circumcision of children violates all our current laws concerning alterations of a child's body. In our country we have laws in place that are designed to protect the bodies of children. These laws state that no parent can request to alter their child's body unless: A) it is medically indicated and B) a more conservative treatment has failed to correct the medical problem that exists. These laws are in place because bodily integrity (an intact body) is considered a basic human right in our society.

Human rights are granted to every single person regardless of gender, age, nationality, culture or religion. Furthermore, doctors caring for patients who are under the age of 18 are not legally permitted to perform any surgery on a minor unless there is clear medical need and more conservative treatment has failed . This is basic medical ethics, and yet somehow circumcision has become the exception to this well established legality. A parent cannot ask a doctor to remove a fingernail, an earlobe, a toe, or any other part of the body. A parent cannot remove the clitoral hood of their daughter (which is the female foreskin - the prepuce). A parent cannot even pin prick their daughter's genitals without it being a federal crime punishable under the FGM Bill. Basically, every square inch of a child's body is protected by bodily integrity laws and medical ethics laws -- every square inch, that is, aside from the infant male foreskin. How can this be?

Now one can try to argue that circumcision is in some way a form of preventative medicine, however, in doing so, we will run into trouble arguing this because we are no longer living in a day and age where amputation is considered preventative medicine. In modern medicine, amputation is always a LAST resort when conservative methods have failed. The only reasons amputation would be considered a first choice would be in the case of gangrene, malignancy, frostbite, or serious trauma to that body organ.

In addition, when you amputate any part of the body you remove the off-chance that something can go wrong with that part. After all, it no longer exists! That isn't rocket science. The male foreskin, however, is no more pathological than any other part of the body. In fact, the intact female genitals are more likely to cause its owner problems than any intact man will ever experience on behalf of his foreskin. 65% of American women will have a bacterial vaginal infection in their lifetime, 40% of women will have yeast infection in their lifetime, and girls are six times more likely to suffer from a urinary tract infection (easily treated with antibiotics). Each of these health concerns for girls and women far out number any problems a boy or man may have with his foreskin at any point in life, yet somehow we find a way to treat women without amputating genital organs. In the unlikely event that a man has a foreskin problem, he can enjoy the same conservative methods of treatment that are allotted to women. Studies conducted in countries that do not routinely circumcise have found that less than 1 in 6,000 men will ever need circumcision surgery for medical reasons.

We must attend to the fact that no medical organization in the entire world recommends routine infant circumcision. Each and every organization has made a statement that the potential benefits do not outweigh the risks and guaranteed negative consequences. This alone is proof to the absurdness of using circumcision as preventative medicine.


The final, last ditch effort to arguing for circumcision would be the very controversial study that was performed in Africa. Even if you believe this study, which is loaded with methodological errors, you'd only have a reduction in female-to-male sexual transmission of HIV. In our country 88% of HIV is transmitted through male-to-male intercourse and/or IV drug use. Circumcision has proven no benefit for male-to-female transmission, male-to-male transmission, or IV drug use.

In reviewing The Nuts and Bolts of HIV in the USA and Why Circumcision Won't Protect Men you will see that a heterosexual American man who engages in moderately risky sexual activity will have a less than .03% chance of catching HIV over a 60 year period...not exactly a reason to routinely circumcise all infant boys. Aside from this statistic, we can all agree that infants and young boys don't engage in sexual activity until they reach an age where they can make an informed decision as to whether or not they want to amputate their precious foreskins.

All this, and I still haven't even mentioned that a 5-year review of this so-called 'study' in Uganda reported that the circumcised group and their female partners began to acquire HIV at alarmingly higher rates. Rates so high, in fact, that the study ended early due to ethical concerns. These results (circumcision increasing HIV transmission in Africa) were not formally published because the study ended early. There are several studies in the last decade that have reported no reduction in sexually transmitted infections or HIV among circumcised males. Several studies report higher rates among circumcised men. Our nation's track record should be testimony to an already failed circumcision experiment. We are, after all, the only developed nation in the world who routinely circumcises boys and we also happen to have thee highest STD and HIV rates of any other developed nation.

Last but certainly not least, there was a recent study of circumcised females which reported a 50% reduction in HIV among circumcised women. Shall we also suggest that women be circumcised based on the findings of this study? This is all moot point, however, because we do have effective protective methods against HIV and all sexually transmitted infections: condoms. Condoms are over 98% effective and do not involve any genital reduction surgery on non-consenting persons.

So there you have it.

Circumcision violates our human rights laws, which are designed to protect the bodies of minor children.

Circumcision violates our medical ethics laws that state a doctor can only perform procedures on a minor when there is clear medical need and a more conservative treatment has failed.

Circumcision is not good preventative medicine because amputation is always a last resort to conservative treatments.

Circumcision on babies cannot be considered a good prophylactic measure against sexually transmitted infections.

And last but not least, because baby girls are protected from even the most minor genital surgery (even a pin prick), circumcision is a violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution of the United States which states that, "all persons shall receive equal protection under the law" regardless of sex.

Case closed, circumcision is technically already illegal. The question is not then whether or not it is legal to circumcise a child - we have already established that the male foreskin and its removal exists outside our legal and medical norms. The real question is, when will our government recognize that they have failed to apply the law accordingly and, in doing so, they have failed to protect our most innocent and most fragile of citizens?



For more on the legality of MGM in the United States, visit the MGM Bill homepage, stay up to date on research at the Circumcision Public Health Policy site, and join with physicians from around the world who stand up for human rights and ethical legal and medical practices at Doctors Opposing Circumcision. Hear Dr. Dean Edell discuss the latest research in Africa on circumcision and HIV. Explore more of the history behind FGM (female circumcision) in the United States.


Additional articles by Jennifer Coias:

The Phony Phimosis Diagnosis

The Nuts & Bolts of HIV in the USA and why Circumcision Won't Protect Men

Basic Care of an Intact Child

Painful Urination During Prepuce Separation

Who Are you Calling an Intactivist?

Turn Your Crib into a Co-Sleeper

Article Asks "Are Infant Foreskins the New Botox?"

The anonymous author who posted on cityfile (below) gets one point right -- parents today ARE keeping their sons intact, and, as a result, there are less infant foreskins to use in face cream. However, this is not a 'problem that is relevant to everyone'... A baby's penis belongs on his body - not on our faces. 

For more information about the sale of foreskins and their use in cosmetics and skin grafting, also see:

The Foreskins in Oprah's Face Cream

Stealing Foreskins: The Science of Skin Grafting

Penis Facials

Video on Foreskin Facecream

Unless you have young sons, you might not be aware that circumcision is on a downward trend, and that the anti-circumcision lobby is gaining ground. Not your problem? Well, it turns out that this issue is suddenly of relevance to everyone: Foreskins are the latest tool in the fight against aging, and we're going to need a constant fresh supply!

Developed by a biomedical company, "Vavelta" is a clear liquid, made from millions of microscopic new skin cells cultured from babies' foreskins, which is then injected into the skin to treat wrinkles, sun damage, and scars.

The clinical trials, which took place in London using "material" from a US hospital, have just been completed and reportedly show the technique to be "astonishingly effective." So there's a minor "ick" factor. But what's that compared to injecting your face with deadly poison or cow skin, or indeed to (gulp) actually aging?

Would you undergo anti-ageing treatment using cells from circumcised newborn babies? [Daily Mail Question]

In the event that the Daily Mail article is removed from their site, here it is in its entirety:

*Names have been changed and locations removed for the privacy of individuals

For more than 30 years, Maddy Johnson, 44, mother of three, hated her pitted and acne-scarred cheeks. "I never saw myself in the mirror," she says. "I just saw my scars." The effect on her confidence was catastrophic. "I used to hide behind my hair. I felt unattractive all the time."

This summer, Maddy, a surveyor, agreed to have her face injected with millions of microscopic new skin cells, cultured from babies' foreskins, as part of a trial into a new cosmetic procedure.

New skin treatment Vavelta injects patients' faces with cells cultured from the foreskins of newborn babies, which it says helps to permanently rejuvenate skin.

This treatment, called Vavelta, has been developed by the British biomedical company Intercytex. What is radical about it is that it seems to rejuvenate and restructure aging and damaged skin from the inside by repopulating the lower layers of the skin with millions of healthy young skin cells. Unlike fillers and Botox, it is claimed to be permanent.

Vavelta is a clear liquid in which tiny skin cells, called fibroblasts, are suspended. These are derived from baby foreskins donated by mothers at a hospital in the U.S. after routine circumcision.

The mothers and babies are screened before the foreskins, which would otherwise be discarded, are used. Once in Britain, they are divided into pieces less than a centimetre square and treated with enzymes to release the fibroblasts. These are grown in sterile conditions in labs.

The process is monitored by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the U.S. and by Britain's Human Tissue Authority.

Fibroblast cells are responsible for the repair and maintenance of youthful skin, pumping out collagen to create a line-free complexion. But as we age, they become dormant and many die. In trials, Vavelta appears to make skin smoother, thicker, more resilient and younger.

The treatment is not instant as the cells need time to settle into the dermis before they start to reproduce and stimulate new collagen, so results can take a month or more to register.

Vavelta is so new that results of the final clinical trials - on burns scars - aren't completed. But so far, it seems to work for most people and, in some cases, it is astonishingly effective.

Certainly Maddy Johnson is thrilled. "It has made a huge difference to me. I jumped at the chance to take part in the trial. I had the first treatment in May and the second in August. At first I was cynical, especially as there was no immediate effect. But over two months there was a softening as the coarse indentations smoothed out. I'd rated the improvement at 80 per cent. I feel wonderful. After years of embarrassment, I feel free. I'm even dating again and I never thought that would happen."

Sarah Myer, 48, who works in PR, volunteered for a medical trial of the treatment to see if it could reverse the aging process. "I had my nose-to-mouth lines treated a year ago. I had two treatments six weeks apart and each took five minutes. The injections were done with a fine needle and were almost painless. I was hugely skeptical as I walked out looking exactly the same. But gradually I started to notice I looked more lifted. When I compare my before and after photos, I can see a difference. I like the fact that the treatment is long-lasting. The drawbacks are that it is expensive and takes a while for any effect to show."

A vial of Vavelta costs £750, and to treat two cheeks for acne scarring would need two. By contrast, Botox costs from £250 and fillers are from £300.

However, Vavelta's advocates say it appears to be able to treat conditions for which there is no other effective solution and, unlike laser treatment, there is no need for recovery time.

"I think Vavelta will be particularly useful for hollows and fine lines under the eyes and especially purse-string lines around the mouth, which are hard to treat," says Dr Nick Lowe of the Cranley Clinic in London. "Fillers are not effective in these areas, while lasers can be painful and cause redness or peeling."

Asked to rate the improvements out of ten, the female volunteers gave it a score of 7.8. Professor Lowe rated it at 7.6, and found wrinkles were improved in 75 per cent of cases. "Patients who have sun damaged skin, burns or scars seem to respond best," says Dr Robin Stones, medical director of the Court House Clinics. "Burns also appear to respond well, and I've had a fantastic result on a raised, red, painful caesarean scar, which just melted away in less than three weeks. It doesn't work on everyone or on every type of acne scar. But because scarring causes psychological damage, when the treatment works, we are talking about a life-changing effect."

Is Vavelta safe? It seems so. Research has shown the cells are not rejected by the body. Transient redness and itching are the only reported side effects.

So while Vavelta is not instant and certainly not cheap, it can transform some women's skin. Maddy Johnson is totally convinced. "It has transformed my life," she says.

Related News: 

Vavelta may be the new wave anti-aging treatment (New York Times): https://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/new-anti-ageing-treatment-foreskin-article-1.337113

A cut above the rest? Wrinkle treatment uses babies foreskin (Scientific American): https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-cut-above-the-rest-wrin/

Foreskin for clear skin? (Popular Science): https://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2008-11/foreskin-clear-skin/

*******

Saving Our Sons Community

Intact: Healthy, Happy, Whole

Sandra Bullock Cuts Her Newly Adopted Son

A peaceful parenting reader passed along this Jezebel article today and we were hoping for a very different take than the news highlighted in the May special edition of People magazine.

Sandra Bullock is pictured on the front page with her newly adopted (from New Orleans) son, Louis, fully clad in an African-style necklace made by Sunny (her stepdaughter). According to Bullock, the necklace "represents all the kids." She continues [emphasis mine]:

I want him to know no limits on where he can go. I want him to experience all culture, nationalities, countries and people like I did. I want his mind to be open and free. We were raised that we are all the same. No one greater, smarter, more powerful. We are all equal. I would love for Louis to know that . He has a big, beautiful, diverse family. As long as he knows he is loved and protected and given the opportunity to touch and see everything, then I will have done my job as a momma.

Bullock seems hard pressed to stress her inclusiveness of all people, all culture, all nations, all religions -- especially after the recent media hoopla surrounding her husband, Jesse James, and his 'Nazi' photo from US Weekly that was splashed across pop culture headlines.

Bullock, who is not Jewish, explains to People:

The photo shocked me and made me sad. This is not the man I married. This was stupid, this was ignorant. Racism, antisemitism, sexism, homophobia, anything 'Nazi,' and a boatload of other things, have no place in my life. And the man I married felt the same. This is something I hope Jesse will address one day, but it is not the world I live in, or have ever lived in, and have any tolerance for.

So how does this tie into peaceful parenting and the fact that genital autonomy advocates have just lost any ounce of admiration ever held for Sandra Bullock? She continues to describe what was done to her adopted son [emphasis mine]:

A friend of ours helped arrange for a bris [Jewish genital cutting ceremony] at our house, because we couldn't go [to a hospital for surgery]. The mohel came to us. You have never seen adults more panicked about what was about to happen to their son, but the celebration and the amount of love we felt and the pride in the little man whom we love so, so much became the greatest moment I have ever had in my life.

Really?!

The GREATEST moment you have ever had in your entire life was the moment your new son had a 1/3 his penis painfully amputated? Violating HIS basic human right to bodily integrity? Forever impacting HIS development and sexuality? And not because you were naively misguided by some societal myth, but because you needed to dispel those nasty 'Nazi' rumors flying around overhead? Hmmm...

Maybe there is a reason his birth mother protected him from such things.

Note: Saving Our Sons is 100% fully and completely in support of the adoption of babies who do not have mothers to care for them, and to loving, protective parents who will provide for and nurture them. We are not in support of these parents then cutting their new children. 

Update: It appears Facebook users have started a page in response to this Hollywood event.

For further information on the prepuce organ and circumcision, see resources at: Are You Fully Informed?

2018 Update

Sandra Bullock jokes about using the foreskin of "Korean babies" on her face in what she calls a "penis facial." Starts at Minute 3:45 below: 

An American Baby Intactivist in Scotland

By Laura D.  © 2010
[last name withheld at author's request]

I, like most people around the globe, had no idea that Americans cut their baby boys on this grand scale. I thought it was solely done on occasion for religious reasons or the rare medical need. I remember hearing a couple of things on television (such as on Friends) and wondering about the practice of genital cutting in the U.S., but I didn't have anyone to ask, so put it to the back of my mind.

About 3 and a half years ago I was talking online to a young man from Arkansas. He was only 19 years old and had just realized he was circumcised and told me about what he'd discovered. I asked why he would be circumcised, and he didn't know, so he asked his mother. She told him it prevented STDs and was cleaner and prevented infections. As soon as I heard this, I knew it was obviously nonsense. I had never met anyone in my life who was circumcised and I didn't know any man, anywhere, who had ever had an infection. I also knew that the U.S. had higher rates of STDs than any of the intact nations in the world.

I was pregnant at this time as well. And because of my severe health problems, I had a late term scan to make sure my baby was doing okay. At that time I found out my baby was a boy.

So with this new information about circumcision in the U.S., and I knowing I was having a son, I decided to do some research.

I was already very aware about the ins and outs of female circumcision and had previously campaigned against FGM (female genital mutilation).

I started reading the myths passed around in the United States and I knew it was just silly -- none of it was true. Penises aren't dirty or smelly. Foreskins aren't tight. They don't get in the way during sex. Infections are very rare. I've been with my partner for 14 years now, and never once has any of this applied to him. In addition, I'd never heard of anyone in my lifetime mention 'bad things' happening to them or their intact partners.

I read about the numbers involved in genital cutting the United States and I was pretty taken aback and felt very uneasy about it.

And then I researched the actual practice of circumcision surgeries - how the prepuce is amputated, and I forced myself to watch videos of this practice. I was genuinely horrified. There is simply no other word for it. It was sheer horror. I experienced nightmare after nightmare. I woke up crying. I thought about it constantly. I thought about my son growing warm and safe in my belly and I wanted to hurt anyone who dared try to touch or harm my son like that. I was angry and freaked out and I desperately wanted to do something. I HAD to do something. I wanted to scream from rooftops in America and tell people this was nonsense! I wanted to beg people not to do such things to their newborn sons.

After doing some more research, I found several online groups and began posting prolifically, answering every question, arguing (I'm one hell of a debater), searching out pro-cutting/circumfetish groups and blanketing them with accurate information. I added friends who were intactivists from the groups and started organizing them and encouraging others to research this subject fully.

I compiled a large database of research, articles, facts and figures, and pictures. I would message my intactivist friends whenever I saw a pro-cutting article, blog, group, or comment and we would make sure truths were told.

We worked really hard for about 18 months until I got sick. I still messaged my friends and handed out articles, etc., when they needed it. I linked people from various charities and helped NORM-UK do some work. But I had to stop the constant debating because I was too ill to stay online, let alone have the energy to fight this horrific battle.

In fact, I nearly died last year, and it was a physical and emotional struggle to just stay here, let alone do anything constructive with my time. Being fed through a nose tube, I dropped to waif weight, and had repeat surgeries. I'm still extremely weak and very ill. I need more surgery, and I'm not strong enough to sit up. I shake constantly. I desperately want to keep fighting for this cause and I still answer messages from people looking for help -- usually from parents and men who have been cut. I put them in touch with the right people, give them information to read, and talk them through what they're thinking and doing. But the arguing I can't do anymore. I get upset and focus on it too much - end up losing sleeping and getting sicker and weaker. Right now I must concentrate on getting well, while making attempts at doing what I can for infants in the U.S., because this subject hurts me deeply.

I genuinely wish I could do more. And I wish everyone reading this could have a better idea of who I really am. Right now I may be a rather useless lump... But inside, I am as activist as I've ever been!

Hopefully you'll see me back in the game one day very soon.

~~~~

For further information, see resources at Are You Fully Informed?
Get involved at The Intact Network

Circumcision: A Male RN's Perspective

By Chris of The Man-Nurse Diaries

Before having my first son, we were presented with the decision (at least in the United States) of whether or not to circumcise him. While we were initially assuming we would, we did some research. We began finding that not only is male infant circumcision almost never medically necessary, but it's not even performed in most of the developed world. The majority of European countries never began circumcising in the first place. The United Kingdom doesn't pay for it; it's an out-of-pocket expense. The United States is the only secular country that routinely circumcises males.

I can personally attest to this now, because I worked for six years as a certified nurse aide prior to becoming an RN. I worked with countless intact men, mostly European immigrants in Chicago: Poles, Serbs, Lithuanians, etc. Younger men and older men. Men who could walk to the bathroom, and men who constantly soiled themselves. Men who had indwelling Foley catheters and men who didn't. Men who were impeccably clean, and men who were homeless. Men who were healthy, and men who were critically ill and severely immunocompromised.

Never once did I encounter an adult male patient who had ever had a medical problem due to being intact.

Not only that, but during the cleaning of patients, I only ever worked with two nurses (that I remember) who would actually go through the rigmarole of retracting the foreskin, cleaning the glans, and replacing the foreskin. That's what we were taught in CNA and nursing school, but almost everyone would leave it alone. I suspect most people who work with a high intact population do the same. If it never presents a problem, it's always clean, and you're just causing discomfort, why do it?

In fact, female patients are far more prone to fungal and bacterial genitourinary infections than male patients are—yeast infections, urinary tract infections, abscesses, etc. And we know that this is largely due not only to their shorter urethra, but also to their labial folds—their "excess" skin. Why don't we cut that off? Why isn't female circumcision considered for infection prophylaxis? That's how we think of male circumcision. Except the reality is that, as with male patients, the 'benefit' of circumcision would be negligible, because the number of serious complications with women staying 'uncircumcised' is extremely minor.

So as it stands, we have two sons who are intact. One is almost five years old and the other is nearly three. They've never had a problem. During diapering they required less care and bother than our daughters did. And now, during bathing, we don't retract or mess with their prepuce (foreskin).

They're clean.

They're fine.

I suspect that someday they'll be like my patients were: ninety years old and intact—with no regrets.



Chris is the father of four (intact) children, 2 daughters, 2 sons. His career as an RN has taken him to the intensive care unit at one of the largest urban trauma centers in the Midwest (United States). More of his chronicles as an RN can be read at The Man-Nurse Diaries.

3rd Year Medical Student Describes 1st Circumcision Surgery

This video was originally uploaded by a third year medical student at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons on August 13, 2009. Because of the dramatic increase in attention that he received after posting this video, we've removed his name from this post, and he chose to make his medical school blog private and viewable by permission only.

His reflections from that day remain just as impacting today as they were then. It is commentary we've heard time and time again, told many different ways, by many medical students, but always with the same underlying theme of disgust and disbelief that an establishment would ever perform such an unnecessary, yet cruel and painful surgical procedure on the tender body of a healthy, brand new baby - and almost always without anesthesia.

The following reflection comes from another physician whose eyes were once also opened to the horrors of MGM. Doctors Opposing Circumcision (DOC) publishes an ethical principles and medical school curriculum for physicians who may be working with newborn babies and their parents. Find these resources and more at Doctors Opposing Circumcision.

What happened today... 

As a medical student at America's oldest hospital, Pennsylvania Hospital, I was happy to be on the obstetrics rotation. While still in college, I had heard an obstetrician speak enthusiastically about his optimistic specialty. So now I was enjoying helping to bring babies into the world. While professors provided good background information in formal lectures, my real teachers were residents only a few years older than I was. They took turns talking me through normal deliveries. 

Almost every doctor can recall the joy of delivering a healthy normal infant. This joy was shattered one day when one of the residents said, "There are some circumcisions that need to be done, go and do them." At the time I guess I knew what a circumcision was, but that was about it. I had certainly learned nothing about the subject in medical school. Obediently, I proceeded to the newborn nursery, where another medical student was already waiting. I felt nervous, and he looked quite nervous, too. Strapped to a board on the long counter in front of each of us was a bawling male infant. Beside the infant was a surgical tray filled with instruments. Imagine our consternation when we found there was no one to tell us what to do. Obediently, we put on surgical gowns, then surgical gloves. Then we began to try to figure out how to use what I later learned was a Gomco Clamp.

As far as I know, I made a fairly neat job of it. But my abiding memory of that day is of my colleague. He was one of the more brilliant members of our class, and was planning to become a radiologist. As for surgery, forget it. He was all thumbs. I still remember him, standing beside me, fumbling with the complicated instruments, proceeding to use them on the helpless penis before him, all the while just shaking his head!

I look back on the only time I have ever performed any circumcisions with regret and resentment. I resent having had no opportunity to study circumcision in medical school or to consider whether I thought it a treatment for anything. I resent the resident commanding me to do it, while offering no further guidance or help. In fact, I was treated just as the medical profession treats innocent new parents today. Doctors tell them a circumcision needs to be done. Before the new parent has time to consider, it is all over. Then it is too late to say no, and everyone has to live with the consequences. I was a medical student, so a lot of the responsibility was mine. I clearly violated, all in one instant, the Golden Rule (I certainly would not have wanted that done to me), the major tenet of medical practice, First, Do No Harm, and all seven principles of the American Medical Association's Code of Ethics. Mind you, I did not realize it then, just as unwary medical students do not realize it today. Now I know there are no valid medical indications for routine neonatal circumcision. I realize much harm can be done, evidenced by the thousands of men who have written their testimony and who have told me personally of the harm done to them. Now I also realize that I violated my patient's basic human right to enjoy his entire body intact, while all he could do was scream his tiny head off. That was some years ago, but it might just as well have been last year.

The United States is the only country in the world that, for no religious reason, severs part of the penis from many of its newborn males. I speak out in the hope that parents and doctors will read this before getting swept into the cultural madness of routine neonatal circumcision. What should one do if called upon to consent to or to perform circumcisions? Just say NO! In so doing, you will be taking the only ethical position there is on this issue.

Additional resources on the prepuce organ (foreskin), intact care and circumcision at: Are You Fully Informed?

~~~~