Male Circumcision Research Paper

Male circumcision has long been a debate with decisions based on cultural, ethnic, religious and social preference of the parent. There are both benefits and risks associated with the procedure of male circumcision. The procedure involves the removal of some or, the entire foreskin around the penis. Neonatal circumcision is rising among English speaking countries and it is known now that more than 80% of the male population has been circumcised. (CDC, 2006) This number is rising however; studies show that there is insufficient evidence to recommend neonatal circumcision as a routine decision. (AAP, 2006). Many debates of this procedure relate to the benefits versus the risk and medical costs that the procedure entails. This paper

According to a published report in the August 16th 2010 edition of the New York Time’s parents are choosing less and less to circumcise their new born sons. The article states instances of circumcision have declined “to just 32.5 percent in 2009 from 56 percent in 2006. The numbers are based on calculations by SDI Health, a company in Plymouth Meeting, Pa. that analyzes health care data”. Why are so many deciding to not have the elective procedure even though the rate of complication is extraordinarily low? What about the arguments for hygiene, sexual satisfaction, psychological and social concerns and, lest we dismiss, religious views?

The topic of the infant male circumcision is a controversial subject in the United States. This procedure involves a non-reversible surgical procedure that removes the prepuce, commonly called the foreskin, thus exposing the glans of the penis (Blank, et al., 2012). Currently this is considered a cosmetic procedure per surgical standards, and is performed upon the request of the parents of the newborn. The decision to have a circumcision performed is usually based upon personal, cultural, and religious factors. However, the overall view of the impact of the procedure on the newborn infant varies in our country, and has led to two conflicting camps of ideology. The pro-circumcision movement focuses on the potential health benefits gained of a circumcision, and feels it is a necessary procedure. The anti-circumcision movement claims there are no health benefits and that the procedure violates the fundamental human rights of the infant (Collier, 2012). Following extensive research, I have found that there is evidence-based proof that circumcision improves the overall health of the male newborn, with prolonged health benefits into adulthood. Circumcisions provide the health benefits of decreased rates of urinary tract infections(UTIs), reduced transmission of sexually transmitted disease, prevention of phimosis, and improved penile hygiene (Blank, et al., 2012, Marx & Lawton, 2008, Morris, Bailis, & Wiswell, 2014).

People in Asia or European countries are often shocked to hear that circumcision is a routine operation in the USA. People from these parts of the world (where 90% are uncircumcised) suffer no bad consequences as a result of keeping their foreskins intact.

Resolution: The government should increase the support for male circumcision in Medicare and other health care programs to reduce the cost for parents and to improve the health outcomes for the infant.

On the issue of male circumcision Hanna Rosin presents arguments that support the procedure while Michael Idov argues against the act. Rosin begins her argument by describing her own experiences when her sons were circumcised and the anger she felt when hearing them howl in pain. However, she follows this up with an acknowledgment that the feeling quickly dissipated once her sons were completely healed. Rosin then goes on to describe many of the benefits of circumcision, focusing in on the health aspect. Specifically, her argument hinges on studies that correlate a higher rate of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) to men that are uncircumcised. Michael Idov also utilizes the health angle to support his argument and even

Too, as a mother, I struggled much with the decision on whether to circumcise my son. Though I was well read on the matter, the idea of inflicting pain to this little wonder I had spent nine-months protecting appeared nearly counterproductive and in some dark spaces of my mind, plain cruel. However, my husband steady inflection of “this must be done” kept a fair amount of fear from overwhelming me. He certainly voiced more opinions on the subject than me, and personally, my argument was largely overlooked due to my lacking the appropriate appendage to relate. Looking back now, I find my concerns had more to do with medical implications of the procedure, while my husband’s foundations for circumcision spawned from values. Our text even boasts

In the USA, newborn male circumcision is a very common procedure, three-quarters of American men are circumcised. Though the rate of infant circumcision has always been high in the USA, the number varies depending on the State, “Circumcision rates vary wildly across the country - from more than 80% of newborns in states including Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin and Kentucky, to around 20% on the West coast, according to some calculations” (Hebblethwaite, C.,2012, August 21). However, in other countries, such as The UK, rates dropped after the National Health Service (NHS) rules that circumcisions was not medically necessary, so it would not be covered. In 1948 one-third of UK men were circumcised and now about 9% of men are. On the other hand, countries

of circumcised male infants (this colonization decreases in both groups after the first 6 months."(Pedatrics 2012)

Everyone has their own perspectives on things and practice certain actions differently. After reading Martha Nussbaunm's piece made me realize how few other cultures deal with difficult circumstances. Female genital mutilation violates human rights regardless of what country you are from, what culture you are and what you practice in my opinion. Males and females are made exceedingly opposite within private parts so I agree and object to "female circumcision". Doing certain activities comes with dangerous health risks and and ultimately untimely deaths. That was the outcome these young woman faced in Fauziya's hometown. They were forced into this practice and own choice to protect their dignity was denied in which moral respect for others were

Circumcision has been a debating procedure for many years. It is a procedure that means cutting off the foreskin, or ring of tissue that covers the head of the penis. Circumcision is said to have started many years ago and is a big part is some religions. For example, according to the book of Genesis in the Torah, god made a covenent with Abraham (a Jewish patriarch) in which Abraham and his decendents would be given great land riches, and success. There was only one catch, Abraham, his descendants, any slaves purchased or born in his house hold by the eighth day of life. If any failed to do so then they would be separate from his people and live without the favor of god. Untill this day Jewish people have lived by that and is a strong religious belief. This procedure on the Jews was called a bris or brit milah.

Darby (2015) discussed the harm versus the benefits of a neonatal circumcision. For centuries, it has been believed that the removal of the penis foreskin offer great medical and hygienic benefits while yielding minimal risks. However, little attention has been paid to these minimal risks. Darby (2015) discussed the risks of not being circumcise as well as the risks of being circumcised. Darby (2015) also discussed the religious and sociocultural beliefs associated with neonatal circumcision.. However, Darby (2016) stated that despite these reasons, some men grow up and resent their condition and would not have chosen circumcision for them.

On the two stories from the reading 25 and 26, we can find two sides connections, as I find a different situation between male circumcision and female genital cutting. These two topics show a different relation just on the fact that male circumcision is a procedure for a safety matter in or a protection against STDs and HIV, but referring to (Darby, 273) I quote this line “Laumann found that circumcised men had more STDs, and the United States reports an HIV incidence six-time grater than Japan”. This line clarifies that that circumcision is not a safe practice to avoid any STDs but this actions that families make to their kids at a younger age is just for the matter of safety knowing that is not going to protect them from any type of sexually

Although many western cultures denounce these practices as being barbaric and unfair these western cultures actually practice genital surgery on children. For example, many baby boys in the United States are circumcised at birth for both aesthetic reasons and for health concerns. Children born with both male and female genitalia are seen as medical emergencies and surgeries to correct this anomaly are done as soon as possible.

Five years later, in 2012, the American Academy of Pediatrics took a similar step in support of the procedure among newborns, revising their policy statement to note, "Preventive health benefits of elective circumcision of male newborns outweigh the risks of the procedure." While the AAP did not find that the health benefits of circumcision