Tuesday, April 22, 2014

More on circumcision

Circumcision is a medical procedure that is also a traditional religious ritual for Jews and Muslims. There are also those who regard it as a repugnant transaction that should be banned, either because of questions about whether it serves a medical purpose, concern about elective procedures on children (an issue of consent, or in some readings, abuse), and antipathy to Jews and Muslims. (In California, a potential coalition to ban circumcision came apart when some of the organizers revealed strong anti-semitic inclinations, and in fact a 2011 law put a stop to the movement: New California law prohibits circumcision bans)
In Israel the anti-semitic component of proposed European bans is regarded as a political issue.

Knesset produces film defending circumcision

"After Council of Europe uses Jewish director's documentary to specify risks of religious ritual, Israeli parliament creates film featuring Jewish and Arab hospital directors voicing their support for medical advantages of circumcision"

Recently some new medical evidence suggests that circumcision should be regarded as akin to child vaccination: Circumcision Benefits Outweigh Risks, Study Reports

"The authors conclude that the benefits — among them reduced risks of urinary tract infection, prostate cancer, sexually transmitted diseases and, in female partners, cervical cancer — outweigh the risks of local infection or bleeding. Several studies, including two randomized clinical trials, found no long-term adverse effects of circumcision on sexual performance or pleasure.
“Male circumcision is in principle equivalent to childhood vaccination,” said the lead author, Brian J. Morris, emeritus professor of medical sciences at the University of Sydney. “Just as there are opponents of vaccination, there are opponents of circumcision. But their arguments are emotional and unscientific, and should be disregarded.” ******

Prior posts on efforts to ban circumcision here.


Dan Bollinger said...

Cutting off the end of a baby's dick IS repugnant. None of the "reasons" exceed the boy's inalienable right to his own body. We don't cut girls, we shouldn't cut boys.

TLC Tugger said...

Circumcision alters sex dramatically. The only person with the ethical standing to offer consent is the rational iformed patient.

Hugh said...

Emeritus professor Brian J Morris has never seen a reason for cutting a male's genitals he didn't like, including to prevent "bathroom splatter" and zipper injury. He plays fast and loose with the facts, and it is as easy as picking raisins out of a bun to find references in his "studies" that fail to support his claims for them. See http://www.circumstitions.com/morris.html