In thinking about how to frame a discussion about female genital mutilation (FGM), I wanted to acknowledge the controversy surrounding male circumcision but avoid implying that it is equivalent to the horrors of FGM.  Many online discussions about FGM get hijacked by discussions about male circumcision. I decided to open a discussion of male circumcision here and focus of FGM in the next post. Some links may be NSFW.

Wikipedia has a good general overview of male circumcision.  It used to be a common and routine procedure in the US.  The prevalence of circumcision in the US appears to have peaked around 84% in the 1980s.  In 2005 it was 56%.  I suspect that this rate will continue to decline.  

The issue of male infant circumcision is incredibly controversial.  Many people are strongly opposed to the practice and view it as a violation of human rights. Here are common arguments against circumcision from Mothering Magazine:

What I've learned during the past 31 years is that circumcision infiltrated western medicine during the mid-1800s, first in England and then in the other English-speaking countries, as a way to prevent or curb masturbation, which was thought to cause disease. Of course, that didn't work, nor have any of the other fear-based excuses that have been used since then to perpetuate this billion-dollar-a-year industry. 

Circumcision is a primal wound that interferes with the maternal/infant bond, disrupts breastfeeding, and undermines the infant's first developmental task of establishing trust. Then, too, there are these important considerations: 

The foreskin is a normal, protective, sexually functioning organ. 

Circumcision is an amputative surgery with inherent risks, including hemorrhage, infection, surgical mishap, and death. 

Circumcision is painful, even when analgesia is used. 

Circumcision leaves both physical and psychological scars. 

Circumcision denies a male's right to a fully functioning penis and leaves him with decreased sensitivity, pleasure, and sexual fulfillment. 

Circumcision denies a male's right to genital integrity and self-determination. 

Dr Amy Tuteur wrote about circumcision on Science Based Medicine and generated over 600 comments.  I haven't read them all, but the discussion I did read is fascinating. 

The Lay Scientist also has an interesting discussion about the perils of circumcision and Dr Tuteur's post specifically. 

According to Wikipedia, these are the current stances of various US health agencies:

The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) stated: "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child’s current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child."^[65] The AAP recommends that if parents choose to circumcise, analgesia should be used to reduce pain associated with circumcision. It states that circumcision should only be performed on newborns who are stable and healthy.^[65]

The American Medical Association supports the AAP's 1999 circumcision policy statement with regard to non-therapeutic circumcision, which they define as the non-religious, non-ritualistic, not medically necessary, elective circumcision of male newborns. They state that "policy statements issued by professional societies representing Australian, Canadian, and American pediatricians do not recommend routine circumcision of male newborns."^[12]

The American Academy of Family Physicians (2007) recognizes the controversy surrounding circumcision and recommends that physicians "discuss the potential harms and benefits of circumcision with all parents or legal guardians considering this procedure for their newborn son."^[201]

The American Urological Association (2007) stated that neonatal circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks.^[202]

I don't feel particularly strongly one way or the other about male circumcision, and perhaps this results from incredulity of privilege.  Our son's pediatrician recommended in favor because of the scientific consensus at the time purporting such health benefits as: reduced risk of HIV infection, reduced risk of urinary tract infection, and reduced risk of penile cancer. (As a slightly random aside, I wonder if HPV infection that leads to cervical cancer is also a factor in penile cancer.)  I also have a lot of empathy with the unnecessary medical procedure/mutilation argument. 

Our doctor provided credible peer-reviewed sources and studies supporting the practice, outlined the risks and gave us the space to make our own decision.  At the time we also read some credible anecdotal evidence that some intact men regret not being circumcised as infants.  Apparently, a subset of uncircumcised men are very prone to yeast infections and other irritating conditions even though they practice absolutely fastidious hygiene. One article I skimmed recently, but can't find the source at the moment, claimed that the foreskin is vulnerable to microfissures and other injuries during sexual intercourse, and these injuries provide a point of vulnerability to infection and disease. 

It seemed to us that the scientific consensus at the time favoring circumcision was valid and compelling. We gathered credible information and gave thoughtful consideration to both options. We asked for sedatives for ourselves, but our son was already asleep when the nurses took him to be circumcised, he slept through the procedure and remained asleep for some time after. We had no trouble bonding or nursing. Did we do the right thing?  I don't know.  As with all our parenting decisions, we try to find credible sources of information and we do the best we can.