I strongly believe that all elective circumcisions should be
outlawed in the United States and other countries. The human
rights of newborn infants are being violated when they're forced
to undergo a detrimental procedure without their express consent.

Recently a psychologist named Jim Bigelow came to my city (Salt
Lake, Utah) and spoke on a local radio station (KTKK) about the
evils of elective circumcision, and described briefly some
techniques available to partially reverse the process. I found
what he said to be both enlightening and disturbing.

Mr. Bigelow mentioned that once a circumcision is performed, a
major sensory loss occurs which [at present] cannot be replaced
by later surgery.  He also mentioned that harm does in fact come
to the {*filter*} as a result of being exposed in an unnatural manner.

He did cite a recent U.S. study which seemed to show that male
circumcision is good practice since it supposedly helps reduce
the chances of urinary tract infection during the first year of
life. However, he noted that some Swiss researchers have refuted
this and other related claims about circumcision, which is a very
uncommon procedure in their country (with none of the supposed
negative effects occurring at notable levels.) My personal view
is that when adequate hygene and related factors are taken into
account, the arguments for elective circumcision based on urinary
tract infections becomes invalid.

I've seen some of the studies in the United States arguing for
circumcision due to urinary problems, but I'd be interested to
know how such studies hold up in light of data from other Western
countries where circumcision is uncommon and where the general
populous is more accustomed with uncircumcised hygene.

The book he wrote on the subject, The Joy of Uncircumcising...,
was reviewed in the January 27, 1993 issue of JAMA (Journal of
the American Medical Association) on pages 529-30.

Another related book was also reviewed. The two books are:

The Joy of Uncircumcising: Restore Your Birthright and Maximize
{*filter*} Pleasure, by Jim Bigelow, 239 pp, with illustrations,
paper $16.95. ISBN 0-9630482-1-X, Aptos, California, Hourglass
Book Publishing, 1992.

Say No to Circumcision: 40 Compelling Reasons Why You Should
Respect His Birthright and Keep Your Son Whole, by Thomas J.
Ritter, various pagination with illustrations, paper $10.95, ISBN
0-9630482-0-1, Aptos, California, Hourglass Book Publishing, 1992.

(Dr. Ritter is supposedly the first [American?] physician to
write a book on anticircumcision.)

The review mentions that the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)
has as current policy: "Newborn circumcision has potential
medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and
risks."

In my view, the AAP policy is inadequate, and does not speak to
the needs and basic rights of young males of America, or of
children in general of this world.

If you want to help stop circumcision as an elective procedure
and help restore the human rights of children in this area, I
urge you to gain access to the books mentioned in this posting
and contact the organizations mentioned therein. I've not read
the books yet myself, but was very impressed and depressed by
what I heard Mr. Bigelow mention on the radio.

Mr. Bigelow also mentioned that he is the director of UNCIRC
(Uncircumcising Information Resources Center), a national support
group for men wanting to redevelop their foreskin. The national
address for UNCIRC is: P.O. Box 52138, Pacific Grove, CA 93950,
USA.  

The elective circumcision of our youth must stop, and the medical
and insurance community must be more willing to assist in
reconstructing as much as possible a part of the human anatomy
which is essential and good.

The medical community in the "West" has rejected for many years
the intrinsic value of what nature indicates as the proper course
for our existence. Hundreds of millions of years of evolution (or
if you prefer: the original work of God) is not something to be
discarded, figuratively and literally.

Jonathan Higbee

p.s. Here are some articles you may find interesting:

Uncircumcision: a technique for plastic reconstruction of a
prepuce after circumcision [letter], Schoen, E.J., J-Urol. 1991
Dec; 146(6): 1619.

Uncircumcision: a technique for plastic reconstruction of a
prepuce after circumcision, Goodwin, W.E., J-Urol. 1990
Nov; 144(5): 1203-5.
        [ I wonder if sensory loss can be regained by transplanting
          tissue like the kind originally lost?]

Circumcision: is the risk of urinary tract infection really the pivotal issue?,
Chessare, J.B., Clin-Prediatr-Phila. 1992 Feb; 31(2): 100-4.

To circumcise or not., Snyder, H.M., Hosp-Pract-Off-Ed. 1991 Jan
15; 26(1): 201-7.

Vulval reconstruction by free tissue transfer [letter], Balfour, R.P.,
British-J-Obstet-Gynaecol. 1991 Jun; 98(6): 613.

Risk factors for penile cancer: results from a case-control study
in China., Brinton, L.A., Int-J-Cancer. 1991 Feb 20; 47(4): 504-9.
        - this article comments on how hygene was shown to increase risk

Are we becoming a two-call society based on neonatal
circumcision? [letter], Neiberger, R.E., Pediatrics, 1990 Dec; 86(6); 1005-6

Routine neonatal circumcision: a reappraisal, Wiswell, T.E.,
Am-Fam-Physician. 1990 Mar; 41(3); 859-63.

Skin bridge--a complication of paediatric circumcision., Sathaye, U.V.,
British-J-Urol. 1990 Aug; 66(2): 214.

Is routine circumcision indicated in the newborn? An opposing view.,
Thompson, R.S., J-Fam-Pract. 1990 Aug; 31(2): 189-96.

Acute management of the zipper-entrapped {*filter*}., Nolan, J.F.,
Stillwell, T.F., Sands, J.P. Jr, J-Emerg-Med. 1990 May-Jun; 8(3):
305-7.

Routine neonatal circumcision: boundry of ritual and science
[editorial], Dozor, A., Am-Fam-Physician. 1990 Mar; 41(3):820, 822-3.

American Academy of Pediatrics: Report of the Task Force on Circumcision...,
Pediatrics. 1989 Aug; 84(2): 388-91.

The prepuce: a mistake of nature?, Winberg-J; Bollgren, I.,
Gothefors, L., Herthelius, M., Tullus, K. Lancet. 1989 Mar 18; 1(8638):
598-9.

I've not yet read all the articles listed above and thus don't
know how fully all of them support my position. However, most of
the summaries for the articles (as given by MEDLINE Professional
periodical index) did indicate that they relate to my position.
Additional references may also be in the books mentioned in this
posting. FYI: you can obtain copies of articles from journals not carried
at your local library for a small fee via your library's interlibrary
loan dept...

Your comments in response are welcome.
---

Interesting stuff on circumcision and its reversal deleted.

When talking about circumcision, the "West" is really just North
America. In the UK and New Zealand, my other "homes", circumcision
for non-religious reasons runs at 6 and 8%. In the USA it runs at
around 80%.

I am puzzled at the heat this debate always seems to generate here.
Those in favour seem to be excessively enthusiastic. Can anyone
explain why it so important?

My personal view - moderately opposed to what I see as an
unnecessary {*filter*} of children. What I am vehemently opposed to
is such {*filter*} without anaesthesia. It is odd how this sort of
thing is acceptable in society.

Slight drift. I was distressed by the screams of a child in a mall
the other day. When I got closer it appeared that the child in
question was having her ears pierced. She was about one year old
(not yet walking) and her mother was holding her down while the
procedure was performed by a {*filter*}ager in the ear-ring store. Is this
an acceptable way to treat children?

Don mackie - his opinions

-*----

Donald Mackie's memory is mistaken.  The last time circumcision
was debated here, no one enthusiastically supported it.  The
debate was between those who were vociferous in their opposition
and their view of the great importance of this issue, and those
of us who viewed the issue more moderately.  

This is no drift at all; the issue is the same.  In my opinion,
this is not a good way to treat a child.  But it is *far* less
important than other bad ways to treat children that are also
common: failure to educate children, failure to provide a secure
home, misdirected anger at children, etc.  

Russell

Oh, no!   Not again!

Right!  We aren't spending enough on health care.  Now we
have to spend thousands per person trying to reconstruct foreskins for
those who think their parents abused them by having them
circumsized!  

But I thought God was the fellow who suggested we do it in the
first place.

See, if you'd been circumsized, this wouldn't happen so often.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks, Don, for bringing up the kernel of the issue:

      Where do the rights of the child begin, and those of the parent
      end?

IMHO, I'm not qualified to decide.

Having said this...

my godson was born thurs Feb 18th. Mother didn't want him castrated, but
left that choice up to Dad (her reasoning: "I've never owned one of
those; he has all his life!").

Dad decided to have it done, and so it was the next day.

Dad reasoned that although it's a touchy subject, with much debate both
pro and con, it seems like a reasonable way to help prevent possible
infection untill proven otherwise.

There is annother more personal reason: possible prevention of
unwarented handling of the goods by otherwise well intentioned
babysitting relatives who in their honestly good-intent might seek to
clean the uncircumsized area.

(please don't flame on the above - this is an honest concern.)

I accept the decisions, reasoning, and actions of both mom and dad. It's
not my place to decide. He's my godson, but they are his parents.

If/when I have a son, I will be foreced to make a similar decision, and
if/when that time comes I will research the possiblities. And it will be
my decision (or co-decision :-), and will affect the child.

-----

      -mike
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Mike Deliman, 800-USA-4WRS, FAX 510-814-2010, WRS 2400bd BBS: 510-814-2165

   Snail Mail:  Wind River Systems, 1010 Atlantic Ave, Alameda CA 94501 USA

accept my humble appologies and substitute "circumcized" for the
c-word...

-mike
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Mike Deliman, 800-USA-4WRS, FAX 510-814-2010, WRS 2400bd BBS: 510-814-2165

   Snail Mail:  Wind River Systems, 1010 Atlantic Ave, Alameda CA 94501 USA

Here-here, and here-here again. It's high time something was done
about this barbaric practice which usually seems to me to be at the
whim of the parents without any regard as to whether it is absolutely
neccessary.

Regards

Alan Holmes

Well, I suppose it was inevitable.  Into the circumcision flap comes
another zealot espousing an operation that was first popular in Greece
about 2000 or so years ago.  It seems that young men who had become
members of the Jewish Religion and received the mark of that faith
later desired to compete in athletic games in the manner of the day in
Greece (in the buff) and were singled out for thier distinctive
difference.  Early surgeons developed a corrective procedure which was
used to undo the mark of the chosen.  Now we are to do it again?  Ah,
well, at least I doubt that it will be a covered option in most
contemporary health care policies.
                          Len Howard
.

 Actually, the circumcision rate in the USA seems to be regionally
dependent. Lower in western states and 90% or more in many
Northeastern states. Why this should be is unclear unless medical
attitudes and biases are different. To some extent it is culturally
dependent. Blacks,Hispanics and Orientals do it much less frequently.

 A very excellent article appeared in the magazine "Human Nature",
in the late 1970s. Erickson-Page,an anthropolgist,espoused several
psychological ideas why the United States wishes to deny that
the procedure in lack of clear pathology,is valueless.
We are looking at religion and superstition not science.
It has always been a wonder that so many physicians and other
educated folk should support the procedure so tenaciously.

This procedure has been discussed here before. It amazes me how many
who support it,even in the face of contrary scientific evidence,
insist that it is painless in a newborn.
Their justification: Get it done now because later it will be needed
and it will be painful!

 Although circumcision isn't as drastic as castration,it is an operation
done without the consent of the one loosing his foreskin.

Gary

--
            ******** Gary E. Davis***** WQ1F *****
 The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the
 palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind.-H.L.Mencken

Curious, whenever I read something on this subject it always seems
to me that the most vociferous are those who support it.  Just shows
the difference in the way people view things.

Regards

Alan Holmes