Circumcision controversy by Intaction : Find out how a baby born today can still be harmed from America’s past of prudish morality, racism, gullibility, scare tactics, and greed that reaches back over 100 years ! It’s the history of circumcision in America ! 1886: Dr. J.H. Kellogg, the inventor of corn flakes, advocated for circumcision to remove the sensitive foreskin from boys as a remedy for masturbation. He sadistically claimed by not using anesthesia the operation would make a good punishment for boys who masturbate.

Before we wade into the debate about circumcision facts and myths, consider this. Ask yourself if it’s ethical to force someone to surgically modify their body. Can you force another person to get a tattoo, a body piercing, or cosmetic surgery? Few reasonable people would vote yes to that. So when it comes to circumcision , there can be only one ethical choice. Parents really ought to leave that decision to the boy to decide, when he becomes an adult. After all, it’s his body being changed by circumcision and it will affect him later in life. It’s his life, and he should be the one allowed to make that decision. Parents like to think they are “saving” their son from having to do it later. They are not.

There are essentially three stakeholders involved with the decision to circumcise an infant. The baby-patient, the parent-guardian, and the doctor. The physician is supposed to be bound by ethical principles of beneficence (serve the best interests of patients and their families) and non-maleficence (“first, do no harm”). The standard of “serving the interests of families” can be a slippery slope as doctors can be forced to do things against their better judgement to appease parents. Pro-circumcision or religious advocates typically want babies circumcised immediately because older children and adults would opt out if given the opportunity. Find more details about circumcision.

As psychologists, we are deeply concerned by the recently announced U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines promoting circumcision for American males. We are concerned about circumcision’s psychological damage that can arise from the traumatic pain of this unnecessary procedure. It is not well established that traumatic pain to infants causes psychological harm and emotional damage. The CDC guidelines are based on a sharply criticized 2012 policy statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics. The 2012 statement was condemned by a large group of physicians, medical organizations, and ethicists from European, Scandinavian, and Commonwealth countries as “culturally biased” and “different from [the conclusions] reached by physicians in other parts of the Western world, including Europe, Canada and Australia” (Frisch et al., 2013).

Intaction was founded in 2010 out of the strong concern that the American “fee for service” medical and insurance business, its trade associations, PACS, and lobbyists, “the medical industry complex,” were intent on escalating their promotion of infant circumcision. Hospitals, insurance companies, and doctors profit from circumcisions. However Americans were starting to challenge the conventional wisdom of circumcising their sons. Seventeen states dropped Medicaid coverage for infant circumcision, deeming it unnecessary and cosmetic. The medical industry complex and its surrogates responded by launching a counterattack to prevent this threat to their income streams and maintain the status quo they built over many decades. (The most conspicuous evidence of this effort culminated in the 2012 AAP Circumcision Policy Statement – which blatantly stated three times, “Financing Newborn Male recommendation: newborn male circumcision warrant(s) third-party (insurance) reimbursement of the procedure.”) See extra info on here.