Infant Male Circumcision – A Parental Choice

Nearly two million or more parents in the United States alone opt for getting their newly born sons circumcised annually. A huge populace of those opposed to this procedure feel that the scores of doctors and hospitals that facilitate this happening are culpable of infant abuse and genitalia mutilation. A query often tugs deep that ‘Is circumcising an infant male baby is in any form abusing that child’s rights?’

All those not favouring circumcision strongly maintain their stance that it is similar to genitalia mutilation performed on females and other forms of infancy abuse which are presently unlawful in U.S and Britain. A viewpoint held by many is that this method is damaging to young males as it lowers sensitivity in the penis, a matter which has been debated in latest scientific reports. Extensive scientific facts do tend to lean towards the medical benefits gained from this procedure. A set of people are supportive of all those parents that delay circumcision till the infant or young male is capable of deciding on his own.

Undoubtedly circumcision that initially surfaced as a culture and religion-based procedure that dates back to time immemorial has undergone medicalisation. Circumcisions started becoming routine procedures suggested many years on the basis of the hypothesis that they facilitated improved sanitation and on proofs that cervical cancer had lesser prevalence amongst women having sexual contact with circumcised males. Ever since scientific researches have queried a number of affirmations supporting circumcision like lowered chances of developing penile cancer. Other investigations nevertheless have emphasized its significant advantages, especially lowering chances of being carriers and transmitters of STDs or sexually transmitted diseases. Several Africa-based clinical studies have revealed that circumcision reduces the risk of males getting HIV by nearly fifty percent.

By any means circumcision must not be thought to be a replacement for condom usage. However the outcomes of several clinical studies are weighty enough to place the CDC and several other public health adjudicators onto the circumcision movement.

However, prior to overturning that handcart, it could be better to self-probe the query of whether male circumcision offers ample medical advantages for justifying the risks involved. An approximate 230 infants face fatality annually either due to direct or indirect circumcision-related reasons. Several of those circumcised face complications like iatrogenic Phimosis, scar tissues, ulcer formations, infection, Meatal Strictures and blood loss.

When performed in the proper manner, medically and personally the risks though present could be reduced. The advantages do appear biologically credible and are backed by the bearing of existing proofs. But the identified advantages are not that grand enough to the extent of authorizing the method as is done with infancy inoculations. Hence, circumcision basically stays a parental choice.

All those parents opting to get their baby sons circumcised must ideally get the procedure done by experts after administering the child local anaesthesia to avoid any pain. Those parents holding-up the choice of circumcision till the boy is older could often get a negative response from their grown-up boy as not many would like the notion or the act of being de-sheathed. Teen boys are in an age wherein many have not yet developed the perception for weighing the scientific advantages and downsides of circumcision.

Popularity: 30% [?]