The most common surgical procedure performed on males is circumcision.




Previously conducted because of cultural and religious reasons, now medical evidence suggests that circumcision is medically beneficial: reduced risk of sexually transmitted infections, such as human papilloma virus, chancroid and syphilis, can reduce the spread of HIV.

While circumcision is not illegal anywhere in the world, it is a choice that parents do for their baby boys.

For a matter of information, while in other parts of the world, circumcision is done on infant males, here (the Philippines), young boys make the choice themselves like a right of passage. But then of course, because the society sort of already made the decision that boys should be circumcised, these young boys most often than not, will agree to circumcision, like a mark of their manhood.

BUT of course not all parts of the world is that way - as is debated by two doctors in an article in the British Medical Journal.

According to Geoff Hinchley, a consultant at Barnet & Chase Farm NHS Trust:

There is now rarely a therapeutic indication for infant circumcision, yet ritual (non-therapeutic) male circumcision continues unchecked throughout the world, long after female circumcision, facial scarification, and other ritual forms of infant abuse have been made illegal.

The law and principles pertaining to child protection should apply equally to both sexes, so why do society and the medical profession collude with this unnecessary mutilating practice?

In addition to religious justification, there have been many spurious and now unsupported claims for circumcision including the prevention of penile cancer, masturbation, blindness, and insanity, most of which relate to adult sexual behaviour and not to the genital anatomy or best interest of a child.

There may be a case that male circumcision reduces HIV risk in sexually active adults, however the decision on whether an individual wishes to have this procedure should be left until they are old enough to make their own informed health care choices.

Male genital mutilation is not a risk-free procedure. Far from being a harmless traditional practice, circumcision damages young boys.

And in terms of legal protection, both the US and the UK legal systems discriminate between the sexes when it comes to protecting boys and girls from damaging ritual genital mutilation.

The unpalatable truth is that logic and the rights of the child play little part in determining the acceptability of male genital mutilation in our society. The profession needs to recognise this and champion the argument on behalf of boys that was so successful for girls.

On the other hand, Kirsten Patrick of the BMJ argues that, if competently performed, circumcision carries little risk and cannot be compared with female circumcision:

Although any surgical operation can be painful and do harm, the pain of circumcision, if done under local anaesthesia, is comparable to that from an injection for immunization.

In terms of evidence of benefit, male circumcision has been associated with a reduced risk of sexually transmitted infections, such as human papilloma virus, chancroid and syphilis. Robust research has also shown that circumcision can reduce the spread of HIV.

And although the complication rate for infant circumcision is essentially unknown (because most operations are unregistered) data suggest that it is between 0.2% and 3%, with most complications being minor. Furthermore, no robust research exists examining the long term psychological effects of male infant circumcision.

Despite the fact that no medical body advocates routine male infant circumcision, most agree that it is safe and acceptable and recommend that the procedure is carried out by a competent operator using adequate anaesthesia.

Male circumcision is not illegal anywhere in the world. It is a choice that parents will make on behalf of their male children, for cultural or other reasons, and regulating its provision is the wisest course of action.

My personal thoughts on the issue? I believe that circumcision is a matter of cultural exposure. Depending on where you are in the world. The medical benefits is just some sort of bonus- but not necessarily there to convince everyone that they should have there little boys circumcised.

While it is true that even though circumcision is very common here, we haven't really been considered as mutilating the males, on the other hand, we have the most male chauvinists in the whole world.

See, this whole circumcision thing is a matter of cultural exposure. To us it is a right of passage that make boys men. And even if done in infant boys, it is far from mutilation as put by others.

Source: Science Daily