The Majority of This Post’s Authors Oppose Unethical Practices

Posted: June 19th, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: "Voluntary", Control, Ethics, Media Marketing | No Comments »

It’s no longer surprising to see the hyperbole concocted to make circumcision appear legitimate. The latest example comes from the Southern Africa HIV and AIDS Regional Exchange, which summarized a survey with the following:

New study in Kenya reveals the majority of women prefer circumcised partners

To summarize the study – Women’s Beliefs about Male Circumcision, HIV Prevention, and Sexual Behaviors in Kisumu, Kenya, by Thomas H. Riess, Maryline M. Achieng, and Robert C. Bailey – the way SHARE does is presposterous. The study involved 30 women, with 23 of them saying they preferred circumcised men. The proper way to summarize it is the second line from the abstract:

Women’s beliefs about MC and sexual behaviour will likely influence the scale-up and uptake of medical MC.

Counter to SHARE’s summary, the authors note (emphasis added):

There are limitations to this study. Since we relied on self-reports it is possible that some respondents could have fabricated answers or not fully disclosed information based on what is socially acceptable, particularly on sensitive topics such as sex and HIV. We did attempt to select respondents who were representative of sexually active women ages 18-35 but given the small sample size and geographic location of our research, our data might not be generalizable to other populations, particularly those where MC is not being promoted as HIV prevention. Our intention has been to gain insights into female perceptions and sexual behaviors related to MC in western Kenya in order to inform and improve programs scaling up MMC for HIV prevention in the region.

It’s misleading to report the study as revealing what the majority of women prefer.

Of course, it’s irrelevant what the majority of women prefer. The ethics center on what the male prefers for himself. In what ways could we rewrite this paragraph to allegedly demonstrate something about what women should do – or have done to them – to conform to the preferences of men?

Respondent: Actually, me personally, I hate uncircumcised men.
Interviewer: Why?
R: I just feel they are dirty and, … this last time, some other guy seduced me, … I didn’t know he was uncircumcised. So when we went out a bit for around four months, so it’s this day was he was telling me like we go to bed, after finding out that the guy is uncircumcised I just told him it can’t work. He should go get circumcised first and come back.
I: So how did he react?
R: Well actually he felt bad, but later he came to understand. That is when he went and got circumcised and we are together now. (25 year-old Luo woman)

Body shaming is body shaming, whoever its target may be. Repeatedly the excerpts emphasize a belief that circumcised men are “clean” and intact men are “dirty”. While the authors note this, and are perhaps genuine, in saying:

… While some women support MC based on their personal experience and beliefs, there may also be the potential for discrimination against uncircumcised men as circumcision programs scale up in sub-Saharan Africa. …

I find no reason to believe public health officials cared or will care. Discrimination is a strategy of these campaigns, as in this awful propaganda ad from Uganda. And the tactic is already paying the expected dividends. The interview excerpts in this study are evidence of that:

I: Do you desire circumcised men?
R: Of course a circumcised one (laughs).
I: Why not the uncircumcised one?
R: I don’t want diseases. (22 year-old Luo woman)

And:

I: And say you get some man who is not circumcised, what will you do?
R: You tell him that circumcision is good, a circumcised person has less chances of getting infected with these diseases, these minor diseases.
I: And if he still refuses?
R: If he refuses you just leave him. (27 year-old Luo woman)

The excerpts also reveal the well-tested “heads, circumcision wins / tails, foreskin loses” approach to sexual satisfaction.

… no matter how the lubrication is, that foreskin will, I don’t know, it moves … and then let me say they don’t stay long. … Yeah they didn’t stay long when you guys are the uncircumcised. Out of curiosity I did ask how come you don’t take long. They say like if that skin is moving it makes them crazy and they release so fast, and I said, okay. And then unlike the circumcised people maybe it’s to our advantage, the ladies, maybe it could be not to them but I think to our advantage they’ll take long. Like they might make you reach a peak faster than the uncircumcised. (23 year-old Luo woman)

The authors state that circumcision campaigns “should ensure that MMC promotion campaigns and counselling are clear that studies have shown that MC does not affect male time to ejaculation.” But campaigns like this count on individuals to sell the message, however well they grasp or fail to grasp that message. Intentionally engaging people to market on behalf of public officials involves spreading anecdotal evidence. There is no comfort or absolution in “the studies show” once they’ve started the game of telephone.

There also remains the possibility that the sources for the claim that circumcision does not affect male time to ejaculation are inaccurate. Note, too, that whether or not the male considers this change good is nowhere to be found. The ethical issue remains absent in this push for networked propaganda.


Human Rights as Politics rather than Principle

Posted: June 17th, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: FGM, Media Marketing, Politics | No Comments »

What is it about the basic concept of human rights that confuses so many people, such as U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay:

FGM is a form of gender-based discrimination and violence. It is a violation of the right to physical and mental integrity. It violates the right to be free from torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. Because it is almost always practised on young children, it is also a violation of the rights of the child. FGM violates the right to the highest attainable standard of health, including sexual and reproductive health. And when it results in the death of the person who is mutilated, it violates the right to life.

I’d state it as the rights of self-ownership and bodily integrity, but still, even this way it’s easy to understand. Cutting an individual’s healthy genitals without the person’s consent violates rights. So why staple on this (emphasis added):

This harmful and degrading practice is not based on any valid premise. FGM has no health benefits. On the contrary, it generates profoundly damaging, irreversible and life-long physical damage. It also increases the risk of neonatal death for babies born to women who have survived it.

The answer is obvious to anyone who spends any time studying the issue of genital cutting. It’s a method that attempts to distinguish female genital cutting from male genital cutting. It shows up over and over. It’s transparent and wrong because it’s politics at the expense of human beings. The principle isn’t gendered. Non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual violates the individual’s human rights, full-stop. That is the human rights principle involved. The potential health benefits a child’s parents may cite can’t be a valid premise for non-therapeutic surgery without the child’s consent.

That isn’t my primary point here, though. The “FGM has no health benefits” approach is short-sighted and obtuse in the push to end FGM. It contains an implicit argument that FGC – not FGM, because unnecessary genital cutting without consent somehow can’t be mutilation – would be acceptable if some health benefit could be reasonably claimed. It’s a way of saying that human rights are important, but only to the extent that someone can’t find an excuse people are willing to accept as justification for ignoring obvious violations. It demonstrates that the person making the argument does not understand the implications of defending human rights and the courage it requires to be consistent to the principle. This tactic is not a framework for considering humans and their rights. It’s a strategy uninterested in human rights principles. It’s a strategy of manipulating emotions to achieve an ideological goal.

I’m not familiar with the source material, but I think this Friedrich Nietzsche quote I stumbled on today works well in this context (via):

“The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.”

That’s what the “FGM has no health benefits, so it’s not acceptable like male circumcision” argument is when attached to a human rights argument. If you claim to defend human rights, you have to defend human rights, not the politics of favored human rights.


Some of us wouldn’t dream of having any procedure

Posted: June 5th, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Ethics, Media Marketing, Pain, Parenting, Science | No Comments »

There is an inherent flaw always present in “parents should decide on genital cutting (but only for boys)” essays. An asinine dismissal of the ethical principle will exist. Although the case against must be made each time, the ethics obviously do not support that stance. Non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual is unethical. It violates bodily autonomy. Any facts supposedly in favor of at least allowing parents to decide can’t overcome this basic principle. So when an essay is titled “Why the decision to circumcise should be left in the hands of the family”, the flaw is guaranteed to be there. It’s the only way to seemingly make the premise hold. Yet, I’ve never seen the flaw so ridiculously written as in Dr. Jeremy Friedman’s essay.

Deep into the essay (emphasis added):

I understand that there are many vocal groups who feel that circumcision has a negative effect on sexual function and pleasure. I also realize that some feel it is unethical to remove something from an infant’s body without a clear medical need and without the infant having some input into the decision.

As a pediatrician, I’m not really professionally qualified to discuss the merits of these viewpoints but I respect the right of those individuals to express them. I am, however, qualified to tell you that babies are capable of experiencing pain and I don’t think it is acceptable to perform a circumcision in a newborn without some form of analgesia. There are a number of different options to prevent pain, and this should be discussed with the practitioner chosen to do the procedure, well ahead of the circumcision.

Dr. Friedman stated that he’s not professionally qualified to discuss the merits of these viewpoints, yet this is the next paragraph, his conclusion:

So what is my take-home message? The decision should be left in the hands of the family. Current medical evidence points to some specific advantages to being circumcised, especially in certain higher risk groups. In Canada I’m not convinced that there is sufficient medical evidence to advocate for circumcision in a family that would not choose it for religious/cultural/family reasons. Nevertheless in those who do choose it, I think they should be allowed the right to proceed, but I will put in a plea for encouraging adequate pain relief. Let’s face it: None of us would dream of having any procedure on this rather sensitive part of our anatomy without it.

He can’t evaluate the validity of individual autonomy for a human being, but he’s qualified to draw a conclusion without concern for the effect on his conclusion from the ethical claim he did not test. That’s pathetic. It isn’t acceptable to punt an aspect of the debate and then claim victory. It’s more ridiculous because he felt competent to draw an ethical conclusion on pain relief. It’s a minor distance from a plea to use pain relief to a plea to refrain from medically-unnecessary circumcision.

**********

In a paragraph aimed at defending parental choice because a study claims the complication rate is lower for newborns, he wrote:

… My interpretation of this data is that when circumcision is performed by adequately trained individuals, complications are infrequent and usually fairly minor. Most common would be infection and bleeding which can be treated quite easily. Nevertheless severe complications such as penile injury can occur, albeit very rarely. If one wants one’s son circumcised then it appears to be much safer if done in the newborn period.

Penile injury occurs in every single circumcision. Less severe penile injury isn’t irrelevant simply because it was intended.


Journalists Doing Brian Morris Undeserved Favors

Posted: April 10th, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Ethics, Media Marketing, Public Health, Science | No Comments »

It isn’t difficult to see how Brian Morris’ process works. He publishes a “new” paper making bold, biased, often-unsupported claims citing his prior work doing the same, and receives circulation for his ideas from unquestioning journalists acting as stenographers. His latest, with Stefan Bailis and Thomas Wiswell, is a good opportunity to assess the reporting within consideration of an excellent article by Ian Sample, “How to write a science news story based on a research paper“.

1. Find a good paper

That rules out anything written by Professor Morris, but I’ll grant that his focus on non-therapeutic infant male circumcision satisfies the criteria that the work be “controversial”.

2. Read it

You cannot cover a paper properly without reading it. The abstract [ed. note: Or the press release] will give the barest essentials. You need to read the introduction for context, the discussion and conclusions for take-home messages. Check the methods. Was the experiment well designed? Was it large enough to draw conclusions from? Find weaknesses and flaws. You will probably need help to work out how fatal they are. Spend time on the results. Have the authors omitted key data? Look at odds ratios, error bars, fitted curves and statistical significances. Are the results robust? Do they back up the scientists’ conclusions? …

Given that Morris’ latest paper is only 10 pages (pdf), including references, this shouldn’t be hard. Yet, I found no initial article covering it that suggested the reporter bothered to read beyond the press release, or perhaps the abstract. For example, both of these articles cite the “benefits exceed risks by at least 100 to 1″ line as truth, despite there being no support within the paper for this preposterous claim. It’s merely a statement. Where is the support for this in the paper? The questions Mr. Sample suggest provide a path for investigating this paper further. There is a table of potential benefits cited for circumcision, but no data offering how these are weighted to produce an objective mathematical conclusion.

Within the key table listing claimed benefits, Table 4, Morris cites a study by Dr. Jonathan Wright while omitting the necessary qualification that the study found a correlation, not a causal link. As Dr. Wright stated, “‘These data suggest a biologically plausible mechanism through which circumcision may decrease the risk of prostate cancer,’” said study researcher Dr. Jonathan Wright, an assistant professor of urology at the University of Washington School of Medicine. He noted that the study was observational; it did not show a cause-and-effect link.” How much does this correlation contribute to the “100 to 1″ number?

4. Get context

Science builds on science. Know the previous studies that matter so you can paint a fuller picture. …

Like Dr. Wright’s study, for example. Or the way Morris previously used a study by Dr. Kimberly Payne to support a claim that the “highest-quality studies suggest that medical male circumcision has no adverse effect on sexual function, sensitivity, sexual sensation, or satisfaction.” Yet, Dr. Payne’s study, which Morris (and Krieger) rated as the highest quality, resulted in Dr. Payne stating that “[i]t is possible that the uncircumcised penis is more sensitive due to the presence of additional sensory receptors on the prepuce and frenulum, but this cannot be compared with the absence of such structures in the circumcised penis.”

5. Interview the authors

Get them to explain their results and justify their conclusions. What do the results mean in plain English? What do they not mean? Ask your questions in simple language to get answers you can quote. Run phrases you might use past the authors, so they can warn you of howlers. Do not ask multi-part questions: you will not get full answers.

Perhaps Morris should justify making up rights when he says “[d]enial of infant male circumcision is denial of his rights to good health, something that all responsible parents should consider carefully”. Do parents who do not circumcise their healthy son violate his rights?

This is especially interesting in light of a comment in the press release. Professor Morris said (emphasis added):

“The new findings now show that infant circumcision should be regarded as equivalent to childhood vaccination and that as such it would be unethical not to routinely offer parents circumcision for their baby boy. Delay puts the child’s health at risk and will usually mean it will never happen.

If not circumcising an infant male “will usually mean it will never happen”, that demonstrates that circumcision will usually not be necessary. Is this one surgery, and the ethical implication, somehow different than withholding from a healthy child every other surgery that will usually never be required?

This also shows the sleight-of-hand in “half of uncircumcised males will require treatment for a medical condition associated with retention of the foreskin,” which is included in the paper (and on Morris’ site). Requiring treatment is not the same as requiring circumcision.

In footnote e of Table 4, Morris cites a figure for risks associated with neonatal circumcision where “data show that risk of an easily treatable condition is approximately 1 in 200 and of a serious complication is 1 in 5000″. So, a complication is not an argument against non-therapeutic infant male circumcision because it will probably be easily treatable. And treatable medical conditions associated with the foreskin will usually not require circumcision, as Professor Morris states, but somehow also justify non-therapeutic infant male circumcision. That’s “Heads I win/Tails you lose” nonsense. Professor Morris is engaging in propaganda.

When the New York Times quoted Morris about this paper, he said: “Just as there are opponents of vaccination, there are opponents of circumcision. But their arguments are emotional and unscientific, and should be disregarded.” That is demagoguery, and should reflect on Professor Morris’ reputation. The argument against non-therapeutic infant male circumcision is rooted in ethics, but it is also rooted in the science of normal human anatomy. The foreskin is healthy, just as every other body part usually is. And opponents of non-therapeutic child circumcision support condoms, soap, and antibiotics, for example, which are all scientific inventions and discoveries.

6. Get other scientists’ opinions

Such as Professor Kevin Pringle, of New Zealand, and Dr. Russell Saunders, pen name for a New England pediatrician. While I disagree with the latter’s conclusion on parental choice, for my purpose in this post, he wrote: “Having reviewed Dr. Morris’s study, I find his statements about the benefits of circumcision as a routine procedure overblown, and the comparison with vaccination baseless.”

7. Find the top line

How about this, from page 7 of the paper:

The timing of circumcision is crucial. Medical and practical considerations strongly favor the neonatal period (Table 4).16 Surgical risk is, thereby, minimized and the accumulated health benefits are maximized.14,16 …

As Morris’ statement about the likely lack of need demonstrates, circumcising in infancy is not usually crucial for the male’s health to the point of circumcision becoming necessary. There isn’t a justification for non-therapeutic infant circumcision. It can wait until the male can choose – or reject – non-therapeutic circumcision for himself.

8. Remember whom you are writing for

This is where Morris gets what he needs most. The headlines encourage readers who only skim headlines to believe that Morris has proven that the potential benefits exceed the risks 100 to 1, that circumcision is similar to a vaccine, and that there is some case for mandatory circumcision of infants. It’s all absurd and does a significant disservice to readers and truth.

9. Be right

Ahem.


The Equation Is Unnecessary Genital Cutting Minus Consent

Posted: March 23rd, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: "Voluntary", Control, Ethics, FCD, FGM, Logic, Media Marketing, Parenting, Politics | 1 Comment »

Many have heaped scorn on Mary Elizabeth Williams’ Salon piece that criticized Alan Cumming for calling male circumcision genital mutilation and comparing it to female genital mutilation. This scorn is deserved.

Alan Cumming wants to tell you about his penis. He wants it to be a shining example to the world. In a candid interview with Drew Grant this week in the New York Observer, the 49-year-old Scottish actor reveals his strong opinions on “Girls,” naughty cellphone pictures, and, most controversially, circumcision. Or as he puts it, “genital mutilation.”

“There’s a double-standard, which is that we condemn the people who cut off girls’ clitorises, but when it happens to boys,” Cumming says. “I mean, it is the most sensitive part of their bodies, it has loads of nerve endings, and it can go horribly wrong. I’m speaking out against it … I’m just so suspicious of the medical industry, which just flings pills at people to ensure everyone is reliant on things. ‘Here are some pills, Mommy. Take them, and we’ll take your baby away and hack its thing off, and then we’ll bill you for that too.’”

I don’t share Mr. Cumming’s view of the medical industry. Its complicity strikes me as cultural inertia and cowardice. My experience suggests that profit-driven focus on circumcision is limited, although it motivates some. But that’s a distraction. The key is that he is correct about the comparison.

Circumcision of a healthy male minor is mutilation of that male’s genitals. To be valid, it must involve his consent prior to the surgery, not assumed to be later granted retroactively. This is the standard inherent in 18 USCS § 116, which criminalizes all non-therapeutic genital cutting on female minors without regard for parental justifications or potential benefits. The difference we imagine is an accident in the history of Western child genital cutting.

Later in the essay:

… And earlier this week, protesters threatened to disrupt Bill and Melinda Gates’ TED Vancouver talk because of their organization’s efforts to increase the practice in Africa as a means of “limiting the spread of HIV in the parts of Sub-Saharan Africa.”

There is good reason to find the work of the Gates Foundation repugnant, as it pertains to male circumcision. It speaks in the euphemism of voluntary medical male circumcision, when it also means infant circumcision. This is unethical because it violates the principles of bodily integrity and consent. And this study, commissioned and funded by the Gates Foundation, hardly provides reassurance when examining the context of WHO and UNAIDS, who think violating this human right of male children can be legitimized through question begging. Mental gymnastics like that are not admirable.

Cumming’s equation of circumcision with female genital mutilation is an insultingly inaccurate one — boys are not circumcised as a ritualized means of suppressing their future sexual enjoyment,

Although it’s easy to find similar defenses of male circumcision, ritual or not, this implies that the critical issue is intent rather than outcome. Female genital mutilation, in all its forms, is wrong because the female is mutilated, not because she is mutilated for “bad” reasons. Some reasons given are the same as those for male circumcision. And not all females who were mutilated reject or condemn it. Yet all reasons for surgically altering the healthy genitals of a female minor are still bad. This focuses on the principles and facts involved, not our feelings.

Notice, too, how often erroneous claims like “[t]here is no evidence whatsoever to support the notion that it affects function, sensation or satisfaction” are made about male circumcision, as it’s made with that quote from Williams’ link to reader comments on an article. The statement is wrong on its face because circumcision changes the function. If you change the form, you change the function. The function of the penis, including its structure, should not be lazily defined as “to have sex” or something similarly ridiculous. The foreskin is normal anatomy with functions for the penis and belongs to its owner.

The quote is disputable on sensation, considering the (anecdotal) arguments in favor of male circumcision stating that males can “last longer“. Consider the heads I win/tails you lose efforts of Brian Morris here, as all outcomes are assumed to be favorable to overall satisfaction, even when the studies cited do not involve anything near 100% on the subjective evaluation of satisfaction.

nor does a clean male circumcision compare with the often crude, blunt and unsanitary practice of female genital mutilation.

Those qualifiers obfuscate. What about clean female genital cutting compared with crude, blunt, and unsanitary male circumcision? A sterile surgical environment does not grant legitimacy to a rights violation. Again, the act is what matters. There are degrees of harm possible, but the inevitability of harm requires first priority, whatever the degree.

The World Health Organization calls FGM “a violation of the human rights of girls and women” with consequences that include “severe pain, shock, hemorrhage (bleeding), tetanus or sepsis (bacterial infection), urine retention, open sores in the genital region and injury to nearby genital tissue,” while it in contrast notes, “There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%.”

WHO also explains that female genital mutilation “comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.” There is no unethical caveat for “but if we find some benefits to female health, or even male health, we’d have to weigh mutilating injury against potential benefits.” That unethical caveat is always applied to male genital mutilation, as Williams does here. An adult male volunteering is not the same as an infant male being volunteered. Consent is the issue, not how horrible female genital mutilation usually is or how innocuous and/or beneficial male circumcision appears to be. Non-therapeutic genital cutting on a healthy individual who does not consent is unethical. It involves harm. Gender is irrelevant to the principle.

One can argue, quite persuasively, about whether the practice of circumcision still has validity here in the West, especially among those who don’t have a religious directive. What’s needed, however, is education and enlightenment, so families can make the healthiest choices for their children. …

I reject the premise. This is a not a decision parents should be allowed to make for their children. The argument that parents may decide this for their healthy children requires this decision to be a parental right. If it’s a parental right, then the prohibition of non-therapeutic genital cutting on daughters is indefensible. The basis for thinking about genital cutting can’t be girls and the parents of boys. That’s absurd.

… It’s not helpful to make far-fetched comparisons, and it certainly isn’t constructive to imply that men and boys who are circumcised are somehow damaged, “mutilated” goods. That’s a shaming technique that serves no one, one that turns having a foreskin into a bragging point. …

Why are we only worried about shaming men and boys by using the term “mutilation”? Isn’t there the possibility or likelihood that women and girls will feel shamed if we describe their genitals as mutilated? Are the psyches of females more able to handle facts?

There is a difference in stating a fact and demanding a value judgment from that fact. The bodies of males who were circumcised as children were mutilated. Their rights were violated. Circumcised males are not obligated to think this is bad or shameful. The obligation (for everyone) rests in understanding that it is unacceptable to perpetuate this violation on their children or to permit its continued practice in society.

Or to put it in terms of individual autonomy, circumcision mutilated me through the deprivation of an essential¹ part of my body. Where I had a normal human foreskin, I now have only scars. My penis is mutilated. No one gets to reject that fact for me. But I do not feel shame. This sense that males might feel shame is what encourages parents to circumcise their sons for conformity. We have to stop being afraid of shame. We’ll achieve that only when we are no longer afraid to state that shame belongs with those who circumcise, not those who are circumcised.

… And it’s an unfair judgment coming from a man who admits, “I myself don’t have kids. I just have managers, assistants, agents and publicists.”

I feel second-hand embarrassment, so that at least someone feels what her statement deserves.

¹ Quibble with essential as something other than an obvious stand-in for normal, and I’ll roll my eyes and ask if normal parts of female genitalia are essential.


Flawed Circumcision Defense: Yair Rosenberg, Part 3

Posted: December 30th, 2013 | Author: | Filed under: "Voluntary", Ethics, FCD, Logic, Media Marketing | 1 Comment »

It won’t come as a surprise to read that I don’t think much of Yair Rosenberg’s lazy approach to analyzing non-therapeutic infant male circumcision. Add another example. This time he’s misreporting the findings of another meta-analysis by Brian Morris. Mr. Rosenberg quotes from a Daily Mail article that amounts to little more than a press release.

But first his introduction:

Across Europe, pushes to ban circumcision have rested on its supposedly deleterious effects on a child’s body, and lack of demonstrable benefits. Anne Lindboe, Sweden’s child welfare adviser, has gone so far as to label the practice “violence against children,” claiming that parents who perform it do so out of “ignorance.” She and her counterparts in Denmark and Finland have classified child circumcision as a “human rights violation” and called for it to be criminalized. A German court similarly banned the procedure on the grounds that it caused “bodily harm.” The only problem with these stances? They completely contradict everything science has found about circumcision’s impact on children’s health.

Findings of potential benefits from voluntary, adult male circumcision do not contradict the ethical, rights-based position against non-therapeutic infant male circumcision. Proxy consent is not the same as the consent given by adult volunteers to this permanent, irreversible surgery. Circumcising healthy minors violates their rights to bodily autonomy and integrity, just as any other permanent, non-therapeutic intervention is a violation. It’s the same principle that applies to even the tiniest, less-invasive-than-male-circumcision cut on a female minor’s genitals, which we’ve rightly criminalized. Potential benefits and human rights violation are not mutually exclusive. The presence of potential benefits does not eliminate the fatal ethical flaw. Nor does deciding that circumcision diminishing sexual function, sensitivity, or satisfaction is a “myth”, as Mr. Rosenberg claims of the new meta-analysis by Prof. Morris and Dr. John Krieger.

With that misguided frame, Mr. Rosenberg presents the study:

“The highest-quality studies suggest that medical male circumcision has no adverse effect on sexual function, sensitivity, sexual sensation, or satisfaction,” Professor Brian Morris told The Daily Mail. Morris and his co-author looked at 36 studies covering 40,473 men, half circumcised and half not. They ranked each in terms of scientific rigor and quality, according to accepted official guidelines. And they found that circumcision “had no overall adverse effect on penile sensitivity, sexual arousal, sexual sensation, erectile function, premature ejaculation, duration of intercourse, orgasm difficulties, sexual satisfaction, pleasure, or pain during penetration.” Indeed, after 24 months, 99.9 percent of men were satisfied with their circumcisions–and 72 percent said sensitivity had increased.

There’s a lot to unpack there. The largest point is that Mr. Rosenberg clearly didn’t read the 12 page paper because he regurgitates the results in the digestible (i.e. misleading) package given in the news article. Reading it might reduce his confirmation bias. There are enough obvious limitations, as well:

While the review considered a large body of evidence, there are some factors that may be influencing the findings.

For example, many studies were surveys, and the recruitment process for them is not described. It could be the case that men who have a satisfying sex life may be more willing to participate and answer questions on sexual performance and satisfaction that those who aren’t.

Also, most of the responses in the study are subjective, and what one person considers to be a sexual problem or sexual satisfaction, another might not. There may also be differences in the culture and ethnicity of the participants of certain studies, meaning that their findings cannot be so easily transferred elsewhere.

Beyond that, focus on the conclusion from the study. They state that their analysis suggests this conclusion. Suggests is not a synonym for proves. Yet, even though the Daily Mail article doesn’t use the word in quoting Morris, Mr. Rosenberg states:

Morris told The Daily Mail that he saw his study disproving circumcision’s adverse effects as complementary to those showing its benefits. …

He repeatedly misses the critical issue of consent versus force. In a previous article Mr. Rosenberg summarized a finding that “[i]t would have been unethical to continue without offering circumcision” to the remaining intact volunteers in a study with a simple statement that it would be “[u]nethical not to circumcise the men.” It appears that Mr. Rosenberg is not a reliable filter for news pertaining to circumcision.

There are obvious problems in the current meta-analysis. I will accept their methodology and reasoning as presented, which lead to their “suggests” conclusion. Assuming it is accurate, so what? The findings were not 100%. Of course, 99.9% is presented as essentially the same thing, which is even better than the result we’d expect from a dictator’s latest popular election. From the Krieger et al. Adult Male Circumcision study in Kenya [15]¹, 8.9% of circumcised men identified their penile sexual sensation as something other than “increased” or “the same” 24 months after circumcision. It’s ridiculous to pretend that these men don’t matter and that their experience should be ignored to allow a perceived universal defense for circumcising male minors.

Mr. Rosenberg concludes:

Yet the findings of science have done little thus far to deter Europeans politicians and health officials from seeking to criminalize circumcision, and labeling those who practice it “ignorant” and “barbaric.” It remains to be seen if this study will alter their course.

A utilitarian defense for violating human rights is ineffectual because the defense relies on using only a preferred subset of factors to reach a conclusion. “It’s mine” is a sufficient reason for a male to want his foreskin. He owns his foreskin as much as he owns any other part of his anatomy. Potential benefits valued by his parents are irrelevant while his body is healthy. Proxy consent for this non-therapeutic intervention is invalid because the net benefit or harm is subjective to the individual himself.

This is obvious if considering the question Morris and Krieger asked. Does male circumcision affect sexual function, sensitivity or satisfaction? In order, yes, maybe, and maybe. The findings suggest as much if we look at the participants in the included studies as individuals with their own unique tastes and preferences rather than as statistics. The paper’s focus is sex as a measurable number, which is an idiotic way to reach a conclusion about a subjective topic like human sexuality.

For sexual function, the foreskin is removed. That changes function. Maybe that’s “good”, maybe it’s “bad”. Each person must decide before circumcision what he thinks he wants. What his parents prefer is meaningless.

As for sensitivity, the results are equivocal. I’m willing to accept the negative findings as lower-quality studies for this purpose. But in a study Morris and Krieger rate as 2++, Payne et al [12], this:

… It is possible that the uncircumcised penis is more sensitive due to the presence of additional sensory receptors on the prepuce and frenulum, but this cannot be compared with the absence of such structures in the circumcised penis. …

Yet, for Morris and Krieger, this is support for their “suggests” conclusion because:

… More circumcised participants reported an increase in their level of sexual arousal, while more uncircumcised men reported being unaffected by the erotic stimulus. …

They want to believe, so they believe. That’s the only way I can reconcile the source study with their analysis.

In certain aspects sensitivity is quantifiable, but there is a an element of experience to human sexuality that a generalized “yes” or “no” here dismisses. That same element of experience, but without the ability to quantify in a utilitarian summary, exists in personal evaluations of satisfaction. This is why I don’t state that someone is wrong for preferring circumcision or believing it improves their experience of sex or life, in general. But that is also why it’s wrong for Morris, Krieger, Rosenberg, or anyone else to support parental choice (i.e. proxy consent) for non-therapeutic circumcision. Declaring one’s own preference as a truth applicable to someone else – without concern for the individual’s preference for himself – is the critical mistake inseparable from their argument.

One final point: It’s important to read the abstract and the study rather than just the abstract, even as a layman. Doing so reveals a lot of nuance, as the AAP’s revised position statement in 2012 so embarrassingly showed. It avoids the “It’s official!” conclusion too many (like Mr. Rosenberg here) want to staple to the evolving science involved in circumcision. The Payne [12] study is another example of the importance of this maxim, as are the remaining studies reviewed by Morris and Krieger, probably.

¹ Bracketed numbers correspond to the same-numbered footnote in the Morris/Krieger review.


Renee Lute’s Circumcision Decision Deserves No Respect

Posted: October 11th, 2013 | Author: | Filed under: "Voluntary", Control, Ethics, FCD, FGM, Logic, Media Marketing, Pain, Parenting, Science | No Comments »

At The Good Men Project Renee Lute makes a request: Please Respect Our Circum-Decision. It only requires a short response: No. Still, her essay is worth analyzing to explain why the only answer is “no”.

Circumcision on a healthy child is a permanent body alteration without the child’s consent. I’m under no obligation to respect that. I do not believe anyone should respect that. If Lute understood circumcision as well as she claims, she’d understand how absurd it is to request respect for her decision from someone who recognizes this surgical intervention as the human rights violation it is.

She is, of course, due a respectful rejection of her request. I will not engage in ad hominem, nor will I call her names as a result of what she intends to do. Anyway, facts and logic are enough to demonstrate her errors.

She begins:

… I’m apologizing to [my unborn son] for writing this piece, because now the world will know just a little bit about the future state of his penis, and most little boys don’t have to deal with that. …

This common theme is strange. Intact genitals are the human default. Unnecessary intervention is the only reason the status of a child’s genitals is considered an issue if people know, as if knowing is a Big Deal. Or, rather, unnecessary intervention is the only reason the status of a boy’s genitals is considered an issue if people know. This bizarre reality is the result of intervening, not some inherent shame in having others know we have human genitals.

That gets to the reason why I won’t respect her and her husband’s decision for their unborn son. A daughter’s normal, healthy genitals are off-limits for surgical intervention, and rightly so. Those who recognize the ethics involved as gender-neutral must stand against the opinion that a son’s normal, healthy genitals can be subjected to surgical intervention. (There will be more on the valid comparison below.)

She discusses Mark Joseph Stern’s terrible Slate piece (my post) and Brian Earp’s reply at The Good Men Project. She writes:

Neither of these articles really threw me. I know the arguments against circumcision, and I know the arguments for circumcision. What did surprise me, however, was what I found in the comments section under The Good Men Project article. …

Never read the comments. We know that doesn’t mean “never read the comments”. But it’s a reminder that the Internet is a place for bad manners and emotional responses. That’s particularly true in comment sections. Discussion of circumcision is no different. I’m not excusing the behavior. The rude, hateful, and misogynistic garbage is wrong and needs to stop. But reasoned proponents of bodily integrity, as I aim to be, have our argument harmed only in the sense that someone is willing to generalize about those who disagree based on the miscreants that any group has.

… I am not a circumcision enthusiast. In fact, I could not care less whether other people circumcise their sons or not. Do it if you want! Don’t if you don’t want! But I am begging you—begging you—to not make families who choose to circumcise their sons feel like they are abusers of children, or human rights violators.

“Do it if you want! Don’t if you don’t want!” is the false argument. What does the child who will live with the circumcision want? That is the core. Without knowing what he will want, imposing it as a non-therapeutic intervention is a human rights violation. I suppose it’s unfortunate if that makes someone feel bad about circumcising their healthy son(s). But I recognize that my parents violated my rights when they circumcised me. I won’t pretend¹ that someone else circumcising their son isn’t violating his rights because stating a truth makes them feel bad about the choice they make. (I do not take a position on how individual males should feel about being circumcised.)

Why am I going to have my son circumcised? Because his father and I have done our reading. We’ve talked about it, and we’ve made our decision. There are legitimate reasons. Circumcision eliminates the risk of phimosis (in which a foreskin is tight and cannot be fully pulled back, which makes cleaning and passing urine difficult, and increases the risk of penile cancer). This affects 1 in 10 older boys and men. Circumcision reduces the risk of inflammation and infection of the head of the penis and the foreskin, and greatly reduces the risk of urinary tract infections in infants. Uncircumcised men have a 15-60% increased risk of prostate cancer (which affects 1 in 6 men). [1] We are not uneducated about circumcision. …

That last line is not necessarily true, given what comes before it in that paragraph. The sole source cited for this knowledge is a pamphlet by Brian Morris, which contains no sourcing of its own. (Some of the material in this excerpt is verbatim from Morris, without quotes to indicate as much.) It contains information that is biased and exaggerated.

To the claim that circumcision eliminates the risk of phimosis, this is incorrect. Contrary to the risk of phimosis being a “legitimate reason” to circumcise a healthy child, the ethical standard is that the risk of complications is a legitimate reason to refrain from intervening on a healthy child. Remember, too, that Brian Morris is the cited source for the 1 in 10 claim. He’s stated that all boys are born with phimosis, which is false. Even if the statistic is true, it is that phimosis will affect 1 in 10, not that it will require circumcision in 1 in 10. This mirrors his claim in the pamphlet that “the foreskin leads to 1 in 3 uncircumcised boys developing a condition requiring medical attention.” A condition requiring medical attention is not a synonym for circumcision. This is a rhetorical sleight of hand. The true incidence of medical need for circumcision within an intact male’s life is approximately 1%, which includes for phimosis.

As for the “15-60% increased risk of prostate cancer” statistic, that is a correlation, not a proven fact. “Circumcision before first sexual intercourse is associated with a reduction in the relative risk of PCa in this study population.” To quote the author, “‘These data suggest a biologically plausible mechanism through which circumcision may decrease the risk of prostate cancer,’ said study researcher Dr. Jonathan Wright, an assistant professor of urology at the University of Washington School of Medicine. He noted that the study was observational; it did not show a cause-and-effect link.”

She continues:

… One of the aforementioned commenters wrote that anyone who would have their child circumcised should have to experience it themselves, first. Well, my husband has experienced it (and remarkably, he gave me his permission to tell the world just now), …

I don’t like that pointless suggestion because it invites that pointless rebuttal.

…and while I have not gone through the completely incomparable horror of female circumcision (I am not going to detail why it’s incomparable here, but I do encourage you to research the differences if you don’t know what they are. You’ll find some information here), …

I know what the differences are. I know what the similarities are. The difference is in degree, not in kind. That difference in degree can be great, of course, but non-therapeutic genital-cutting on an individual without the individual’s consent is not a gendered principle. The WHO defines female genital mutilation as “all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.” The perceived difference², including in the link Lute provides, rests on what constitutes a medical versus non-medical reason. If we assume the “no known health benefits” argument against FGM turned into “known health benefits”, would people change their mind and decide it’s no longer mutilation? Some might say “yes”. They’d be wrong. I suspect most people would not change their conclusion. As the WHO states, FGM “also violates a person’s rights to health, security and physical integrity, the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the right to life when the procedure results in death.” That would still hold true if their were potential benefits. It holds true for male circumcision, as well.

… My husband and I aren’t unfamiliar with pain, and we are willing to put our child through a moment of discomfort for the benefits this procedure provides. Kind of like we’re willing to put our child through a moment of discomfort for the benefits that vaccinations provide.

But is their child son willing to have the moment (i.e. 1+ week) of discomfort and a lifetime without his foreskin for the potential benefits this procedure provides? (Remember from above that the Lutes do not appear to understand the benefits.)

Circumcision is not like a vaccination. Vaccinations work with the body’s immune system to trigger disease resistance. Circumcision merely removes a part of the body because it might cause a problem later. The comparison needs critical thinking beyond “prevents disease”, lest we further open parental decision-making to other ridiculous interventions.

This piece is both explanatory and pleading. I am pleading with you. Don’t make these perfectly well intentioned families—like us—feel like monsters because you’ve decided to go a different way with your own sons. We’re doing something different, and that’s okay. We each have our reasons. I don’t care whether you breastfeed or formula feed. I don’t care whether you co-sleep or have your babies in their own cribs, and I don’t care whether you’ve named your child something completely traditional (like Kate) or whether she’ll be answering to Zenith for the rest of her life. I’m asking for the same courtesy.

It’s okay to do something different. It is not okay to do this something different. You can’t respect one right of your son less than the same right of his sister and brush it aside as “parenting”. If someone asks me to respectfully tell them they’re wrong, I agree with that request for decency. But I will not respect what is obviously indefensible and deeply offensive to basic human rights.

¹ I don’t call circumcision “abuse”. (c.f. Truth and Loaded Words)

² The other mistake is in thinking that FGM is designed to control sexuality, but that male circumcision isn’t and doesn’t. It controls male sexuality because it forces a specific form on the child for his genitals. (e.g. It’s more aesthetically appealing to women.)

There is also a history, up to the present, in circumcision reducing sexuality. Read Moses Maimonides or this.


Mark Joseph Stern Is Mistaken On Circumcision

Posted: September 19th, 2013 | Author: | Filed under: "Voluntary", Ethics, FCD, FGM, Hygiene, Logic, Media Marketing, Parenting, Public Health, Science | 1 Comment »

It takes a special commitment to ignorance to cherry-pick evidence to prove that opponents cherry-pick evidence. Mark Joseph Stern possesses that special commitment.

There are facts about circumcision—but you won’t find them easily on the Internet. Parents looking for straightforward evidence about benefits and risks are less likely to stumble across the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention than Intact America, which confronts viewers with a screaming, bloodied infant and demands that hospitals “stop experimenting on baby boys.” Just a quick Google search away lies the Circumcision Complex, a website that speculates that circumcision leads to Oedipus and castration complexes, to say nothing of the practice’s alleged brutal physiological harms. If you do locate the rare rational and informed circumcision article, you’ll be assaulted by a vitriolic mob of commenters accusing the author of encouraging “genital mutilation.”

One paragraph in, and there’s so much to unpack. First, the obvious point is that Mr. Stern is another in a long line of lazy writers who thinks that the ability to type a word into Google proves much of anything for a story. If it’s just “a quick Google search away”, in a paragraph filled with links, it’s reasonable to expect an author to include the search he used to get to the evidence of alleged malfeasance. When I use Google to search circumcision, I get Wikiepdia, news articles, KidsHealth.org, the Mayo Clinic, the government’s Medline Plus, Intact America, Jewish Virtual Library, NOCIRC, and so on. I’ll point out that only the results for Intact America and NOCIRC are to something decidedly against non-therapeutic child circumcision, but so what? It’s a search algorithm. That’s easily gamed. It doesn’t prove Mr. Stern’s silly angle.

That “rare rational and informed circumcision article” is another in Hanna Rosin’s string of awful circumcision defenses.

As for the vitriol, this is the internet. Never read the comments. That doesn’t excuse the comments. They’re often offensive and uninformed and the people who engage in that behavior are wrong, even if they’re ostensibly on my side. But you’ll find them on both sides. It doesn’t prove anything on the argument. Using it as evidence against the argument is ad hominem.

So. There are facts about circumcision. Circumcision is the “surgical removal of the foreskin of males”. The foreskin is the “loose fold of skin that covers the glans of the penis”. Those are facts. But he’s implying the context of non-therapeutic male child circumcision. What should parents want?

Parents shouldn’t want anything, of course, because this is not their decision. Just like we don’t allow them to cut off any other normal body parts of their children, they do not possess a right to circumcise their sons for any reason other than immediate medical need that can’t be adequately resolved with less-invasive methods. Proxy consent is not sufficient for non-theratpeutic circumcision. But because our society doesn’t yet grasp the full implication of an equal right to bodily integrity, parents want information. Fortunately, there is scientific evidence against non-therapeutic circumcision!

The normal, healthy foreskin is normal and healthy. If parents leave it alone, as they should, statistics demonstrate that their son(s) will almost never need any intervention for his foreskin, and much less a medically-necessary circumcision.

Of every 1,000 boys who are circumcised:

  • 20 to 30 will have a surgical complication, such as too much bleeding or infection in the area.
  • 2 to 3 will have a more serious complication that needs more treatment. Examples include having too much skin removed or more serious bleeding.
  • 2 will be admitted to hospital for a urinary tract infection (UTI) before they are one year old.
  • About 10 babies may need to have the circumcision done again because of a poor result.

In rare cases, pain relief methods and medicines can cause side effects and complications. You should talk to your baby’s doctor about the possible risks.

Of every 1,000 boys who *are not* circumcised:

  • 7 will be admitted to hospital for a UTI before they are one year old.
  • 10 will have a circumcision later in life for medical reasons, such as a condition called phimosis. Phimosis is when the opening of the foreskin is scarred and narrow because of infections in the area that keep coming back. Older children who are circumcised may need a general anesthetic, and may have more complications than newborns.

Those numbers, from the Canadian Pediatric Society, are hardly compelling in favor of circumcising healthy children. Non-therapeutic circumcision prevents 5 boys (0.5%) from being admitted to a hospital with a UTI in the first year of life. Yet, between 20 and 30 (2-3%) boys will suffer a surgical complication, and another 2 to 3 (0.2-0.3%) will suffer a more serious complication.

The really curious statistic is the last in each group. About 10 (~1%) babies may need to have the circumcision done again due to a poor result. If normal, healthy boys are left with their normal, healthy foreskin, 10 (1%) of them will need a medically-necessary circumcision later in life. Those numbers look curiously similar.

So, to recap the facts in this context, circumcision is the permanent removal of a normal, healthy foreskin from a boy who can’t offer his consent to eliminate the 1% lifetime risk that he’ll need a circumcision.

There are other potential benefits, which Mr. Stern links in great detail. I have no problem including them, regardless of how weak or stupid I think they may be. That still isn’t enough to permit non-therapeutic child circumcision. The inputs into the decision are facts, but their value is not. Each person is an individual with his own preferences that his parents can’t know. What Mr. Stern values is not automatically what I value. Or to make the more appropriate connection, what parents value is not automatically what their son will value. That is why proxy consent requires a stricter standard than consent. A surgical decision that permanently alters a healthy child’s body can’t be permitted within proxy consent.

Mr. Stern writes this curious statement among many curious statements:

… Yet in the past two decades, a fringe group of self-proclaimed “intactivists” has hijacked the conversation, dismissing science, slamming reason, and tossing splenetic accusations at anyone who dares question their conspiracy theory. …

What a specific subset of people do is hardly the entirety of the argument or proof in favor of his position. Again, this is just silly, indefensible ad hominem. But what he says is also untrue. Dismissing science? Not here. I’ll accept any claimed benefit. The argument against forcing circumcision on a child is still as powerfully conclusive. Slamming reason? Stating that normal, healthy children should not undergo surgery is the position using reason. Conspiracy theory? Nope. Parents who circumcise, and people who support that option, are generally well-intentioned. I can show examples where that isn’t true, but I’m aware that such evidence is isolated. It’s surely true that some doctors circumcise for the money. I assume most circumcise because they believe it’s acceptable or believe parents should choose, even if the doctor wouldn’t. It’s important to understand how we got here, but I don’t much care about placing blame for that. I care about moving forward. There are any number of like-minded individuals Mr. Stern could find and talk to rather than write the wrong things he wrote.

… For doctors, circumcision remains a complex, delicate issue; for researchers, it’s an effective tool in the fight for global public health. But to intactivists, none of that matters. …

All of that matters. No one I know believes that adult (or older teen) males shouldn’t be able to volunteer for non-therapeutic circumcision.

Mr. Stern’s tactic here is what he’s complaining about. It’s similar to when Dr. Amy Tuteur goes on a tedious rant about “foreskin fetishists”. Smear your opponents because they smear you. “They”, of course. Internet comments are a part of humanity, not representative of it.

… The first rule of anti-circumcision activism, for instance, is to never, ever say circumcision: The movement prefers propaganda-style terms like male genital cutting and genital mutilation, the latter meant to invoke the odious practice of female genital mutilation. (Intactivists like to claim the two are equivalent, an utter falsity that is demeaning to victims of FGM.)

I’ve written circumcision a whole bunch above. But circumcision is genital cutting, because facts. The comparison is in the principle of those facts. Non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual is unethical. It’s also genital mutilation if we are to accept the WHO definition of female genital mutilation:

Female genital mutilation (FGM) comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.

… It is nearly always carried out on minors and is a violation of the rights of children. The practice also violates a person’s rights to health, security and physical integrity, the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the right to life when the procedure results in death.

The issue is human rights, not a specific subset of human rights from which male minors are somehow exempt.

Anti-circumcision activists then deploy a two-pronged attack on some of humanity’s most persistent weaknesses: sexual insecurity and resentment of one’s parents. Your parents, you are told by the intactivists, mutilated you when you were a defenseless child, violating your human rights and your bodily integrity. Without your consent, they destroyed the most vital component of your penis, seriously reducing your sexual pleasure and permanently hobbling you with a maimed member. Anti-circumcision activists craft an almost cultic devotion to the mythical powers of the foreskin, claiming it is responsible for the majority of pleasure derived from any sexual encounter. Your foreskin, intactivists suggest, could have provided you with a life of satisfaction and joy. Without it, you are consigned to a pleasureless, colorless, possibly sexless existence.

Some take that approach. I only speak for myself on being unhappy with circumcision. I’ll quote myself on his generalization:

… The problem is not that circumcision is bad, per se. Healthy men who choose to have themselves circumcised are correct for their bodies. Men circumcised as infants who are happy (or indifferent) about being circumcised are also correct for their bodies. …

But if you only dive into comments sections, it’s easy to believe that’s the only opinion. It’s not excusable to believe that, but it’s easy.

Intactivists gain validity and a measure of mainstream acceptance through their sheer tenacity. Their most successful strategy is pure ubiquity, causing a casual observer to assume their strange fixations are widely accepted. Just check the comment section of any article pertaining to circumcision. …

Ahem.

Take, for example, the key rallying cry of intactivists: That circumcision seriously reduces penis sensitivity and thus sexual pleasure. …

My “key rallying cry” is that circumcision is medically unnecessary and violates the child’s basic rights to bodily integrity and autonomy. That holds up even if the rest of his paragraph’s citations hold up. Sexual satisfaction is a subjective evaluation to each individual. The ability to orgasm is not the full universe of sexual satisfaction. And any change to form changes function. The individual may view that change as good. He may view it as bad. Parents can’t know. That’s the ethical flaw in circumcising healthy minors.

Study after …

Surely Mr. Stern read through the studies to understand exactly what they say. I have my doubts. I read it. That study is problematic when viewed as conclusively as Mr. Stern cites it. It requires nuance the study’s author provided. Does an appeal to authority sweep away any concerns about limitations?

study after …

Adult male circumcision does not adversely affect…” Is that proof that circumcision of male minors doesn’t affect sexual satisfaction, with the glaring caveat against surgery that such a male can’t know?

It’s also worth noting that Mr. Stern linked that same study again later in the paragraph. He also linked another study in consecutive sentences. And a third. That’s deceptive and improperly gives an impression about “an entire field of resarch”, no?

… ([No adverse effect] fits with what my colleague Emily Bazelon found when she asked readers for their circumcision stories a few years ago.) …

Ms. Bazelon’s premise and finding were ridiculous.

So much for circumcision’s supposedly crippling effect on sexual pleasure. But what about its effect on health? Intactivists like to call circumcision “medically unnecessary.” In reality, however, circumcision is an extremely effective preventive measure against global disease. …

The potential benefits don’t render non-therapeutic circumcision “medically necessary”. Earlier he complained about propaganda-style terms. Pretending that “medically unnecessary” doesn’t have an accepted, factual meaning is propaganda-style question begging.

… Circumcision lowers the risk of HIV acquisition in heterosexual men by about 60 to 70 percent. … [ed. note: (Later in this paragraph, he uses the WHO link again.]

The “60″ link states “male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence.” Not one of those three criteria matches a Western nation. Those studies also involved adult volunteers, not unconsenting minors.

As both a personal and public health matter, circumcision is clearly in men’s best interest. …

Ethically, as a personal health matter, each healthy individual should decide for himself what body alterations are in his best interest based on his own preferences.

… Anyway, to intactivists, mutilation is mutilation; what does it matter if it’s for the greater good?

“The greater good” doesn’t matter because individuals are humans with rights, not statistics to be treated without regard for what they need or want. Life is full of risks. Because we seemingly can mitigate that does not mean we may or should.


Words Like “Is” Have a Specific Meaning

Posted: August 18th, 2013 | Author: | Filed under: Media Marketing | No Comments »

Proponents of non-therapeutic infant circumcision are a curious group to me. Almost universally, I find them to be sincere in their belief that circumcision is beneficial, even though they are misguided for reasons based in objective facts. But I assume they’re well-intentioned rather than malicious. They don’t think circumcision harms. Even if I’m wrong about an individual’s approach and justifications, it’s both respectful and responsible to assume they’re well-intentioned rather than malicious. This is my standard.

University of Sydney Professor Brian Morris is a curious case within the curious group. I still think the above applies to him. I’m not quite sure why he makes the mistakes he does, though. He is prone to assign any criticism of non-therapeutic infant circumcision as fanatical lies. I believe he should’ve been educated in the course of his PhD work against making such disprovable declarations. Perhaps he was and missed its importance. I do not know.

That brings me to this otherwise irrelevant article on the question of whether or not Britain’s Prince George will be circumcised based on royal tradition. In the comments to the article, someone who appears to be Professor Morris commented on the article. To be fair, I can’t prove it’s Morris. The commenter logged in from a Facebook account, which includes what appear to be personal pictures of Professor Morris. The commenter’s writing appears similar to Professor Morris’ style. The evidence suggests a conclusion that the commenter is Professor Morris. But I work to avoid declaring what I can’t prove. I understand how declarative statements work and what they’re intended to do. Despite its clunkiness, I will attribute the comments to “the person claiming to be Professor Morris” rather than to “Professor Morris”.

Here’s the first comment on the story from the person claiming to be Professor Morris. It is why I link to the story.

Despite Dianna’s initial reluctance after her first baby was born, William and Harry were circumcised, in accordance with Royal tradition which Dianna acceded to.

I’ve seen no evidence supporting that claim. The article states that Princess Diana “reportedly would not allow her sons, William and Harry, to be circumcised.” I am, at best, marginally informed about royal gossip, so maybe there is evidence to support a claim that the consensus opinion is wrong. I don’t know. My point is that the “Princes William and Harry were circumcised” claim should have some support if the person claiming to be Professor Morris is willing to make it so definitive. When challenged, the person claiming to be Professor Morris responded:

William and Harry are almost certainly circumcised as is traditional in the British Royal family and upper classes. It is likely that Prince George is already as well, or soon will be. If there is genuine (‘undoctored’) photographic evidence to the contrary re William and Harry then please produce it. Otherwise what you say can be regarded as just another typical propaganda-based lie of circumcision opponents.

Now the person claiming to be Professor Morris says the princes were “almost certainly circumcised” rather than they “were circumcised”. Why make the original declarative statement? Or, why back off now? And notice how the person claiming to be Professor Morris demands photographic evidence that disproves his unsupported claim to demonstrate that the challenge isn’t “just another typical propaganda-based lie of circumcision opponents”.¹ The standard of fact employed here is only a one way requirement.

In response to a follow-up comment linking to ambiguous tabloid evidence, the person claiming to be Professor Morris responded (NSFW link at the original comment):

You have just proven to the world that Prince William IS circumcised.

Notice the return to a declarative statement. You may decide for yourself if the pictures are clear enough to warrant a declarative statement. You don’t have to bother. It isn’t important to my point because I’m interested in the “everything is pro-circumcision” argument offered in those comments by the person claiming to be Professor Morris.

The person claiming to be Professor Morris continued:

You haven’t examined the photographs adequately. The link of the fence gives the ILLUSION that it is the end of a foreskin, but a close look shows it isn’t, and you seem to be able to see the ridge of the glans.

The fence is an impediment, as is the distance of the photo. It’s a tabloid photo, not a documentary. Either theory could be defended on something in the photos. Just after saying it proves his point, the person claiming to be Professor Morris states that “you seem to be able to see the ridge of the glans”. Seeing the ridge of the glans proves nothing, especially in these unclear photos. A normal foreskin can be rolled back to expose the glans and possibly would be for urination. But to the person claiming to be Professor Morris, what you “seem to be able to see” is enough to justify a declarative statement. According to that approach, anything that supports circumcision is true, while anything that opposes circumcision is false. Contrary to the person claiming to be Professor Morris’ understanding, that is an actual example of propaganda, in the pejorative sense the comment quoted above intended.

¹ I am not a circumcision opponent. I oppose non-therapeutic genital-cutting (e.g. circumcision) on non-consenting patients, whatever their age or gender.


The New and Improved Circumcised Banana

Posted: May 13th, 2013 | Author: | Filed under: Media Marketing | No Comments »

Anyone who pays attention to circumcision in the news has seen some version of this silly attempt at “cute”, because “haha we’re talking about wieners, amirite”:

NY Magazine Hanna Rosin Circumcised Banana

Image Source¹

I’ve always disliked this image for the obvious reason that non-therapeutic child circumcision is neither cute nor funny. The image also irks me because it’s inaccurate. The reality would involve a banana that isn’t yet ripe. For example:

Circumcised Banana Is a Dumb Meme

The visual also requires a look at the changes to the banana as it “matures” after removing part of its protective covering:

Circumcised Banana After Time

What’s left of the banana changes, which is a fair representation of circumcision.

All of this is a ridiculous simplification because that’s what the original image is. I don’t expect my images to do any significant work for me. They only show how the original “circumcised” banana is a distraction. Non-therapeutic child circumcision is an ethical violation that deserves better than a superficial image that doesn’t tell the truth.

¹ I re-read Hanna Rosin’s drivel in “The Case Against the Case Against Circumcision”. I dismantled it in “Hanna Rosin Is Still Wrong On Circumcision, Revisited“. My primary point struck me again when re-reading the Rosin opinion piece. She cribbed straight from Edgar Schoen and Brian Morris, with no apparent research from a person who doesn’t vigorously advocate for circumcising healthy infants. She started with her conclusion and packed a bizarre subset of facts, omissions, and distortions into that neat box.