Circumcision Compared to Vaccination

Circumcision

In order to avoid diseases, a team of researchers from Australia and America recommended circumcision of infant males and compared the practice to vaccination. The team was led by Brian Morris, a professor at the School of Medical Sciences in Sydney. In their newly published study, they asserted that 50 percent of uncircumcised males will get a harmful medical condition which relates to their foreskin, also known as the portion of skin that is clipped off during the circumcision process. The article was published in the journal Mayo Clinic Proceedings on Wednesday.

According to Morris, new findings show that circumcision of newborn boys should be treated the same as childhood vaccination and that it would be unethical not to give parents the right to circumcise their child. Morris also said that the best way to protect infants from urinary tract infections, which can later potentially lead to long-term kidney damage, is by having them circumcised. Even though we live in a time when people speak openly about almost everything, circumcision is, compared to vaccination, still a big taboo. Due to the increase of Hispanic population where the practice of circumcision is less prevalent, circumcision declined from 83 percent to 77 percent in the last 50 years.

Researchers wrote in their study that delayed circumcision puts the child’s health at risk and therefore, it is best to circumcise the boys while they are still infants. The study also says that circumcision protects children from several conditions and decreases risk of some diseases at least 100 to one.  Authors showed in the study that circumcision has no harmful effect on sexual functions, pleasure or sensitivity. Professor Morris added that the new findings should send a very powerful message to educators, medical practitioners, policy makers, insurers and governments. They should all promote the circumcision procedure, which is best done in local anesthesia when boys are still infants. The access and third-party coverage should also be increased, particularly for poor families who usually suffer most from diseases which are foreskin related.

The American Academy of Pediatrics also published their study in August, 2012. They were then suggesting that the circumcision procedure could protect heterosexual men from HIV and therefore the health benefits outweigh the risk that is connected to the procedure. Dozens of European physicians then responded, alleging that “cultural bias” was responsible for the academy’s opinion about circumcisions. Ritual circumcision of young boys recently came under attack with many medical associations and political parties in northern Europe, especially in Scandinavia, where circumcision is marked as a form of child abuse.

Due to data in newly published study, the debate about the circumcision risk got fired up again. Opponents of circumcision are saying that parents should not be able to make that kind of decision for their infant. They believe that circumcision should not be used as a preventive measure and that families should respect their child’s right to free will. The activists, who are fighting against circumcision, are of the opinion that the procedure of removing boy’s foreskin absolutely cannot be compared to vaccination.

By Janette Verdnik

Science World Report

Daily Mail

Counsel & Heal

3 Responses to "Circumcision Compared to Vaccination"

  1. Adam   April 7, 2014 at 6:25 am

    That cliche sliced banana skin picture is so straight from Morris website.
    It gets used in almost every uncritical article about circumcision. I wonder why?
    A foreskin is not like a banana peel. The owner screams when you cut it.

    Reply
  2. Adam   April 7, 2014 at 6:24 am

    Few pay attention to Morris in his own country. He does not enjoy the support of the RACP. His figures are unscientific, and unmoving. His circumcision rate in the US is higher than numbers from the AMA, AAP, and CDC. Data like this come from science?
    “The study also says that circumcision protects children from several conditions and decreases risk of some diseases at least 100 to one.” Is this a horse race, or a scientific study?
    There is no reason to remove something with a protective function, from a healthy child.
    The foreskin has 20,000 nerves. The clitoris has 8,000 nerves. Circumcision is not the best thing you can do for your child.

    Reply
  3. James   April 6, 2014 at 3:23 pm

    Thanks for giving the counterpoint at least to Brian Morris’s latest claim. It should be noted that he too is an activist, crusading tirelessly for mandatory circumcision of infants. I wish more coverage would be given to the ethical arguments surrounding circumcision. Genital surgery would not be allowed on infant girls even if some researcher conducted unethical studies and found “health benefits”. Girls happen to be far more prone to UTIs than boys, but are rightly treated with antibiotics instead of amputation of part of their genitals.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.