Circumcision facts with Intaction : 1920: Shocked by the influx of immigrants from Southern & Eastern Europe, white upper class Americans have a crisis of cultural identity. They seek circumcision as a means of distinguishing themselves from poor immigrants that they perceived to be racially inferior, dirty, vulgar, & with disease carrying uncut penises. Circumcision elevated to a status symbol. D.L. Gollaher, (Phd, Harvard University), JOURNAL OF SOCIAL HISTORY, Volume 28, Number 1: Pages 5 – 36

This is a big myth about circumcision that proponents cite to make circumcision seem trivial. The foreskin is not an extra bit skin–that is not correct. First, it’s not “extra”, in fact it’s a highly complex piece of tissue that includes mucus membranes, muscle fibers, and erogenous nerve endings. It’s an essential part of the penis, not something extra. And second, it’s not a “bit”. It’s as much as 15 square inches (when unfolded) in an adult of amazing specialized skin. The reality is that claiming circumcision is safe is a dubious claim. To say it’s harmless is just flat wrong. Removing the foreskin can have many complications, such as life threatening bleeding, infection, meatal stenosis, disfigurement, excessive scaring, and severe skin bridge adhesions. Some circumcised boys need more than one surgery to attempt to fix these manmade problems. As bad as that sounds, things can get worse.

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. Read additional information about circumcision.

Circumcision is often performed on infants without anesthetic or with a local anesthetic that is ineffective at substantially reducing pain (Lander et al., 1997). In a study by Lander and colleagues (1997), a control group of infants who received no anesthesia was used as a baseline to measure the effectiveness of different types of anesthesia during circumcision. The control group babies were in so much pain—some began choking and one even had a seizure—they decided it was unethical to continue. It is important to also consider the effects of post-operative pain in circumcised infants (regardless of whether anesthesia is used), which is described as “severe” and “persistent” (Howard et al., 1994). In addition to pain, there are other negative physical outcomes including possible infection and death (Van Howe, 1997, 2004).

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.”) Find extra details on https://intaction.org/.