As an Orthodox Jew, it is interesting to see that scientists and doctors are supporting the benefits of circumcision on male infants. Recently, a team of researchers from Australia and America recommended circumcision as a means of avoiding disease. Some went as far as to compare the practice to vaccination. The team, led by Brian Morris, a professor at the School of Medical Sciences in Sydney, stated that one in two uncircumcised males will get a harmful medical condition which relates to their foreskin, which is the portion of skin removed during circumcision.
As an Orthodox Jew, it is interesting to see that scientists and doctors are supporting the benefits of circumcision on male infants. Recently, a team of researchers from Australia and America recommended circumcision as a means of avoiding disease. Some went as far as to compare the practice to vaccination. The team, led by Brian Morris, a professor at the School of Medical Sciences in Sydney, stated that one in two uncircumcised males will get a harmful medical condition which relates to their foreskin, which is the portion of skin removed during circumcision.According to Morris, findings demonstrate that circumcision of newborn males is essentially the same as childhood vaccination. He maintains that it would be wrong not to provide parents with the choice to circumcise their child. Furthermore, Morris states that circumcision is the most direct way to prevent infants from developing urinary tract infections (UTI’s), which can eventually result in chronic kidney damage. Scientists also state that since delayed circumcision puts the child’s health at risk, it is best to circumcise the boys while they are still infants.
Morris added that the new research should not remain mere scientific knowledge but should translate into action on the part of educators, medical practitioners, policy makers, insurers and governments. Circumcision should be promoted and offered as an option, and even covered by insurance. The access and coverage should also be extended, especially for low-income families where there is a higher prevalence of foreskin related diseases.
Even with these significant findings, there is a taboo that surrounds circumcision. Perhaps this is related to the association between circumcision and radical religion, but regardless, the practice has declined from 83 percent to 77 percent since the 1960s.
According to a study published in the American Academy of Pediatrics back in August 2012, the circumcision procedure has many benefits. Among them are easier hygiene, decreased incidence of urinary tract infections, decreased risk of sexually transmitted infections (such as HIV), and decreased risk of penile cancer. Dozens of European doctors immediately responded to this Academy’s study, believing that “cultural bias” was responsible for the pro-circumcision stance. Ritual circumcision of young boys has been disputed for centuries, but the greatest opponents come from medical associations and political parties in northern Europe. In Scandinavia, for example, circumcision is marked as a form of child abuse.
With the publication of these new findings, the controversy behind circumcision in the secular world re-opened. Some groups maintain that parents should not decide for their child, which taps into questions of ethics and autonomy. The opponents are of the opinion that the procedure of removing boy’s foreskin is in no way or form comparable to vaccination. Instead, they believe that circumcision is unnecessary, or even disfiguring. Yet in many cultures, as we are all familiar with, circumcision is a sacred religious ritual. In other families, circumcision can also be tradition, or relate to personal hygiene or preventive health care.