CIN (Circumcision Information Network) 3:19

CIRCUMCISION INFORMATION NETWORK
Volume 3, Number 19, 13 May 1996
E-mail:  CircInfoNe@aol.com

The purpose of this weekly 1000-word bulletin is to educate the public about
and to protect children and other non-consenting persons from genital
mutilation.  Readers are encouraged to copy and redistribute it, and to
contribute written material.  --Rich Angell, Editor.

NEONATAL CIRCUMCISION DOES NOT PROTECT AGAINST CANCER
Contributed by Frederick Hodges, typed by DYKS96A@prodigy.com (GEORGE HILL)
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, (London) Vol. 312 no 7033 (March
23, 1996): pp. 779-780

Editor, - Although Morten Frisch and colleagues have made a valuable
contribution to the study of penile cancer, they mistakenly repeat the myth
that neonatal circumcision renders the subject immune to penile cancer.[1]
 The reference given for this statement is not an epidemiological study but
an opinion article by the American circumcisionist Abraham L. Wolbarst in
1932.[2]  Wolbarst invented this myth and was directly responsible for its
proliferation; he based it on unverifiable anecdotes, ethnocentric
stereotypes, a faulty understanding of human anatomy and physiology, a
misunderstanding of the distinction between association and cause, and a
unbridled missionary zeal.  It was not based on valid scientific and
epidemiological research.

All subsequent repetions of this myth are traceable to Wolbarst's article,
though Wolbarst himself advocated universal neonatal circumcision principally
as a preventive for epilepsy, paralysis, and masturbation.  Circumcisionists
such as Wolbarst do not seem to have promoted this myth because they have a
genuine interest in reducing penile cancer; they used it instead as a scare
tactic to increase the rate of neonatal circumcision.  It is surprising that
sober scientists such as Frisk and colleagues could have relied on such a
reference in their research.

Edidemiological studies disproved Wolbarst's myth long ago.  In North America
the rate of penile cancer has been estimated to be 1 in 100,000[3] --
somewhat higher than the rate of 0.82 per 100,000 found by Frisch and
colleagues.  Maden et al reported penile cancer among a fifth of elderly
patients form rural areas who had been circumcised neonatally and had been
born at a time when the rate of neonatal circumcision was about 20% in rural
populations.[4]  Their study also shows that the rate of penile cancer among
men circumcised neonatally has risen in the United States relative to the
rise in the rate of neonatal circumcision.

Science must look beyond normal human anatomy to discover the true risk
factors for penile cancer.  Current investigations into risks posed by
infection with human papillomavirus (circumcised males have been shown to
have an increased rate of such infection) and use of tobacco have been
instructive.[5]  Frisch and his colleagues have otherwise injected a welcome
note of scientific rationalism into the debate over circumcision, which,
despite the active participation of medical staff, is in essence an issue not
of medical science but of human rights.

PAUL M FLEISS
Assistant clinical professor of pediatrics

8124 North Hillhurst Avenue
Los Angeles, CA  90027
USA

FREDERICK HODGES
Medical Historian

PO Box 5456
Berkeley, CA  94507
USA

1. Frisch M, Friis S, Kruger Kjaer S, Melbye M. Falling incidence oy penis
cancer in an uncircumcised population.  BMJ 1995; 311:1471 (2 December.)

2. Wolbarst, AL. Circumcision and penile cancer. Lancet 1932; 150-3.

3. Cutler SJ, Young JL Jr.  Third national cancer survey: incidence data.
 Bethesda, Md.  US Dept of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health
Service, 1975.

4. Maden. C Sherman KJ, Beckman AM, Hislop TG, Teh CZ, Ashley RL, et al.
 History of circumcision, medical conditions, and sexual activity and risk of
penile cancer.  JNCI 1993;85:19-24.

5. Cook LS, Koutsky LA, Holmes KK. Clinical presentation of genital warts
among circumcised and uncircumcised heterosexual men attending an urban STD
clinic.  Genitourin Med 1993;69:262-4.

"THE FORESKIN IS NECESSARY"
An article by Paul M. Fleiss. MD, MPH, and Frederick Hodges
Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients, April 1996.
Contributed by typist DYKS96A@prodigy.com ( GEORGE HILL)
Sixth of a multi-part series.

Violation of Human Rights:
Before introducing the policy of routine infant circumcision after World War
II, circumcisers did not examine the human rights violation involved in the
policy of forcing or even allowing unconsenting individuals to undergo
surgery to amputate healthy penile tissue.  More than just physical harm,
circumcision causes political harm.  Even if circumcision were physically
harmless -- which it is not - it would still constitute a human rights
violation.  Furthermore, circumcisers have never shown that the stated public
health goals could not have ben achieved by a less coercive policy than by
foreskin amputation.  The failure of the policy of mass circumcision to
achieve the public health goals of reducing the rates of STDs, cancer, and
genital infections is made more tragic in light of the harm, sexual
dysfunction, morbidity, and risk of fatality unjustly inflicted on the past
few generations of American males.

Every male has the right to keep his birthright of an intact penis.  Children
have a right to expect parents or guardians to protect this right while they
are still unable to protect it themselves.  Parents and physicians have no
right to remove health body parts from non-consenting individuals.  In 1995,
the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Bioethics agreed.  According
to their recent statement,(23) only a competent patient can give patient
consent or informed consent.  An infant is developmentally incompetent to
consent to non-therapeutic surgery.  The concept of informed parental
permission does not apply to circumcision since the concept of informed
parental permission allows only for medical intervention in cases of clear
and immediate medical necessity, i. e., diseases, trauma or deformity; the
natural human penis satisfies none of these conditions.

Furthermore, since it is the infant and not the parent who must live with the
consequences of this 'treatment' the individuals legal right to refuse
treatment as well as the right to seek alternative treatment has been
violated.  Likewise the basic human right to autonomy, self-determination,
and the right to an intact body as outlined in Article 5.1 of the American
Convention on Human Rights(1969) and article 1.1 of the International
Convention of Human, Civil, and Political Rights(1966) are violated by the
performance of non-therapeutic circumcision.

STUPID QUOTE OF THE WEEK
"Is she, the mother, or father, are they really listening and submitting to
the teaching of their religion or are they using their MIND and questioning
things?"
Majid Katme, President of the Muslim Medical Association, defending ritual
circumcision in Victor Schonfeld's documentary "It's a Boy," which was aired
in England, exposing the atrocities of ritual circumcision.

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION call NOCIRC, the National Organization of
Circumcision Information Resource Centers at (415) 488-9883, fax (415)
488-9660.  Ask about the resource provider nearest you.  For written
information, write NOCIRC, PO Box 2512, San Anselmo, CA 94979, with SASE
and/or donation if possible.  For further internet information, contact the
Doctors Opposing Circumcision Web site at
http://weber.u.washington.edu/~gcd/DOC.
Back to the News 1996 page.
The Circumcision Information and Resource Pages are a not-for-profit educational resource and library. IntactiWiki hosts this website but is not responsible for the content of this site. CIRP makes documents available without charge, for informational purposes only. The contents of this site are not intended to replace the professional medical or legal advice of a licensed practitioner.