Parents' dilemma

Parents must wade through conflicting medical studies, opinions and cultural norms in deciding whether to circumcise their newborn sons

October 27, 2008|By Kelly Brewington | Kelly Brewington,kelly.brewington@baltsun.com

While researching the multitude of questions that come with being a new mother, Tina Overton encountered one that made her dizzy: whether to circumcise her newborn son.

She never had reason to think about it before, let alone consider an alternative. But quickly, Overton became familiar with a small but vocal minority of parents and researchers arguing against circumcision. After months of scouring books, articles and the Internet, she reasoned the procedure was unnecessary, painful - and a violation of her son's human rights.

"It became clear, it was not my body to alter," said Overton, who teaches childbirth classes with her husband in their Sykesville home. "A generation ago, it was just done and nobody spoke of it or questioned it. People didn't know the issues, the complications, the discomfort, the pain. Now, thankfully, people are getting the information and choosing not to do this."

Dating back centuries, circumcision has been done for cultural, religious and medical reasons. But what was once considered standard American practice is now controversial. A debate over circumcision emerged quietly in the United States in the 1970s and, since then, the discussion has intensified and the rates of circumcision have declined.

In 2006, about 56 percent of infant boys were circumcised, a drop from 66 percent nearly a decade earlier in 1997. In at least 17 states - Maryland not included - Medicaid has stopped paying for the procedure.

The debate is fueled, in part, by conflicting medical research. Parents and advocates - or inactivists, as the no-circumcision camp is known - are battling in Internet chat rooms about culture, sex, morality, health and what to say to a boy when he asks why he doesn't look like Dad.

At issue is a surgical procedure in which topical anesthesia is given and the foreskin over the tip of the penis is removed. For centuries, circumcision has been an important rite of the Jewish and Muslim religions and, until recently, it was routinely done among American babies of all backgrounds.

On one hand, some research points to medical benefits of circumcision, including decreased incidence of urinary tract infections in infants, and a reduction in the transmission of cancer-causing human papillomavirus, HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. Some men who have not been circumcised as infants may have to do so for medical reasons such as phimosis, a condition in which the foreskin becomes so tight that it cannot retract from the head of the penis.

Opponents point to other studies that indicate few medical benefits of circumcision. They argue it leads to decreased sexual sensitivity and say the procedure is risky, painful and cruel.

Parents wondering what to make of all this won't get a yes or no from their pediatricians. The American Academy of Pediatrics does not recommend the practice, but doesn't discourage it either. In a 1999 policy statement that reviewed data, the organization said: "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision."

Dr. Timothy Doran, chief of pediatrics at Greater Baltimore Medical Center in Towson, says he is often peppered with questions on the issue from soon-to-be parents. "I tell them that this is their own personal, religious and ethical decision, and I will support them either way," he said.

Making the decision is not always easy.

Gary and Kazuyo Kegan were uncertain what to do upon learning that they were expecting twins - a girl and a boy. Kazuyo Kegan, an assistant researcher at the Johns Hopkins Medical Center, began asking her colleagues questions. A native of Japan, she knew circumcision is rare in her home country, but wanted the latest medical answers. Meanwhile, Gary Kegan, who assumed his son would be circumcised just as he had been, began reading everything he could on the Web. Finally, the couple chose to circumcise their son, Alex, now 3 months old.

"It was a health-related choice, if nothing else," Gary Kegan said. "We noted the health benefits. There is a little less risk of urinary tract infections and some types of cancers involved. And that alone was enough."

Pediatricians tend to agree about studies concerning urinary tract infections, which have found that uncircumcised infants are about 10 times more likely to get an infection in their first year. But the findings about the impact on sexual sensitivity and contracting sexually transmitted diseases are less clear.

Opponents of circumcision note that when the foreskin is removed from the penis, an infant has lost the most sensitive area of the genitalia. "You're taking an infant's procreative organs and causing extreme pain," said Dr. Mark D. Reiss, a radiologist and executive vice president of Doctors Opposing Circumcision.

Baltimore Sun Articles
|
|
|
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.