On September 30, 2013, the magazine Fit Pregnancy released an article about circumcision. We ask that you read the article, leave informative comments on their Facebook page, and also contact the editors of Fit Pregnancy with recommended changes. Fit Pregnancy has a circulation of more than 500,000 and over 90,000 likes on Facebook. Let's make sure our voice is heard! Here is the official letter The WHOLE Network's board of directors sent to Fit Pregnancy:
Dear Editors of Fit Pregnancy:
We were extremely disappointed with the content of your recent circumcision article. The only accurate information presented was the intact care recommendations added as an afterthought at the very end of the article.
For starters, anesthesia was recommended for what you stated was a "10-minute procedure". But anesthetic cannot take effect within that span of time, according to the American Society for Pain Management Nursing.
All of your "pros" for circumcision include prevention of issues that are easily prevented or managed in less invasive ways than surgical amputation. For example, why remove 50% of the mobile shaft skin from a person's penis for prevention of a urinary tract infection when a simple course of antibiotics will treat the problem just fine? Surgery is an absolute last resort only to be explored when all other options have been exhausted. Not to mention, little girls have much higher rates of UTIs than little boys, yet removal of genital tissue is not indicated for them. Don't boys deserve the same respect our daughters receive?
In regards to STD and HIV prevention, safe sex including condoms will provide far better protection than circumcision ever could. There is even a 2012 study showing circumcision increases the rate of STD infection in sexually active males. And recent reports out of Africa show that circumcision has not helped to lower the rate of HIV as it was expected to.
You mentioned the American Academy of Pediatrics’ stance on circumcision. You should note that the AAP's 2012 circumcision stance has been denounced by doctors around the world for its bias and inaccuracies in a very well cited academic paper published March of this year in The Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Your list of "cons" for circumcision is woefully inadequate. You forgot meatal stenosis, excessive scarring, skin bridges, adhesions, hairy shaft, curved/bent penis, a 4.5x higher rate of erectile dysfunction later on, possible loss of the glans or entire penis, and death. There are an estimated 117 baby boys who die annually in the United States from circumcision complications. Is there really any pro to circumcision that makes the possibility of death worth taking that risk?
In this entire article there is no consideration for what the boy would actually want for himself. Many men, upon learning about circumcision, are upset that the most sensitive part of their penis was removed in infancy without their consent or any actual medical need. Your son, like the vast majority of human males in this world, may actually want to keep his foreskin. We ask that you respect his right to make this highly personal decision for himself at the age of consent. Keep his body whole until then.
Sincerely,
The WHOLE Network's Board of Directors
We were extremely disappointed with the content of your recent circumcision article. The only accurate information presented was the intact care recommendations added as an afterthought at the very end of the article.
For starters, anesthesia was recommended for what you stated was a "10-minute procedure". But anesthetic cannot take effect within that span of time, according to the American Society for Pain Management Nursing.
All of your "pros" for circumcision include prevention of issues that are easily prevented or managed in less invasive ways than surgical amputation. For example, why remove 50% of the mobile shaft skin from a person's penis for prevention of a urinary tract infection when a simple course of antibiotics will treat the problem just fine? Surgery is an absolute last resort only to be explored when all other options have been exhausted. Not to mention, little girls have much higher rates of UTIs than little boys, yet removal of genital tissue is not indicated for them. Don't boys deserve the same respect our daughters receive?
In regards to STD and HIV prevention, safe sex including condoms will provide far better protection than circumcision ever could. There is even a 2012 study showing circumcision increases the rate of STD infection in sexually active males. And recent reports out of Africa show that circumcision has not helped to lower the rate of HIV as it was expected to.
You mentioned the American Academy of Pediatrics’ stance on circumcision. You should note that the AAP's 2012 circumcision stance has been denounced by doctors around the world for its bias and inaccuracies in a very well cited academic paper published March of this year in The Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Your list of "cons" for circumcision is woefully inadequate. You forgot meatal stenosis, excessive scarring, skin bridges, adhesions, hairy shaft, curved/bent penis, a 4.5x higher rate of erectile dysfunction later on, possible loss of the glans or entire penis, and death. There are an estimated 117 baby boys who die annually in the United States from circumcision complications. Is there really any pro to circumcision that makes the possibility of death worth taking that risk?
In this entire article there is no consideration for what the boy would actually want for himself. Many men, upon learning about circumcision, are upset that the most sensitive part of their penis was removed in infancy without their consent or any actual medical need. Your son, like the vast majority of human males in this world, may actually want to keep his foreskin. We ask that you respect his right to make this highly personal decision for himself at the age of consent. Keep his body whole until then.
Sincerely,
The WHOLE Network's Board of Directors
RSS Feed
