Over the years, parents have been faced with a sexual health issue right in the early stages of their child’s infancy; circumcision. While proponents tout the wellness benefits of circumcision, opponents argue that the barbaric nature of the procedure does no good to a boy’s wellbeing. Now, the latest to join the fray is an anti-circumcision group in San Francisco, who are pushing for a ban on the practice. Unsurprisingly, those in favour of the procedure disagree with the proposal, citing the procedure’s history as a religious ritual, as well as its sexual health benefits, as some research suggests that circumcision helps prevent the spread of HIV. The debate that rages on is, therefore, “Is circumcision a good idea or not?”
We can date the process of circumcision as far back as to the Ancient Egyptians in 2,500BC, but the ritual later became more associated with Jewish people. Reasons for this included marking a boy’s passage into manhood, marking to distinguish those of higher social status, male “menstruation” or sign of the onset of puberty, and a way to discourage masturbation. Now, however, circumcision is not just a Jewish ritual but the most common surgery performed on males in the United States. According to a recent survey by the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), between the years of 1999 and 2004, 79% of men reported that they were circumcised.
The main health reason to be circumcised is that the process is believed to prevent diseases, such as HIV, and some research suggests that circumcision reduces the risk of male-to-female HIV transfer. This is possibly due to the fact that, when you are circumcised, the Langerhans cells in your foreskin are removed, and these cells are more susceptible to HIV infection. Langerhans cells are equipped with special receptors that may allow HIV access into the body. In 2009, three studies published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews – which included data from more than 11,000 men in South Africa, Uganda and Kenya between 2002 and 2006 – showed that circumcised men were 54% less likely to get HIV than their uncircumcised counterparts.
However, while HIV prevention is becoming a well-supported argument for circumcision in developing countries, it is not as strong of an argument for the United States or for us here in Britain. A report from the CDC notes, ‘A number of important differences from sub-Saharan African settings where the three male circumcision trials were conducted must be considered in determining the possible role for male circumcision in HIV prevention in the United States.’ It continues, ‘Studies to date have demonstrated efficacy only for penile-vaginal sex, the predominant mode of HIV transmission in Africa, whereas the predominant mode of sexual HIV transmission in the United States is by penile-anal sex among [men who have sex with men].’
Still, is that a reason to ban the practise, especially considering the fact that there’s a lack of strong evidence showing negative side effects? Proponents of the San Francisco ban have now delivered more than 12,000 signatures to the Department of Elections, and, if enough signatures are deemed to be valid, this ban will appear on the ballot in the November election. Under the ban, circumcision of any male under the age of 18 would carry a fine of up to $1,000 and jail time of up to one year. Lloyd Schofield, the leader of the proposal, comments that circumcision is ‘excruciatingly painful and permanently damaging surgery that’s forced on men when they’re at their weakest and most vulnerable.’ However, Scott Bryan, a spokesperson for the CDC, argues, ‘Data has shown that with anaesthesia, the majority of infants have no objective pain reaction.’
