You planned your pregnancy carefully. You made all the right decisions about your pregnancy and your baby — but when your baby boy was born, you found yourself unprepared to make one more decision: to circumcise, or not?
Than 25 years of pediatric practice, and the advice I’ve provided to thousands of parents.Widespread infant circumcision is a relatively recent phenomenon in our country. Prior to the 1930s, babies were often born at home, and infant boys were rarely circumcised except for religious reasons. The vast majority of young American solders in both World Wars were not circumcised.
After World War II, however, nearly all babies were born in hospitals, and for a number of societal and cultural reasons, it became almost a “standard” that baby boys were circumcised, often immediately after birth, even before the baby was placed in his mother’s arms. Two other important cultural changes occurred in our country in the 1940s: Mothers giving birth in hospitals often received anesthetics and were not awake as their babies were born; and bottle-feeding, rather than breast-feeding, became the way most babies were fed.
Since the 1960s and ’70s, there have been major cultural changes in the way we give birth and feed our infants: the movement for “natural childbirth” and improvements in pain control so that mothers are awake during childbirth, and a return to breast-feeding. It seems very appropriate to reconsider our country’s cultural attitudes toward infant circumcision, which until recent years was the most frequently performed surgery in the United States. Even today, infant circumcision in the United States costs about $200 million a year.
The American Academy of Pediatrics and other experts have stated that there are no medical reasons to recommend routine and universal newborn circumcision — and in fact, there are very few reasons to recommend circumcision for older children and adults. The old arguments in favor of circumcision have been disproved:
Circumcision doesn’t prevent sexually transmitted diseases, it doesn’t prevent cancer of the penis and it doesn’t prevent cancer of the cervix in wives.
Yes, there is a mildly increased chance that an uncircumcised boy will have a urinary tract infection in the first six months of life, but it is hard to justify universal circumcision on this basis alone — only 1 percent of uncircumcised baby boys develop a urinary tract infection. There is no justification, either, for removing the foreskin at birth in an effort to promote “cleanliness” — one could argue, in a ridiculous way, that removal of the toenails at birth would also result in improved cleanliness in children.