Fleshing Out Change On Circumcision
09/19/12
Special To The Jewish Week
Photo Galleria: 

Changing its longstanding neutrality on the issue of circumcision, the American Academy of Pediatrics suggested recently that the health benefits of the procedure outweigh its risks. In order to understand the reasoning behind the shift, along with its likely implications, The Jewish Week spoke to Dr. Andrew Freedman, a urologist at the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. Freedman was one of the members of the task force that issued the new, qualified endorsement of circumcision.

Q: Why did the AAP decide to alter its stance toward circumcision?

A: We felt, based on a series of recent studies that showed that circumcised men were somewhat less likely to contract HIV, penile cancer and other diseases, that it was time to re-examine our position on the procedure. We also knew that there are modest risks in having the procedure done. On balance, we found that it made sense to recommend that insurance companies begin to cover circumcisions.

If circumcision can help to prevent these diseases, then why not simply recommend that every male child be circumcised?

Circumcision only helps in certain cases. For example, in terms of HIV transmission, it only helps if an HIV negative man is having vaginal intercourse with an HIV positive woman. That’s because an intact prepuce has Langerhans cells that are a target of the HIV virus — the uncircumcised penis has a moister, softer, thinner skin that is more prone to trauma than the skin of a circumcised penis, which is tougher and drier. Still, it might take 2,000 circumcisions to prevent one case of HIV transmission, with a complication rate of one in 500 circumcisions. It’s hard to measure the risks and benefits, but we can say that both appear to be quite modest.

So you’re not actually advocating circumcision?

No, we’re not. Circumcision cuts across cultural, religious, medical and aesthetic lines. We don’t see ourselves as partisan in the battle over circumcision. It might be better to be a vegetarian, or to double-knot your shoelaces, but it’s not for us to tell people what’s in the best interest of their children. The benefits aren’t enough to justify it if it doesn’t fit with the values of a particular family.

Why is there such negative sentiment against circumcision?

I can’t really say. However, I can tell you that I’ve received thousands of e-mails over the years from parents telling me that circumcision is a terrible thing to do to a child, because of what they see as an overriding ethical principle of maintaining bodily integrity until the age of consent. This is where there’s such a big divide between America and Europe; it’s much more accepted here, whereas in Europe there is no tradition, outside of the two religious minorities [Jews and Muslims], of circumcision.

Did the task force examine the question of metzitzah b’peh, or oral suction?

We had a lot of discussion about whether or not to incorporate that into our recommendations, but in the end decided not to, since there are so few that are done that way in this country, and they will continue to be done that way whether or not we recommend against it. I do work occasionally with an Orthodox mohel who uses a tube so that there is no oral-genital contact.

Do you think that the new policy will lead to an increase in the number of circumcisions performed in the U.S.?

I doubt it. There’s definitely been a sea change in people’s attitudes. Circumcisions have declined from 1965, which was the peak, when 85 percent of boys were circumcised, to about 55 percent today. The circumcision rate will probably continue to dwindle. [Those against it] have had an influence in making people think twice about circumcision.

Do you have a son and, if so, did you have him circumcised?

Yes, I do. I circumcised him myself on my parents’ kitchen table on the eighth day of his life. But I did it for religious, not medical reasons. I did it because I had 3,000 years of ancestors looking over my shoulder.

This is an edited transcript.

Last Update:

06/13/2014 - 14:03

Comments

What a piece of filth for mutilating his own child. Brit Shalom is the only way to have a truly spiritual bond with a child that doesn't requiring mutilating his body and sexually assaulting him.

While it sounds like Dr. Freedman has taken many of the issues into consideration, I do not think he belonged on a task force coming up wtih a statement about NON-religious circumcision That is similar to appointing a highly-paid representative of a formula company to come up with a statement on the pros and cons of breastfeeding! The AAP keeps appointing religiously biased people to their task forces, though. They first did so, in 1989, with Dr. Edgar Schoen. No one should be surprised at the results!

Dr. Freedman's flippant statement about cutting off his own son's penis on his parents' dining room table is extremely unsettling!

Disgusting minimization of sexual abuse.
If there's nothing wrong, (and there very rarely ever is) you can not ethically cut off parts of a child's body.
Blood rituals have no place in any civilized society.
Simply put, good parents don't cut off parts of their children's genitals.

A man cuts off part of his son's penis on the kitchen table and brags about it using ridiculous excuses about specious "health" benefits. Genital cutting of children is abuse.

This man should NOT be allowed near children with knives. Restaff the AAP with caregivers not abusers.

"I circumcised him myself on my parents’ kitchen table on the eighth day of his life. But I did it for religious, not medical reasons."

It doesn't matter what non-therapeutic reason he did it for. It was still a human rights violation. This is so tragic - when will baby boys receive the equal protection they deserve?

I can't believe the AAP allowed such a biased man to take part in creating the stance on circumcision. He clearly has personal interest in keeping male circumcision legal and paid for by insurance: his religion, his job, his penis, and his son's penis. I wonder if he even bothered to ask himself "Is it ethical for me to hold my son down and carve my religion into his penis?"

Good points! Unfortunately, the AAP has a history of appointing religiously motivated, pro-circ, Jewish, doctors to task forces. It first happened back in 1989, with the appointment of Dr. Edgar Schoen. Why that is not considered to be a conflict of interest and proof of cultural bias, I have no idea. It certainly would be in any other situation!

Jewish circumcision has changed many many times so I wonder what exactly is being referred to during this 3,000 year mentioned. (changes ref. Glick's Marked in Your Flesh). That aside, Dr. Freedman should recant the endorsement and step down from the Task Force on Circumcision for being obviously biased which shows in his stated past behavior and by the omission of papers that are show circumcision as harmful. Parents can search the web and see how off the AAP has gotten. The Task Force now makes the APP look ridiculous. So ridiculous that others are quick to point out the crazies.

Psychology Today
Moral Landscapes
Living the life that is good for one to live.
by Darcia Narvaez, Ph.D.

What Happened to Ethics in Pediatric Medicine?
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201209/what-happened-ethics-in-pediatric-medicine/comments

(Bottom line) "The AAP has lost its credibility, and we should no longer view it as a valid medical association."

Circumcision is a matter for the law in Australia. Tasmania is currently considering circumcision law reform. The recommended reform allows for religious circumcision: https://theconversation.edu.au/tasmanian-report-calls-for-groundbreaking-reform-of-circumcision-law-9105

"But I did it for religious, not medical reasons. I did it because I had 3,000 years of ancestors looking over my shoulder."

Quoth the moslem, when asked why he sliced off his daughter's clitoris.

Comment Guidelines

The Jewish Week feels comments create a valuable conversation and wants to feature your thoughts on our website. To make everyone feel welcome, we won't publish comments that are profane, irrelevant, promotional or make personal attacks.

Add comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.