Most of us learned very early that some boys are "haves" and some are "have-nots." Whether you stumbled upon this revelation in the grade school rest room or the junior high locker room, it may have come as a shock to you that all boys are evidently not created equal. I, for one, remember being amazed and curious about this strange difference. I promptly quizzed my mother about another boy's apparent deformity.
She chose to be honest and explained to me - as clearly as she could to a 6-year-old - the reason for the phenomenon I'd observed. All men may be created equal, but they don't necessarily stay that way.
Now that you're all grown up and expecting a child of your own, there's a chance you'll face the circumcision decision. While you may not have the sole and final say on the matter, it's likely that your opinion will carry weight. After all: It's a guy thing.
For most couples, the decision is fairly simple: Like father, like son. If you are circumcised, it's likely you will want your son to "follow in your footsteps" in every way possible. Likewise if you are not. Similarly, if you follow the Jewish or Islamic faiths, your beliefs dictate the necessity of male circumcision.
One thing is certain. The procedure, usually performed on a healthy baby in the first few days of life, is much safer when done on an infant. If performed later in life, the simple surgical procedure, in which excess foreskin is removed from the tip of the penis, is somewhat riskier.
For many years the operation was considered standard operating procedure. Most doctors recommended it, citing numerous medical benefits. Among them: a slightly lower risk of urinary tract infections (UTIs), a lower risk of contracting cancer of the penis, a lower risk of being infected by sexually transmitted diseases, including the AIDS virus HIV, and prevention of phimosis, in which the foreskin cannot be retracted.
But in March, 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a new policy in the peer-reviewed journal, "Pediatrics" which effectively reversed a decades-old pro-circumcision stance. Although the academy had begun to back away from wholesale endorsement of the procedure as early as 1971, the new recommendation clearly states that the benefits of circumcision are not significant enough for the AAP to recommend routine circumcision.
A task force appointed by the academy studied nearly 40 years of evidence before announcing the latest policy. While the academy recognizes that circumcision does, indeed, have "some potential medical benefits," it finds that the benefits are "not compelling enough" to warrant routine newborn circumcision.
