Circumcision: An unnecessary practice?

By: María de los Angeles Miranda

There are different views about what is circumcision, for examplesome countries, they do a circumcision for medical reasons or for religious beliefs, etc. While there are different views on this issue, it seems to have no reason to considered doing a circumcision for a better hygiene, because "if men are not circumcised, smegma accumulates in his private, though, circumcision and hygiene are not scientifically linked.  The Royal Dutch Medical Association says that "there's no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention and hygiene." besides the American Academy of Pediatrics says that "circumcision has been suggested as an effective method of maintaining penile hygiene since the time of the Egyptian dynasties, but there’s little evidence to affirm the association between circumcision status and optimal penile hygiene”[1]. Therefore none of the definitions can discern, because there are only a few credible studies who can endorse that the circumcision as a method of hygiene, or as a fundamental technique for male health care.

In my opinion, circumcision is truly an unnecessary intervention, because I think the human body is structured in a certain way, and we have to accept it just as it is and   understand that every part of the human body has it's function. Moreover, there are various studies that refer to this technique saying that it reduces the risk of contracting HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. While I think it is extremely important to take the necessary steps to take care of any disease that threatens our health, I think there are other steps that you can take to avoid them, such as using a condom. However, in the case of phimosis or other complications, it's necesary to do a circumcision, because it threatens the health of a person. But when it's done for no reason, I don't see a solid argument to support this action. Let's not forget that nature is wise and put something there for a reason. However, in the terms of the people who calls this action a "mutilation" I consider it that an exaggeration, as I would call it, an "unnecessary surgery."

Following with this issue, a renowned newspaper said: "according to pediatric studies, performing circumcision on newborn males, provides benefits such as reducing the risk of HIV and some sexually transmitted infections such as genital herpes, human papillomavirus and syphilis. These are the conclusions of a technical and a political statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), headquartered in Chicago"[2] Following this idea, several scientists want to make a plan for doing a circumcision in the first few months of birth. Which, I consider an aberration, because I think that every person has the right to choose.  For example some children, when they grow up, they take the decision to cut it, if they decide to cut it, it’s on their own free will and I believe that's a valid choice. The problem is that when those who have been mutilated can not take the decision to leave it there. Every kid has the right to make that decision and no one can take that decision for them

Let's not forget, that there are many things that are known after they're made, such like food was bad or that components of certain products can cause cancer. What if a after a while scientist discovers that circumcision helps, but it causes others irreversible effects? It can happen, and wouldn't be so surprising considering that scientist haven't done profound studies on the subject, neither there's a long follow up on the people who has been circumcised so we could be talking about a damage that has no turning back.

References:

[1]  www.meneame.net

[2] www.cronica.com