Parent-elective circumcision of offspring is ethically unacceptable

Thanks for the debate 1Devilsadvocate. I will take the Hippocratic Oath as a starting point for this debate: DO NO HARM. This is the standard by which all medical practices should and must be measured. It turns out that all of the latest research studies indicate that circumcision is not only incredibly painful and traumatic for babies, but also circumcision poses serious clinical risks and potential medical complications. The list of problems goes on and on: 1. Circumcision is observably painful, stressful, and traumatic. During the procedure, newborns exhibit sustained elevation of heart rate, changes in blood pressure and cortisol levels, as well as high pitched cries throughout the procedure. One study was even halted because two newborns stopped breathing. Multiple behavioral changes were noted as well, including changes in sleep patterns and mother-child interactions for up to 24 hours following the procedure. [1] 2. Circumcision hurts the sex life of both men and women. The foreskin (the part of the penis surgically removed by circumcision) is the most sensitive portion of the penis and contains nearly all of its fine-touch neuroreceptors. Studies have shown that removing these nerve-endings leads to less-satisfying sex, reduced sensitivity and erectile function, difficulty with intromission, and increased premature ejaculation. [2] [3] [4] Studies have also shown that male circumcision has been associated with sexual difficulties in women, including orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a lack sexual fulfillment. [5] A study in the New Zealand Medical Journal explains these results by showing that circumcision exacerbates vaginal dryness, making it more difficult for women to become aroused and reach orgasm. [6] 3. Circumcision makes infection 3% more likely, excessive bleeding 9% more likely, meatitis 20% more likely, meatal stenosis 8% more likely, subcutaneous granuloma 5% more likely, balanitis 16% more likely, coronal adhesions 30% more likely, skin bridges 2% more likely, and phimosis 2% more likely. Other complications include septicemia, meningitis, Fournier gangrene, staphylococcal scalded skin syndrome, osteomyelitis, septic arthritis, tetanus, herpes simplex infection, empyema, pubic hair strangulation, denudation of the penis, glans amputation, urethral fistula, penile edema, pyogenic granulomas, acute urinary retention with acute renal failure, ruptured bladder, UTI or urine advancing in subcutaneous fascial plains, penile ischemia, pneumothorax, pseudoparaphimosis, pulmonary embolism, unilateral leg cyanosis, gastric rupture, myocardial injury and erythema multiforme. [7] Circumcision also makes newborns 12 times more likely to acquire methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections. [8] 4. I thought I would elaborate on glans amputation since I am having trouble believing it myself: the Journal of Urology reports a "large number" of complete penile glans amputations during circumcision, numbering between 1.5% to 15%. Yes, you are reading this correctly: between 1.5% to 15% of circumcisions result in a complete penile amputation. [9] 5. Circumcision can lead to abnormal brain development and behavior. [10] Babies who undergo circumcision immediately show anti-social tendencies, shyness, anger, fear, powerlessness, distrust, low self-esteem, relationship difficulties, and sexual shame. [11] I could go on but I think that should be enough. The five points listed above document a large number of serious medical problems with circumcision that make it an ethically unacceptable practice under the Hippocratic Oath. There are other ethical problems with circumcising babies. Circumcision infringes on a child"s right to physical integrity. A circumcision cannot be undone. You cannot reattach a foreskin to the penis. The choice should therefore be left entirely up to the person undergoing the procedure. Parents should have no part in deciding whether their "offspring" should be circumcised or not because the procedure cannot be reversed. Indeed, while there are a large number of circumcised men who wish they had never been circumcised (too bad they will never know what they are missing), there are very few uncircumcised men who wish they were circumcised. If it is not permissible to infringe upon the physical integrity of young girls (female genital mutilation is indeed criminal and I imagine my opponent accepts that it is unethical), why would it be permissible to infringe upon the physical integrity of young boys? As circumcision is a form of genital mutilation, it is a form of gender discrimination to give girls the right to physical integrity while denying that right to boys. If my opponent is to argue that parent-elective circumcision of offspring is ethically acceptable, then my opponent must provide a case in support of either gender discrimination or female circumcision. Sources: [1] http://jama.jamanetwork.com... [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [3] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... [4] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... [5] http://ije.oxfordjournals.org... [6] http://journal.nzma.org.nz... [7] http://www.nature.com... [8] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [9] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [10] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [11] http://www.cmaj.ca...