The Globe and Mail, Saturday, June 12, 1999, Letters page.

Healthy circumcision

Re: When Do You Want Your Sons Circumcised? (Facts & Arguments — June 12):

Diane Mason’s essay rankled me, for all sorts of reasons. First, as a man, because I find the idea of circumcision-induced trauma to be preposterous. By the logic adduced by the writer, even something as superfluous as the umbilical cord shouldn’t be cut, since it might cause undo physical strain on the infant. Should the coming generation of children be forced to walk around with a two-foot long tube of tissue coiled up inside their shirts?

Second, as a Jew, I’m struck by Ms. Mason’s judgmental stance. It’s okay to opt not to circumcise your male children — it’s a personal choice, no one is arguing that — but to assert that to have the procedure done is tantamount to torture is just plain offensive. Jews have been circumcising their male children for thousands of years. And believe it or not, we’re not all physically, sexually and psychologically scarred because of it.

I imagine, too, that Ms. Mason’s sons will read her article and express a collective “Huh?” to her argument. I have no doubt that they are perfectly well-adjusted boys, and will have healthy and happy sex lives, and might one day choose to have their own sons circumcised. Their mother should just relax.

Colin Krivy, Toronto
(back to top of page)

The Globe and Mail, Toronto, Wednesday, June 16, 1999 p. A15
(Commentary page, Letters to the Editor)

Re: Healthy Circumcision (letter — June 12):

In his letter, Colin Krivy suggests that not all circumcised men are physically, sexually and psychologically scarred. He is probably correct. But what of the ones who are?

When I began working as an emergency physician more than 15 years ago, I was appalled to witness how pain control was neglected in the care of children. After all, children did not talk back and children did not sue, and many doctors found it easy to assume, incorrectly, that this indicated their lack of pain sensation.

Over the years, I’ve dedicated myself to raising awareness of just how much infants and children do feel pain and of the long-term consequences of enduring pain, the purpose of which they cannot fathom. I have been heartened to observe the American College of Emergency Physicians and the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians recently taking a major interest in pediatric pain management.

I believe that my sensitivity to the suffering of infants stems partly from my own religious upbringing as a Jew, and partly from my many years of medical practice.

Fortunately, most pediatric pain is preventable, although, sadly, many health-care practitioners still deny its existence. There are now numerous techniques available to minimize pain in pediatric procedures. But, more often than not, these are not made available because they are time-consuming and inconvenient. I find this terribly sad. Studies show that adults are more than twice as likely to receive pain medication in the ER than are children and, in general, the pain medication children receive is well below the Hospital For Sick Children’s recommended doses.

Mr. Krivy suggests that there is as little need to acknowledge the pain of circumcision as there is to acknowledge that of cutting the umbilical cord. Perhaps he believes it would be equally superfluous to treat the pain of an ear infection or a fractured elbow. At what point along the spectrum of an infant’s agony, I wonder, does he draw the line?

Harry Zeit, MD, Toronto
(back to top of page)

The Globe and Mail, Toronto, Wednesday, June 16, 1999 p. A15
(Commentary page, Letters to the Editor)

Re: When Do You Want Your Sons Circumcised? (Facts & Arguments — June 10):

As a happily circumcised male, I am constantly chagrined at the preponderance of anti-circumcision articles in the media.

These articles are, for the most part, written by women, who have no idea what it really is like to possess a penis.

When Diane Mason uses phrases like “a devastating event” and “intense psychological repercussions,” and when she infers that the circumcised penis head is “scarred tissue” — I say, what claptrap!

The truth, as verified by my uncircumcised friends, is that the foreskin traps residual urine, which becomes fetid in short order. Few males, if any, are going to clean under there five times a day.

The only function the foreskin served was to protect the penis head from injury in the prehistoric days when men ran naked through the jungle. Furthermore, discarded foreskins can provide a valuable source of skin cells that can be cultured for use on burn victims, etc.

From my experience, circumcision is a one-time, harmless improvement on nature.

R. Ware, Victoria
(back to top of page)

The Globe and Mail, Toronto, Wednesday, June 16, 1999 p. A15
(Commentary page, Letters to the Editor)

Re: When Do You Want Your Sons Circumcised? (Facts & Arguments — June 10):

It is heartening to witness a woman coming to the defence of boys, when so many men have been remiss in not doing so. Diane Mason has her facts straight; Colin Krivy does not.

The umbilical cord is a temporary structure with no function after birth. Since it has no sensory nerve supply, cutting it is painless. The foreskin is a permanent structure with protective, mechanical and sensual functions and a very rich sensory nerve supply. Cutting it is extremely painful, as demonstrated by controlled studies monitoring heart rate and other indices of suffering. Studies done at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto have shown that the pain incurred during circumcision has long-lasting effects on the pain threshold of boys subjected to it as babies.

We once thought that tonsils and appendices were superfluous; we now know better. For various unspecified reasons — political correctness among them — we are unable or unwilling to recognize that foreskins are not superfluous.

Removing part of a person’s body without his personal, informed consent, except when it is surgically justified and is consented to by a parent on a minor’s behalf, is unethical. Circumcision does not qualify for parental consent.

The fact that something has been believed or practised for thousands of years does not make it right or defensible. Witness the oppression of women and minority religious groups or the idea that people owned their children or could own and enslave other people. If males wish to sacrifice their foreskins as a religious exercise, or for any non-surgical reason, they should do so when they are capable of giving their willing and informed consent.

The motive behind circumcising infants may be religious, may fulfill a father’s wish to have his son resemble him, or may be remunerative, but it is an unethical physical assault — or else we do not know what ethics are about!

Jack Wiggin, MD, Vernon, B.C.
(back to top of page)