Debate Over Infant Circumcision

Few topics in parenting divide opinion like removing the foreskin of a newborn boy. Expectant parents weigh the question with varying degrees of unease, and sexuality columns have received letters on it. This article summarizes the arguments made by opponents and supporters, and the wider context.

The medical argument

Opponents describe routine infant circumcision as surgery without medical need. They point out that many medical bodies stop short of calling it necessary for every child. Hygiene, often cited as a motive, is answered by opponents with the argument that ordinary routine care addresses it. Supporters and some health organizations, for their part, note small health benefits alongside small surgical risks.

Sexual sensation claims

Another claim is that the foreskin is sensitive erogenous tissue and that removing it reduces sexual enjoyment across a lifetime. Research on this point is mixed, and published studies are interpreted differently by advocates on each side.

Rights and consent

A third strand is ethical. Advocacy groups, among them an organization that wants the practice made a Criminal Code offence for minors, argue that children hold a right to bodily integrity and that a healthy organ is not to be altered without urgent need. The decision, they say, belongs to the individual once he is an adult.

Religion and law

Religious communities, notably Jewish and Muslim ones, practise ritual circumcision as a mark of belonging. Critics reply that this limits the child's future religious freedom, while defenders point to parental rights and long tradition. Under current Canadian criminal law the procedure is not prohibited.

Availability, cost and rates

Access and cost vary by province and city, and because many provincial health plans no longer cover routine circumcision, families may pay directly. Reported rates are higher in North America than in the world overall, though they have been drifting downward.

How medical bodies frame the issue

Professional paediatric organizations in several countries have issued statements on the topic over the years. Their positions differ in emphasis: some describe the evidence as not strong enough to support a routine policy, while others describe modest benefits that parents may weigh. Most agree that the choice rests with families in consultation with a physician, and that the procedure carries the usual risks of minor surgery, such as bleeding or infection.