Call to circumcise ignores the evidence

In his latest sermon on the evils of the foreskin, Professor Morris cites the American Academy of Pediatrics' assertion that the benefits of the operation outweigh the risks. But since the AAP admitted that it was unable to quantify the risks it was logically impossible to reach such a conclusion. To make matters worse, the AAP conceived the risk/benefit trade-off incorrectly, since it defined risk as nothing more than surgical complications (bleeding, infection, death etc). Surgical complications are only a small element of the harm of circumcision. The standard it should have applied is prospect of benefit vs risk of harm, thus factoring in the value of the foreskin to the individual and the ethical harms of denying him a choice and violating normal principles of bioethics and human rights. Obviously, assigning zero value to the foreskin makes it much easier to assert that the benefits of removal outweigh the surgical risks.

The question is not whether circumcision might conceivably have some minor health benefits some time in the imponderable future, but (1) whether those benefits are great enough to justify removal of the a significant part of the penis without the informed consent of the individual; and (2) whether the foreskin is too valuable to lose unless absolutely necessary. As the Canadian ethicist Margaret Somerville has remarked, "If we view a child's foreskin as having a valid function, we are no more justified in amputating it than any other part of the child's body unless the operation is medically required treatment and the least harmful way to provide that treatment."

Eight reasons why vaccination is not like circumcision

• Vaccination confers immunity against specific diseases; even if the extravagant claims of its advocates were correct, circumcision could do no more than reduce the risk (and not by much). Nobody will become immune to any disease by virtue of circumcision.
• Vaccination adds to the body's natural immune system; circumcision amputates a large and visually prominent part of the penis.
• Vaccination provides protection against diseases to which children are at risk and which the may spread to others. Of the diseases to which circumcision is supposed to provide protection, only UTIs are found in children.
• Vaccination provides protection against diseases that are are highly contagious. The diseases against which circumcision is supposed to provide protection are either non-contagious (UTIs, penile cancer) or of low virulence (STIs and HIV) – meaning that they are not easily communicated from one person to another.
• Vaccination leaves at most a small spot or lump; circumcision disfigures and scars a man in his most sensitive region for life.
• Vaccination is an injection; circumcision is major surgery, accurately described as pre-emptive amputation.
• Vaccination does not diminish the functionality of any body part; circumcision has documented adverse effects on the function of the genitals.
• Vaccination is scientific medicine, with proven protective value; circumcision is a relic of Victorian quackery.