Ages & Stages

1 star 2 stars 3 stars 4 stars 5 stars rated by our users

Should we have our son circumcised?

At birth, boys have skin that covers the end of the penis, called the foreskin. Circumcision surgically removes the foreskin, exposing the tip of the penis. Circumcision is usually performed by a doctor in the first few days of life. An infant must be stable and healthy to safely be circumcised.

Scientific studies show some medical benefits of circumcision. However, these benefits are not sufficient for the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) to recommend that all infant boys be circumcised.

Because circumcision is not essential to a child's health, parents should choose what is best for their child by looking at the benefits and risks. Circumcision may be more risky if done later in life, so parents should decide before or soon after their son is born if they want it done.

Reasons parents may choose circumcision

There are a variety of reasons why parents choose circumcision.

  • Medical benefits, including
    • A slightly lower risk of urinary tract infections (UTIs). A circumcised infant boy has about a 1 in 1,000 chance of developing a UTI in the first year of life; an uncircumcised infant boy has about a 1 in 100 chance of developing a UTI in the first year of life.
    • A lower risk of getting cancer of the penis. However, this type of cancer is very rare in all males.
    • A slightly lower risk of getting sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.
    • Prevention of foreskin infections.
    • Prevention of phimosis, a condition in uncircumcised males that makes foreskin retraction impossible.
    • Easier genital hygiene.
  • Social reasons. Many parents choose to have it done because "all the other men in the family" had it done or because they do not want their sons to feel "different."
  • Religious or cultural reasons. Some groups such as followers of the Jewish and Islamic faiths practice circumcision for religious and cultural reasons.

Reasons parents may choose not to circumcise

The following are reasons why parents may choose NOT to have their son circumcised:

  • Fear of the risks. Complications are rare and usually minor but may include bleeding, infection, cutting the foreskin too short or too long, and improper healing.
  • Belief that the foreskin is needed. Some people feel the foreskin is needed to protect the tip of the penis. Without it, the tip of the penis may become irritated and cause the opening of the penis to become too small. This can cause urination problems that may need to be surgically corrected.
  • Belief it can affect sex. Some feel that circumcision makes the tip of the penis less sensitive, causing a decrease in sexual pleasure later in life.
  • Belief that proper hygiene can lower health risks. Boys can be taught proper hygiene that can lower their chances of getting infections, cancer of the penis, and STIs.

 

Last Updated
6/22/2010
Source
Circumcision: Information for Parents (Copyright © 2007 American Academy of Pediatrics, Updated 6/07)

Was this article helpful to you?

To rate or comment on articles, you must register or log in.

What others had to say (17)

wrote:

Unfortunately, the reasons not to circumcise use loaded words, such as "Belief," that downplay the real reasons not to circumcise. For example, an article in the Journal of the New Zealand Medical Association found a correlation between sex with a ci

Posted 12/14/2009

Hugh7 wrote:

This article is heavily loaded towards circumcision. It should start with what is known about the functions of the foreskin, both erogenous and protective (and not nearly enough is known, precisely because circumcision has been so prevalent).

Posted 12/19/2009

ml66uk wrote:

These are from the websites of other national medical organizations: Canadian Paediatric Society "Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed." "Circumcision is a 'non-therapeutic' procedure, which means it is not medically necessary.

Posted 12/21/2009

Hugh7 wrote:

The AAP Bioethics Committee says: "...[P] roviders have legal and ethical duties to their child patients to render competent medical care based on what the patient needs, not what someone else expresses. ... The pediatrician's responsibilities to his or her

Posted 12/23/2009

Constance Rosenthal wrote:

Lets look at the supposed benefits: Reduced UTI in first year of life -- UTI's are very rare - more rare than circ complications. Also, UTI's are easily cured via oral antibiotics. Amputative surgery to prevent UTI is like amputating a finger to prevent a hangnail.

Posted 1/12/2010

AplWi wrote:

I find the information provided here to be very reasonable, and a bit conservative. I grew up intact, with a rather tight foreskin and a short frenulum. I had numerous infections over many years, and painful erections. Some infections were UTIs.

Posted 2/1/2010

tod wrote:

Circ puts male at sexual disadvantage because its victims never feel the pleasure a foreskin produces. That reduces the bond with the partner. It's sad lobbying and money interest can bring this back. People go in medicine for wrong reasons.

Posted 3/11/2010

ask4gas wrote:

regarding comments: 1. why isn't transmission of infections to female partners important? 2. how do men who have not been circ. know that sexual pleasure is better than for those that have been? 3.circ leading to external stricture is RARE

Posted 3/26/2010

kingkool875 wrote:

This article is highly biased. UTI's affect less than 1% of the population. Circumcision does not PREVENT a UTI. To promote circumcision for UTI reduction is medical fraud. Circumcision DOES affect sexual pleasure, it removes the most sensitive parts

Posted 4/2/2010

ml66uk wrote:

Why are amputation and death not mentioned as risks? Other medical societies mention them. Read what the CPS, BMA and RACP have to say. CPS: "Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed."

Posted 4/6/2010

Drsuz wrote:

As a pediatrician, I am disappointed with this post. I agree that the terms are very biased: while stenosis of the penis opening is a rare complication, it's not a "belief." Please see the "Where We Stand: Circumcision" post instead.

Posted 5/11/2010

vbk wrote:

Your article is out of date in failing to mention that one of the problems of the uncircumcised penis, cancer of the penis, is probably caused by the human papilloma virus, which is now often preventable by a vaccine.

Posted 5/27/2010

vbk wrote:

Your article underplays the possible complications of infant circumcision and overplays the supposed advantages. Social reasons are the main factor in this barbaric practice!

Posted 5/27/2010

relaxing54 wrote:

Disgusting. I have suffered not with the fact that I am circumcised for 18 years, but why people think it is their choice. My body my choice. Leave babies be. Sad to think that a newborn can't be secure

Posted 7/7/2010

momof4 wrote:

The 2nd reason for not circ'ing-- that "PEOPLE...FEEL the foreskin is needed to prevent the tip of the penis from becoming too small" is AWFUL! It is a FACT that roughly 1 out of 10 boys suffer Meatal Stenosis caused by their circumcision. Google it.

Posted 7/28/2010

Gouverneur wrote:

A very important reason not to circumcise a newborn, which this post doesn’t mention, is that the boy being circumcised might not want to be circumcised. He might want to keep his foreskin and make the decision for himself.

Posted 7/29/2010

davisjoc wrote:

As a maternity nurse who assists with circumcisions I decided not to submit my son to genital mutilation. It is a very painful procedure done for outdated cultural reasons. I have seen so many botched circs I would never take that risk with my child

Posted 8/2/2010