Elective male circumcision; Medicolegal discussions and current literature
Abstract
There are some medicolegal discussion
about elective male circumcision(EMC). According to the report of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) in 2012, the health
benefits of newborn MC outweigh the risks.
This report of the AAP has given a new dimension to the discussion about MC. This
report has been criticized by circles who say
circumcision is not an ethical and legal intervention. However, the current literature
confirms this report of the AAP. While MC
significantly reduces the risks of urinary tract
infections, phimosis, balanitis, candidiasis,
high-risk HPV infection, HIV, genital ulcer disease, syphilis, trichomonas vaginalis,
mycoplasma genitalium, herpes simplex virus type 2, shancroid, penile cancer, prostate
cancer and cervical cancer, it does not negatively affect on sexual functions. MC also affects mental health positively in populations
where circumcision is prevalent because of
traditions and beliefs. The recommended age
for MC is 0-1 years. Because, the complications are less, the healing is faster, and the cost
is more advantageous in infantile MC. There
is also no risk of circumcision in this period
in terms of mental health. MC complications
in infancy are around 0,2-0,3% and most of
them are usually prevented with minimal
intervention. If MC is not performed between 0-1 age it should be avoided between 3-6
years of age due to castration phobia and the
boy should be expected to reach the age of
7-10 years.
Keywords
References
- 1. Bossio JA, Pukall CF, Steele S. A review of the current state of the male circumcision literature. J Sex Med. 2014 Dec;11(12):2847-64. doi: 10.1111/jsm.12703. Epub 2014 Oct 6.
- 2. Morris BJ, Wamai RG, Henebeng EB, Tobian AA, Klausner JD, Banerjee J et al. Estimation of country-specific and global prevalence of male circumcision. Popul Health Metr. 2016 Mar 1;14:4. doi: 10.1186/s12963-016-0073-5.eCollection 2016.
- 3. Morris BJ, Wiswell TE. Circumcision and lifetime risk of urinary tract infections: A systematic review and metaanalysis.J Urol 2013;189:2118–24.
- 4. Morris BJ, Bailis SA, Wiswell TE. Circumcision rates in the United States: Rising or falling? What effect might the new affirmative pediatric policy statement have? Mayo Clin Proc 2014;89:677–86.
- 5. Blank S, Brady M, Buerk E, Carlo W, Diekema D, Freedman A et al. American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision. Male circumcision. Pediatrics. 2012 Sep;130(3):e756-85. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-1990. Epub 2012 Aug 27.
- 6. Van Howe RS. Response to Vogelstein: How the 2012 AAP Task Force on circumcision went wrong. Bioethics. 2018 Jan;32:77-80. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12363. Epub 2017 Jul 9.
- 7. Svoboda JS, Adler PW, Van Howe RS. Circumcision Is Unethical and Unlawful. J Law Med Ethics 2016 Jun;44:263-82.doi: 10.1177/1073110516654120.
- 8. Frisch M, Aigrain Y, Barauskas V, Bjarnason R, Boddy SA, Czauderna P et al. Cultural bias in the AAP’s 2012 Technical Report and Policy Statement on male circumcision. Pediatrics 2013 Apr;131:796-800. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012- 2896. Epub 2013 Mar 18.
Details
Primary Language
English
Subjects
Surgery
Journal Section
Review
Authors
Zeki Bayraktar
*
This is me
Türkiye
Publication Date
June 1, 2018
Submission Date
April 10, 2018
Acceptance Date
May 4, 2018
Published in Issue
Year 2018 Volume: 13 Number: 2