Nontherapeutic Circumcision is Ethically Bankrupt

Michael Benatar and David Benatar (2003) patronizingly argue the middle ground about the benefits and harms of circumcision, discounting the extremely negative outcomes, which most certainly are of great moral concern. Turning a normal and healthy child into a death or botch statistic is a very bad thing to do. To dismiss these concerns on the basis of infrequency does not address the fact that such tragedies are needlessly dealt to innocent children, frequently by those who take an oath to "do no harm." Furthermore, David Benatar should be aware of the yearly death and dismemberment statistics arising from the Xhosa circumcision camps in his own country. Whether medical or ritual, death or dismemberment is an extremely high price to pay for an unnecessary surgery. A sexual reassignment is also a high price to pay. These casualties cannot be written off the bioethical balance sheet, they must be accounted for with a larger balancing group that received benefits of the same magnitudes. Since the authors admit that medical science cannot justify circumcision, that will be a difficult task. The Benatars need to do their math without leaving terms out of the equation. Perhaps by dismissing these casualties, they miss the point that the real cost of stopping them would be zero, "just say no."

Similarly patronizing is the idea that because most circumcised men have enough penile nerves to reach climax somehow that is all they are entitled to. Circumcision destroys specialized sensory nerve structures of the foreskin (Taylor, Lockwood, and Taylor 1996) and renders the penis less capable of stimulation by reducing the mobility of its remaining skin. Sexual pleasure is the area under the curve of sensation over time, not just orgasm. Nerve fibers from circumcised tissue can never fire a single pulse of pleasure to the brain. Therefore, permanent loss of the foreskin is the loss of one of the factors that can contribute to a man's sexual joy. Medical circumcision was introduced because boys enjoyed their foreskin! From a logic and moral standpoint, one must breach the premise that both men and women are entitled to all of the nerve endings they are born with, before proceeding to argue that a diminished penis is "enough."

The Benatars neglect to consider the fact that child abuse is not an objective interpretation but a subjective one. I am the only person who can decide if my circumcision was child abuse. I declare that it was, by result if not by intent. It prevents me from being whole, which is a personal value and a human right as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights under the scope of "security of person."

A person can be circumcised or whole and be happy or unhappy about it. The only sure way to avoid creating people who are both circumcised and unhappy is to keep children intact.

Before eliminating circumcision as a form of child abuse, the authors must first test the facts against defi- nitions of child abuse. Permanent injury is part of the definition, and the definition of injury must be consistent with injuries sustained by other parts of the body. Circumcision is a double skin-layer laceration (a form of injury) accompanied by crush injuries from the clamp and permanent loss of erogenous tissue. Most parents who are accused of child abuse did whatever they did "for his own good," and circumcision fits the mold perfectly. Circumcision also follows the usual "cycle of abuse" pattern, as each generation in turn gets and then gives the knife. I am not suggesting evil intentions on the part of circumcising parents, only that the Benatars have much more to argue to eliminate circumcision as a form of child abuse. Circumcision fits the objective definition so well that some legislatures decided to specifically "undefine" it as ritual abuse in their criminal statutes (California Penal Code 662.83; Idaho Criminal Code 18...