Medical Necessity

Many Americans believe that male circumcision is scientifically recommended. This is untrue. While some individual physicians advocate for circumcision of healthy male babies, no medical society- international or American- suggests that routine male circumcision is medically necessary. "Routine circumcision" refers to surgery performed in the absence of any disease or deformity. It generally equates with parental preferences.

The Canadian Pediatric Society recommends that routine circumcision NOT be performed. This position reflects the recommendations of many world medical associations. The British Medical Association finds that "Circumcision for medical purposes, where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate."  The phrase "unethical and inappropriate" forcefully indicates that other societies and medical groups hold very different opinions regarding male childhood circumcision. The great majority of British man have intact genitals, and what circumcisions do take place are related to religious, predominantly Muslim, practice

The Royal Dutch Medical Society (KNMG) states "that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children’s rights to autonomy and physical integrity. Contrary to popular belief, circumcision can cause complications – bleeding, infection, urethral stricture and panic attacks are particularly common. KNMG is therefore urging a strong policy of deterrence. KNMG is calling upon doctors to actively and insistently inform parents who are considering the procedure of the absence of medical benefits and the danger of complications." The reference to the violation of children's rights to autonomy and physical integrity bear directly on social work ethics.  

These medical society position papers state that male childhood circumcision in the absence of actual disease is medically inappropriate and unethical. Surgery, where there is no disease or deformity, fails meet basic standards of medical ethics.  American physicians are performing surgery in the absence of disease or deformity and without the consent of the person whose body is being irrevocably altered. Social work remains silent and does not advocate for children in this area or discuss the highly questions ethics of childhood circumcision.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has the most pro-circumcision medical position.  But even the AAP states "Although health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns..."  The AAP's policy statement does not recommend routine circumcision, despite American media reports suggesting it does. The American statement does not address the ethical considerations of childhood circumcision.

In the absence of any medical recommendation for routine childhood circumcisions, the profession of Social Work should advocate for boys' right to maintain intact their genitals, and determine for themselves whether they want to be circumcised- AFTER they have experienced the erotic sensations of their foreskin. That sensual experience alone allows for truly informed consent for the individual.