Electronic Letters to:
|
|
eLetters: Electronic letters published:
-
![[Read eLetter]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Evidence for Inherent Sexual Injury of Male Circumcision
- George Hill, George C. Denniston, MD, MPH (21 September 2005)
|
|
||||
|
George Hill, Executive Secretary Doctors Opposing Circumcision, Suite 42, 2442 NW Market Street, Seattle, Washington 98107-4137, USA, George C. Denniston, MD, MPH
Send letter to journal:
iconbuster{at}earthlink.net George Hill, et al.
|
Dear Editor: Holms, writing in June 2004, laments that there is a “singular lack” of medical evidence regarding the harm of early circumcision on which to form an opinion regarding the ethical status of child circumcision.[1] We submit that that is not the case. We affirm there was enough evidence in 2004 regarding the inherent harm of circumcision on which to make a decision. We further submit that additional evidence has emerged in the past year to further support the sexual harm of child circumcision. Winkelmann, as early as 1959, showed that the prepuce is a “specific erogenous zone” with nerve endings arranged in rete ridges.[2] Moldwin & Valderrama (1989) reported “an extensive neuronal network within prepucial tissue.”[3] Taylor et al. (1996) further described the tissue that is excised by circumcision, finding that more than one-half of the skin and mucosa of the penis is excised by circumcision and, moreover, that this includes a highly innervated and vascularized circular band of ridged tissue, which he named the ridged band.[4] With so much sensory tissue extirpated, one would expect to find decreased sensory input to the central and autonomic nervous systems with adverse effects on sexual function. Demonstrated adverse effects of circumcision on erection and ejaculation supply proof of injury. A survey from South Korea (where circumcision has been practiced since the Korean War as a result of American cultural influence) found that men were twice as likely to report “diminished sexuality rather than improved sexuality.”[5] Coursey et al. report that the adverse effect of circumcision on erectile function is equivalent to that of anterior urethroplasty.[6] Fink et al. report a statistically significant reduction in erectile function after circumcision and a loss of sensitivity.[7] Shen et al. report weakened “erectile confidence” and prolonged intercourse after circumcision.[8] Senkul et al. report statistically significant increase in ejaculatory time after circumcision.[9] Masood et al. report degraded erectile function.[10] Circumcision also causes changes in sexual behaviour. Laumann et al. report higher incidence of oral sex, anal sex, and masturbation in circumcised men.[11] Dave et al. report circumcised males are more likely to have homosexual experience and partners from abroad.[12] Nineteenth century doctors were well aware of the sexual nature of the prepuce, therefore they promoted circumcision in hope of eliminating masturbation.[13] Coursey et al., Fink et al., and Masood et al. argue that men should be told of the probable adverse effect on sexual function as part of pre-circumcision informed consent counseling.[6] [7] [10] Although Holm attempts to draw a distinction between adult circumcision and childhood circumcision, [1] there is no reason to believe that the age at the time of circumcision has any effect on the reported sexual changes associated with extirpation of sensory tissue from the penis.
Doctors Opposing Circumcision References:
|
||||
