By JAMES BELL
Hays Post
It may be something many people are not comfortable discussing, but protestors Tuesday in Hays and Great Bend were confronted with the realities of the harm caused by circumcision.
Men and women from across the country, and members of the organization Bloodstained Men donned all white clothing with large red spots covering their crotch, representing blood from male genital mutilation, stood at the intersection of 27th and Vine in Hays in the morning and then at 10th and McKinley in Great Bend in the afternoon.
“We're on a two-week tour of Kansas and Nebraska to spread foreskin awareness and prevent violence against children,” said Bloodstained Men CEO David Atkinson.
Their mission: “We do not want future generations to suffer the same act of violence that was inflicted on us when we were too young to defend ourselves,” he said.
He pulled no punches when discussing their belief that circumcision has no place in the modern U.S. medical community.
“The risk of harmful effect is 100 percent because the foreskin is a valuable part of the body, and it is destroyed in 100 percent of circumcisions,” Atkinson said. “I always want to emphasize the fact that it's harmful to amputate part of the penis. Regardless of how skillfully it is done, and regardless of whether there are any complications.”
And while the act is itself may be harmful, he said it can also cause further complications, including infections and uncontrolled bleeding that can be deadly.
The American Academy of Pediatrics said in a 2018 study mortality from the procedure is difficult to track due to a lack of sufficient data but in a 10-year period, about 200 early deaths following circumcision were recorded.
“I don't like to focus on those because then people will say, ‘Oh, well, I'll just find a competent doctor, and then there won't be any problem,’” Atkinson said.
But he said doctors are a significant contributor to the ongoing practice.
“There's ignorance and denial,” Atkinson said. “Because there are still people who just have no idea, [and are] totally ignorant about the structure and function of the human foreskin. And that includes a lot of American doctors who are still doing this, who never learned about the structure and function of the foreskin because their medical school professors didn't have a foreskin.”
“Their textbooks were written by people who don't have foreskin and therefore don't have diagrams of the intact penis,” he continued. “They themselves don't have foreskins. They've never encountered someone in their personal lives who has spoken to them about it. And so, there are a lot of doctors who are totally ignorant about this, as well as parents who unfortunately trust that doctors have their best interests, and the doctors are educated.”
He said ignorance also leads to denial in the American medical community of the lack of need for the procedure.
“They don't want to acknowledge that they've been harming our baby boys for 100 years,” Atkinson said. “If they were to come out and say actually, this is harmful, and we shouldn't be doing it, which is something that most other country’s medical associations have done… they would open themselves up to huge liability on an unimaginable scale for malpractice for torturing babies for no reason and harming their penises.”
“It's easier for them just to try to keep doing it and pretend that nothing's wrong.”
Hospital finances are also a factor, he said.
“There's a financial incentive in a lot of medical hospitals and clinics because, in the U.S., we have this health care system that's based on profit payment per procedure,” Atkinson said. “And, so the more penises they cut, the more money they make, or the insurance companies will make.”
Numerous studies show that while doctors generally perpetuate the procedure, social factors, including the circumcision of the father, is a primary factor in the decision to circumcise a child.
“There's also denial among men, who don't want to admit that part of their penis is missing and that their penis has been damaged for no reason,” Atkinson said. “Because no man wants to think that his penis is not as good as it could possibly be.”
“And so, when we stand out here with signs saying sexual mutilation, then a lot of guys, their first reaction will be to say, ‘Oh, no, there's nothing wrong with my penis, and everything's fine.’ And in order for them to continue thinking that the easiest thing is to pass along that same injury to their son because if they had an intact son, and they had to change his diapers every day, they would be constantly reminded, look, there's something on this penis that I don't have.”
"It's a difficult situation."
While the practice is commonplace in the U.S., he noted that much of the world, including European and Asian countries, has abandoned the procedure as routine long ago.
“The foreskin is a normal, healthy, valuable part of the human penis,” Atkinson said. “And the European medical community has condemned American doctors for tampering with the genitals of perfectly healthy babies.”
“We're here to warn the American people that their children are in danger in hospitals around the country shortly after birth, and that… we encourage them to educate themselves, so they have they have the information and the confidence to protect their children, from people who would amputate parts of their penises.”
In 2010, the AAP noted that about 80 percent of men in the U.S. ages 14-59 were circumcised. Another 2014 study found about 80.5 percent of American men were also.
That rate was matched, or higher, in some countries, including Turkey, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Israel.
However, most European countries have rates well less than 20 percent, with several reporting circumcision rates less than 10 percent.
Other countries, like Australia and New Zealand, have rates somewhere in between, but the percentage continues to decline as the practice has faced increased scrutiny and has fallen out of favor in recent decades.
Within the U.S., states also have a wide variety of circumcision rates, with significantly lower rates in the West and South, according to CDC data released in 2010. The Midwest has the highest rate.
And while generally, over the last few decades, the rate of circumcision in the U.S. is down, it should be recognized as another procedure that people abandon as medicine evolves, Atkinson said.
“In the U.S., just a couple of generations ago, doctors were inserting probes into the corner of children's eyelids to tear away the frontal lobe of the brain, and they were claiming that there were some medical reasons to do this, and now we know it's all total nonsense,” he said. “And the same thing with foreskin amputation.”
"It's a barbaric human rights violation."
The first step of the foreskin amputation is inserting this blunt metal probe into the penis between the foreskin and the glands, the head of the penis, and tearing away at this connective tissue, Atkinson said. And that practice by itself can be harmful.
“In the newborn baby, and even in young children, the foreskin is not easily retractable,” he said. “It's fused to the head of the penis, similar to a kitten's eyelid. This membrane gradually breaks down over several years.”
“And there's been a lot of misinformation about the retraction of the foreskin in the American medical community as well because there's been this idea that you need to retract the foreskin and wash underneath because it might get dirty,” he continued. “But if you retract the foreskin before it becomes naturally retractable, then you have an open wound. And then that wound can get infected. And then you go to the doctor, and they say, ‘Oh, this is why we chose to circumcise because I look at all these infections.’”
While the AAP and CDC have recommended the practice in the past, the last guidance issued by the AAP and shared by the CDC has expired.
“There's a lot of inaccurate reporting we still see about this issue with regards to the AAP because people do a quick search on the internet, and they'll say, ‘Oh, look at the recommendation that the benefits outweigh the risks,’” Atkinson said. “But they don't realize the AAP has no current statement on this issue. They have not, for the past six years, had any statement on this issue.”
But many organizations continue sharing potential benefits of the procedure, even as they note the uncertainty attributed to it.
The Mayo Clinic lists reasons for the procedure as:
- Easier hygiene. Circumcision makes it simpler to wash the penis. However, boys with uncircumcised penises can be taught to wash regularly beneath the foreskin.
- Decreased risk of urinary tract infections. The risk of urinary tract infections in males is low, but these infections are more common in uncircumcised males. Severe infections early in life can lead to kidney problems later.
- Decreased risk of sexually transmitted infections. Circumcised men might have a lower risk of certain sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. Still, safe sexual practices remain essential.
- Prevention of penile problems. Occasionally, the foreskin on an uncircumcised penis can be difficult or impossible to retract (phimosis). This can lead to inflammation of the foreskin or head of the penis.
- Decreased risk of penile cancer. Although cancer of the penis is rare, it's less common in circumcised men. In addition, cervical cancer is less common in the female sexual partners of circumcised men.
They conclude with, "The risks of not being circumcised, however, are not only rare, but avoidable with proper care of the penis."
Ultimately, Bloodstained Men and similar organizations hope as the conversation becomes normalized, more doctors will understand the lack of benefit in the practice, but most importantly, they hope parents will step up and become advocates for their children.
“It's a human rights issue,” Atkinson said. “And it's an issue of violence against children. So, if you're trying to decide whether to have part of your son’s penis amputated, the experts to which you should look for advice are the human rights activist, not the doctors, because doctors aren't experts in human rights. Doctors are perpetrators in this case. You might as well ask the fox if you should lock the doors to the chicken coop.”
