Male Circumcision – Are There Any Benefits? Some States "cut" Medical Funding
Recently San Francisco attempted to ban infant circumcision and defund Medicaid coverage for the procedure. Right now the act of removing an infant boy's foreskin has become a point of controversy in America. It was only ten years ago that about 50 percent of all male infants born in U.S. hospitals were circumcised. Those numbers have significantly decreased to less than 35 percent. This in part because of the lack of funding for the poor and the rise in controversy that the practice is not medically necessary. As well, opponents of circumcision believe that circumcision is a violation of human rights and is a form of genital mutilation. There have been many national campaigns to withdraw state Medicaid funding for male circumcision and several states have been successful. The newest states to de-fund the act of circumcision is South Carolina and Colorado. Though state officials cite economic reasons for the de-funding, a 2009 UCLA study says that this will have the largest impact on the poor which will result in far fewer infant males from having their nether regions from being cut off. In this same study, hospitals in the states without Medicaid coverage for circumcision were half as likely to perform the procedure as a matter of routine.
Along with all of the budget cuts and medical reform, increased public skepticism about the long time practice of circumcision comes at exactly the same time when there is the most medical evidence to support its the health benefits of an intact prepuce. An epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Dr. Aaron Tobian, along with other colleagues, puts forth many arguments for the medical benefits of infant circumcision in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Dr. Tobain says that the foreskin is there for a reason and there is no sound medical evidence that warrants a surgical procedure to remove it. Dr. Tobian believes that circumcision poses threats to urinary health as well as the future sexual health of not only his son, but his future partners as well. Dr. Tobian performed many studies in Uganda where he compared those who were uncircumcised to those who were left in tact. His findings are extremely important because they show that circumcision reduced the risk of HIV infection by 60 percent, genital herpes by 30 percent, and the cancer causing human papilloma virus by 35 percent in men! Other studies show that in tact males have heightened sensitivity, have less urinary infections, and are even more sexually active than men whom are circumcised.
