brand logo

Am Fam Physician. 2021;103(2):69-70

Original Article: Newborn Circumcision Techniques

Issue Date: June 1, 2020

See additional reader comments at:

To the Editor: The article by Dr. Omole and colleagues describes common techniques for performing newborn circumcision. Although the technical discussion is sound, other sections of the article do not reflect the current literature.

The authors cite health benefits from circumcision, such as reduced risk of urinary tract infections (UTIs), penile cancer, phimosis, and HIV infection. However, these risks need context. UTIs are virtually always treatable and are relatively uncommon in boys regardless of circumcision status. The cited report suggests that the number of circumcisions needed to prevent one (likely treatable) UTI is approximately 100. Penile cancer is one of the rarest malignancies for which site-specific data are available in the United States.1 Pathologic phimosis usually can be treated nonsurgically with a steroid cream.2 The data on HIV infection come from studies of voluntary adult circumcision in sub-Saharan Africa where there is an epidemic of heterosexually transmitted HIV; the relevance of these data to newborn circumcision in the United States has not been established.1

The risk of loss of the penile prepuce from circumcision is 100%.3 If this genital structure has any value, then its removal is a harm, whatever the (further) risk of surgical complications. The patient's inability to decide if his genitals should be permanently surgically altered is also a consideration. Circumcision removes anatomically normal, nondiseased, functional tissue—from a psychosexually significant part of the body—with no urgent medical need and without the consent of the patient.1

Physicians should be aware of the rapidly changing ethical and legal landscapes for circumcision. A recent federal court case clarified that even a sterilized “ritual nick” to the vulva of a child or infant for religious reasons constitutes physical assault, which has implications for male circumcision.4 A group of more than 90 physicians, medical ethicists, legal scholars, and other experts argued that “cutting any person's genitals without their informed consent is a serious violation of their right to bodily integrity [and is] morally impermissible unless the person is nonautonomous (incapable of consent) and the cutting is medically necessary.”5

In Reply: Thank you for your comments on our article. We applaud your work on genital mutilation, sexual assault, and medical ethics as they relate to what has been accepted in society. Unfortunately, we did not address the medical ethics of newborn circumcision in this article because of word count restrictions; therefore, we listed the adverse effects that have been commonly cited for the procedure. The medical ethics of newborn circumcision is a formidable topic in itself and would require an additional article on how religion and culture impact science. We welcome collaboration on this topic at a future HeLa Conference at Morehouse School of Medicine to discuss ethical dilemmas in medicine.

Email letter submissions to Letters should be fewer than 400 words and limited to six references, one table or figure, and three authors. Letters submitted for publication in AFP must not be submitted to any other publication. Letters may be edited to meet style and space requirements.

This series is coordinated by Kenny Lin, MD, MPH, deputy editor.

Continue Reading

More in AFP

More in PubMed

Copyright © 2021 by the American Academy of Family Physicians.

This content is owned by the AAFP. A person viewing it online may make one printout of the material and may use that printout only for his or her personal, non-commercial reference. This material may not otherwise be downloaded, copied, printed, stored, transmitted or reproduced in any medium, whether now known or later invented, except as authorized in writing by the AAFP.  See permissions for copyright questions and/or permission requests.