Click here
for the 2013 Massachusetts MGM Bill proposal.
On April 20, 2010,
the Senate Ethics and Rules Committee
accepted the Judiciary Committee's report
that S. 1777 "ought not to pass", and
the bill expired on July 31, 2010.
The
Massachusetts Joint Committee on the Judiciary
My name is Georganne
Chapin, J.D. and I am the Executive Director of
Intact America, an organization formed last year
to change how Americans think about neonatal
male circumcision. We have a website at www.intactamerica.org
to serve as a clearinghouse for information on
the ethics, risks and harms of infant
circumcision, and the advantages of the normal,
intact male body.
This hearing comes at
a key time in the growing movement to protect
the human rights of baby boys from a medically
unnecessary, painful and risky procedure that
removes healthy, functioning human tissue. The
procedure is unethical at its core. Medical
ethics requires benefit to the patient and
informed consent before something as invasive as
surgery can be justified. Obviously, informed
consent is not possible with a newborn baby.
No reputable medical
authority – not the American Academy of
Pediatrics, the Centers for Disease Control or
the American Medical Association, which calls
male circumcision “non-therapeutic” – has ever
recommended in favor of the surgery.
The United States is
the only western nation that practices medical
circumcision on a majority of newborn baby boys.
In Europe, circumcision rates are below five
percent. Even here, the rate has dropped from
nearly 90 percent thirty years ago to around 55
percent today. The increase in baby boys who
remain intact is due to a growing awareness
among expectant parents that the surgery is
unnecessary, and that the foreskin is a natural,
healthy functional body part that should not be
removed absent some unusual and compelling
medical reason.
However, parts of the
medical establishment are now considering
whether to recommend for the first time in favor
of this unnecessary and risky surgery, which –
by the way – adds more than a billion dollars a
year to physician and hospital revenue and thus
to the nation’s health care costs.
These promoters of
infant circumcision are basing their
consideration on studies conducted among
consenting adult African men on the role of
circumcision in mitigating HIV transmission.
Those African studies showed while female to
male transmission decreased with male
circumcision, the surgery did nothing to reduce
HIV transmission from males to females or
between males – still the most prevalent
transmission modality in the United States. In
fact, the most recent African studies ended
early because women contracted HIV at alarmingly
higher rates from circumcised men, presumably
because the men were not using condoms – the
only effective means to prevent HIV
transmission.
If there were a link
between circumcision and HIV, why does this
country have both the highest HIV rates and
highest circumcision rates among industrialized
countries?
One should no more
argue for male circumcision because babies might
engage in unsafe behavior decades into the
future than one would recommend removing
fingernails to prevent them from scratching
themselves, removing teeth to prevent dental
caries, or removing a healthy appendix because
it might one day burst.
Forced female
circumcision is properly viewed with revulsion –
and in fact is banned – in this country. Soraya
Miré, the Somali filmmaker who is a worldwide
leader in the fight to end the brutal “cultural”
practice of female circumcision, has eloquently
stated that the same human right to an intact
body should apply to boys. How can we argue
otherwise?
More than 500 of our
supporters – including doctors, nurses, parents
and men who regret having been circumcised
without their consent – have submitted written
testimony through
thewww.intactamerica.org website and we are
making those available to you.
Physicians must
embrace the fact that their patient is the baby,
not the parent, and that their patient cannot
consent to circumcision. They must honor the
oath they take to heal the sick and do no harm,
by saying no to neonatal male circumcision. As
a society, we should do the same.
John Iozza
I would like to extend my thanks and
appreciation to the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts for allowing me to speak at this
hearing today. My name is Matthew Hess, and I am
here to testify on behalf of our national
organization, MGMbill.org, in support of Senate
Bill Number 1777.
In addition to the MGM Bill before you, our
group has authored similar legislation for
Congress and 44 other state legislatures. All of
our bill proposals ask for the same thing: equal
protection of the law. It has long been
recognized that circumcision of girls is both
unnecessary and dangerous. But circumcision of
boys is also medically unnecessary, and numerous
articles, studies, books, and films have
documented the harmful physical and emotional
effects that can result from this surgery.
Although proponents of infant male circumcision
argue that there are potential medical benefits
when the foreskin is removed, similar if not
greater benefits would be achieved by removing
other functional body parts. To use just one
example, if a physician were to remove healthy
breast tissue from a baby girl to protect her
from breast cancer one day in the future, that
would be considered both unethical and illegal,
and rightly so. Why, then, do we make an
exception for the male foreskin?
What we are proposing is not a radical measure.
We are not calling for a complete ban on male
circumcision, nor are we seeking to pass
judgment on those who elect to undergo this
procedure. All we are asking is that
circumcision not be permitted until the adult
male gives his own consent.
To address the argument that granting this right
would violate our freedom of religion, the
courts have consistently stated that while
parents are free to make martyrs of themselves,
they are not free to make martyrs of their
children.
Girls have been legally protected from all types
of genital cutting since 1997 under Title 18 of
the United States Code. By extension, the equal
protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution requires that the same
protection be given to boys. I respectfully ask
you to honor that requirement in Massachusetts
by enacting the MGM Bill.
Thank you.
Ladies And
Gentlemen:
My name is
Anthony Losquadro. I am here today to
discuss a medical procedure, the most
frequently performed elective surgery in
America, an issue whose time has come where
we need to step back from and examine, and
an issue that may be currently considered
one of the most important human rights
issues in America today.
Circumcision.
It’s medieval, it’s barbaric. It’s a billion
dollar a year industry. It’s quick, it’s
easy, and it’s a bread and butter staple for
the medical profession and hospitals. It’s
even better for the bio-tech and cosmetic
companies that use the neonatal tissue in
their products.1 While the medical-pharmaceutical complex
profits from a needless procedure, our
health care costs continue to spiral out of
control.
The United
States and the Middle East are predominately
the only areas of the world that routinely
practice male genital mutilation. European,
Scandinavian, Asian, & South American
countries do not commit this barbarity on
their young. And they do not have any
medical problems because of being intact. In
fact many countries have already outlawed
the practice unless a dire medical emergency
exists.2
In my family, my grandfathers weren’t, their
fathers weren’t, my father wasn’t, my uncles
weren’t, they are all left intact, and with
no problems whatsoever. Somehow in 1965 my
parents' American pediatrician convinced and
coerced my parents that it had to be done on
me. But I would have never consented to this
procedure if I had the ability to fight
back.
By and large,
the medical community has scoffed at and
turned its back on men who are upset over
what we call genital mutilation. To give you
some idea of the scope of the issue,
thousands of men are involved with foreskin
restoration, the process of using skin
traction and tissue expansion devices to
induce the skin to regrow to form a replica
covering. The process takes 3-5 years, and
it gives you some idea of the unhappiness
many men have over being mutilated, given
their dedication to the process. Some use
homemade devices, and some utilize
professionally designed equipment made in
small engineering shops.3 All of the devices, techniques, and
knowledge, in the few printed publications
or traded over the internet, were provided as
one fellow man helping another, and with no
help from the medical community. Probably
millions of more men would avail themselves
but are unaware of restoration, or even have
an understanding of what was taken away from
them. And perhaps the medical community is
hesitant over the very discussion of
restoration as it might be construed as an
admission of wrongdoing on their collective
part.
This hypocrisy,
this trampling of human rights and abuse,
has given rise to the intactivist. What is
an intactivist? He or she is someone who
supports genital integrity and
self-determination. And I am proud to stand
here today as one, along with my fellow
colleagues. Do we have some personality
disorder? Are we phallically obsessed? No,
we just want to protect the human rights of
infants, and we just wanted our bodies
left alone, as nature & creation intended,
but the medical community wouldn’t leave us
alone, they callously modified our bodies
without our consent. We didn’t ask for this,
it is through no fault of our own, and we
won’t be embarrassed or ashamed for what was
done to us. The embarrassment and shame
should be draped around the Obstetricians,
Pediatricians and others who perform or
condone this procedure on the helpless.
Every action has
a reaction. Abuses suffered today may sow
the seeds of unfortunate consequences
tomorrow.4
An infant circumcised today may look for
someone to blame as an adult. One day he may
want to lash out against his abusers. Abuse,
caused by forced genital mutilation, may
cause incalculable psycho-sexual
consequences.
The intention of
intactivists is not to outlaw circumcision.
But we believe that each person has the
inalienable right to choose for himself, as
a consenting adult of 18 years or older, of
self determination over the status of his
sexual organs. The measure of any democracy
is its ability to rule by majority, but
protect the minority, and protect those who
are innocent or can’t defend themselves.
Certainly no one is more innocent and
defenseless, or more deserving of protection
as a newborn infant.
Ladies and
Gentlemen, think about this for a second.
What is the definition of rape? According to
Webster’s, it means “to seize or take away
by force,” “an act of despoiling”, “sexual
activity carried out forcibly or under
threat of injury against the will usually of
a person, or with a person who is beneath a
certain age or incapable of valid consent.”
By chance couldn’t circumcision fall into
that definition. In some ways circumcision
can be considered worse than rape. Rape
leaves psychological scars, circumcision
leaves psychological and physical scars.
Look at other similarities. Both victims are
held down against their will. Both victims
scream in pain. The pain and injury is
directed to the genital region. The
perpetrators are committing the acts to
fulfill their own beliefs, of subjugation
and dominance, or of righteousness and
delusion, over an unwitting and helpless
victim. But in our society's twisted view
one is an act of violence, deplorable, and
the other is considered modern medicine,
because the perpetrator is wearing surgical
scrubs.
I have heard
arguments that a parent has the right to
make decisions for their children. And
certainly parents make many decisions for
their children, based on what they believe
is in the child’s best interest. But such
discretion has limits. Certainly abusive
acts, and improper care, are criminalized to
ensure a child’s interests are protected.
There is a line where the parents' right to
decide ends and the rights of the individual
start, such as when the decision is for a
non-essential, non-emergency, cosmetic
procedure. Don’t we find it abhorrent if a
gang member had a child tattooed with their
gang’s colors? That’s a true story out of
California. The father was charged with
criminal disfigurement.5
In fact one of the defenses raised was
"Which is more painful, circumcision or a
tattoo? And how is a parents right to tattoo
their child as part of a gang initiation
rite any different than having a
circumcision done.
Ladies and
gentleman, there is a new impetus upon us
these days. Circumcision has always been a
cure in search of a disease. At the turn of
the century, in the Victorian age, it was
purported to cure insanity, prevent
epileptic seizures, curb desire, prevent
blindness and hairy palms, you get the idea.6
In the Post war era, the circumcisionists
threw their efforts into high gear, touting
it as a new modern wonder, for hygiene and
good health, like all of the other modern
wonders of the 1950's and 1960's, and circ
rates on newborns were pushed upwards of 90%.
Then they said it prevents rare forms of
penile cancer, so rare you have a better
chance of getting hit by lightning, so rare
that men with access to soap and water have
no discernible penile cancer rates between
circumcised or intact men.7
Then they tried to scare women by saying
intact men can cause the spread of cervical
cancer, via the HPV papilloma virus even
though a very effective HPV vaccine is
available with a 99%+ efficacy rate.8
Now in 2010,
with circ rates falling off below 60%9,
the circumcisionists are in a panic, and
they are scouring their medical journals for
a new disease to cure, attempting to reverse
the trend. What boogeyman can be conjured up
to scare the bejesus out of us? Well, Let’s
promote circumcision under the guise of HIV
prevention, based on flawed studies in third
world African countries.
Now, Why don’t
they do a study in America?10
The CDC hasn’t done any. It should be very
easy to do.... Just go to an HIV clinic,
right here in Boston, take a sample of 1000 male patients, see who’s circumcised
and who’s not, and determine the ratio of
infected circumcised men to infected intact
men. But they don’t want to do that. They're
scared of the truth. They're scared they
will prove our case, that circumcision
provides no benefit. Even worse for them,
such a study might show that circumcised men
have a higher infection rate. But the CDC’s
pro-circ propagandists did manage to produce
a media guide for the TV writers and
producers in an effort to promote
circumcision.11
This latest
incarnation may very well be the most
devastating, giving people the notion, the
false belief that circumcision bestows
protection from STD’s, like some kind of
surgical condom. Such hype, such false
information, will only serve to undo the
safe sex education that took so many years,
and so many dollars, to instill in the
public conscience over the last 3 decades.
So why are we
here today? The Commonwealth of
Massachusetts is a place of history, of the
Shot Heard Round the World at Old North
Bridge, of setting things right. Why am I
here ? What happened to me can’t be reversed
in a true sense. There are no time machines
that will take me back to 1965. I am here to
give others the chance I never had. I’m here
to give American newborns a chance, the
chance to be brought into the world in
peace, without being immediately introduced to pain and suffering. The chance
to be left alone.
1 Neonatal Foreskin Epidermal
Keratinocytes go for $250 at the Coriell
Institute for Medical Research.
http://ccr.coriell.org/
4
http://www.foreskin-restoration.net/forum
: Emotional Dilemma : “I must admit,
though that it's been more off than on.
The reason for that is whenever I'm
reminded about what was done to me
[circumcision], I get overwhelmed by
feelings of sadness and anger and I
sometimes break into tears. So whenever
I go on websites like these to learn
about restoring techniques I turn into
an emotional wreck, can't sleep through
the night, and end up out of commission
the whole next day.....And I'm so full
of hate too!”
5 Child's
gang tattoo: Criminal disfigurement by
dad, or just poor parenting? By
Associated Press October 01, 2009
6
“A remedy which is almost always
successful in small boys is
circumcision, ....brief pain attending
the operation will have a salutary
effect upon the mind, especially if it
be connected with the idea of
punishment,”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg
7 American
Cancer Society :”Most experts agree that
circumcision should not be recommended
solely as a way to prevent penile
cancer.”
The CDC
admits in their fact sheet that there
are no proven links based on studies in
America, and "data on circumcision and
risk for HIV infection in the United
States are limited."
I would like to extend my appreciation to the
Commonwealth for allowing me to speak at this
hearing today. My name is Charles Antonelli, and
I am here to testify in favour of Senate Bill
1777.
I understand the hesitation and difficulty in
discussing the politics of circumcision in a
public venue as I’ve been doing it for 20 years
now.
The topic of male circumcision is uncomfortable,
at best, for most and is generally brought up
only in public in the form of a joke. Most
people actively avoid any serious discussion
about male circumcision as it can instil strong
emotion – and rightfully so, as it's directly
associated to one of the most personal and
private parts of a man's body.
Circumcision only remains a culturally
acceptable mutilation because people don’t
discuss it, let alone question it. I feel it’s
time for our leaders to look at the abuse we
subject our newborn children to. It’s obvious
that our culture is destined to continue this
immoral and unethical practice unless the
government steps in to protect its most precious
and delicate citizens.
Please allow me to set the record straight: I am
not an anti-circumcision lunatic. I support any
consenting adult’s right to choose circumcision
for himself, just as I believe it’s a person’s
right to choose to get pierced or tattooed.
The word "circumcision" can be a pleasant
sounding word -- but in all honesty, no matter
what it’s called, it's just sugar-coating for
genital mutilation. Some people balk when I call
it by its true name, but they do so only out of
ignorance.
I stand firm against male genital mutilation for
anyone who can't speak for themselves. I feel
our elected representatives should as well.
There are a few extremely vocal persons that
disagree with me, denouncing me as an
anti-semite because of my relentless passion for
this bill. I have had threats made upon my life…
attempts have been made to publically humiliate
and discredit me… and some have gone as far as
to encourage others to harass my employer due to
my beliefs. Why would a religion, especially one
which claims itself peaceful, make such threats
against me? I find it strange that many
religious people who don't practice many of
their own laws themselves are so passionate
about butchering the penises of their babies. In
the original version of the Torah, the book of
J, God did not mandate circumcision.
Circumcision is not even mentioned. Man devised
circumcision as a way to curb masturbation.
Furthermore, considering that about 66% of boys
in the Commonwealth are routinely circumcised
and of this, only about 4% are Jewish, it should
be obvious that this bill isn't, nor ever was
meant to single out any one religion.
Furthermore, there are a growing number of
Jewish people that do not circumcise, opting for
a peaceful "naming ceremony". A more pleasant
mitzvah, wouldn’t you think?
I have no doubt that parents honestly want to do
what is best for their child, but turning a
blind eye to the horrible truths about male
genital mutilation is a mistake -- a mistake
that has become entrenched in American society
since it was incorrectly deemed a healthful
practice.
In the 1900's, tonsillectomies were considered
to be a healthy prophylactic against disease and
were routinely practiced -- we now know better.
The tonsils have been shown to be a part of a
healthy body's immune system.
The major medical societies in Britain, Canada,
Australia, New Zealand and The United States do
not recommend routine non-therapeutic infant
circumcision.
There has been a lot of chat about how
circumcision prevents disease; however, these
inaccurate claims have been made since Victorian
times, blaming the foreskin for virtually every
ailment of the time from epilepsy and “dim
sight” to today’s AIDS epidemic.
Don’t you find it odd that in the United States,
one of the most circumcised countries in the
world, that in yesterday’s (02 MAR 2010) news
the headline “AIDS Epidemic in Some US Cities
Worse Than Global Hot Spots” appeared?
The absence of a foreskin does not prevent the
spread of disease, education does.
Circumcision prevents nothing except living a
fulfilled sex life. A complete penis has two to
three times the length of skin that a
circumcised penis has, the foreskin contains
branches of the dorsal nerve and about twenty
thousand specialized nerve endings.
Circumcision is amputation of a healthy,
erogenous body part. When this surgical
procedure is performed without consent of the
patient, it violates the basic human right to a
complete and un-mutilated body. If we were
discussing the forced removal of any other body
part of a healthy baby, there would be no
question that it is an abomination.
In the United States it is illegal to circumcise
girls. Even drawing a single drop of blood from
the genitals of a girl with a needle is
protected – there are no exemptions: religious
or otherwise. According to the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution,
boys are guaranteed equal protection under the
law – why aren’t they?
As uncomfortable as you may personally feel
about this bill, please try to see it for what
it’s trying to do: Protect our citizens from
socially acceptable assault and mutilation.
We respectfully request that you pass this bill
out favourably.
Thank
you for your time and consideration.
Kathryn Mora
I am a Jewish
mother against circumcision and in support of
passing Bill 1777. For years I was a certified
childbirth educator and now a journalist and
filmmaker. I continue to educate people that
childbirth is a natural event rather than one
filled with unnecessary drugs and other medical
intervention, and circumcision is an unnatural
event. These are two clear-cut examples of
interfering with nature.
To quote the
highly respected anthropologist, Ashley Montagu,
“In the United States we have invented “reasons”
to replace religion in justifying circumcision.
Myths associated with circumcision have become
an accepted part of our society.”
After educating
ourselves with the facts, why would we allow our
male babies to have part of their penis cut off?
“The foreskin is a uniquely specialized,
sensitive, functional organ of touch. No other
part of the body serves this main purpose.” In
addition, it is documented that babies have not
been given anesthetics during circumcision and
they do feel pain. I invite all of you to
witness a circumcision and/or a video in order
to make your own decision whether or not babies
feels pain.
I was uneducated
about circumcision when my sons were born in
1967 and 1969. It is a decision that I GREATLY
regret! No one, not doctors or hospital staff
ever discussed circumcising our two sons with my
husband or me. They simply did it without our
knowledge. At the time my sons were born, I was
in my early 20s and had never heard any
discussions about circumcision pro or con, much
less what a foreskin is or its function. Every
baby boy was automatically circumcised without
any authorization or discussion about
circumcision. The same was true for birth in
hospitals—almost always mothers were given
drugs.
I was given a
spinal and was numb from the waist down even
though my birth was normal without
complications. It didn’t matter. He was not only
traumatized during the birth when he was yanked
out with forceps. The doctors talked about their
golf game during the most important day of my
life and then he was taken away from me for over
10 hours. It was the most dehumanizing
experience. I didn’t even get a chance to touch
my son much less hold him before he was whisked
away. I asked to have my baby over and over and
over again, to hold him and breastfeed him. He
was further traumatized not long after, when he
was circumcised. But, I don’t know exactly when
because no one ever asked me for authorization
or ever discussed the circumcision with me.
My lack of
education left my sons unprotected. They
suffered pain and agony at that could have been
prevented and it has affected them for the rest
of their lives. Bill 17777 would have protected
my sons from my lack of education about
circumcision.
Jeffrey O'Hara
Kristen O'Hara
My name is Paul
Gaudet and I live in Lowell.
I urge the Committee
to give the bill a favorable vote so that baby
boys in the Commonwealth might be spared the
losses from circumcision, and might avoid its
needless risks.
I came to awareness
of this issue through my membership in Amnesty
International many years ago, when I learned of
the horrors of female genital mutilation,
sometimes referred to as female circumcision.
The civilized world has since condemned this
barbaric practice, and its victims have bravely
led the movement to change generations of
cultural bias and centuries of misguided
religious zeal. This change did not happen
overnight. Still, it represents a major victory
of enlightened medical practice and human reason
over mindless tradition.
It was a revelation
for me to suddenly realize that I, along with
millions of men of my generation who are
circumcised, was equally a casualty of genital
mutilation. With research into its history, I
learned that the greatest obstacles to its
elimination are not hospitals, doctors, and
medical practice, but rather our cultural habits
and our family traditions.
In Victorian times,
loss of semen was seen as leading to all manner
of diseases and debilitating conditions. Mental
weakness, epilepsy, paralysis, muscle frailty,
and other losses of vigor were understood as
preventable if males could be stopped from
discharging semen. In those days, circumcision
seemed like a small inconvenience that could
stop masturbation, and thus the risk of these
serious diseases.
Unfortunately, as
science debunked these claims, the practice of
circumcision kept its social momentum, and even
today is promoted as somehow more sanitary and
aesthetically acceptable than the intact male
genitals that Mother Nature intended.
It's time for a new
way of thinking. Science and reason have shown
us that genital cutting is unnecessary and
dangerous. Our compassion moves us to be
repelled at the thought of inflicting pain on
healthy children. Passing this legislation will
help educate society that ones religious beliefs
or cultural preferences must not trample the
bodily integrity of another person.
This print from
Michelangelo is a reminder that You cant improve
on Nature. Lets protect girls AND BOYS.
My name is
Roger Saquet and I am 67 years old. I live
in Belmont MA. Much of my testimony you will be
hearing has already been covered by others today
but please bear with me as my story is a
personal one.
In the mid 1960's
I became an informal but vocal advocate of
non-circumcision. I advised friends, family and
acquaintances to not circumcise their infant
sons. I was successful with the majority of the
people I talked with. I have two sons and seven
nephews who were born in the 1960's and 1970's.
And I am proud to say that each and every one of
them escaped the knife at birth.
Encouraged by my
success, in 1976 I created the Non-Circumcision
Information Center. Using my own money I
distributed medical literature to expectant
parents all around the United States and Canada.
In recent years I have been pleased to see many
others working to guarantee and protect the
rights of infants.
In recent years
we have seen Massachusetts enact a law requiring
universal health insurance coverage.
Massachusetts has led the nation in recognizing
gay marriage. And here we are today discussing
the creation of a law that would protect the
rights of helpless male infants. Do we have the
courage to continue to lead the way for the rest
of the country?
Since the late
19th century every generation of medical doctors
has offered new medical evidence to support the
practice of circumcision. The first reason is
that it discouraged masturbation and, as we all
know, masturbation causes insanity. Later on
circumcision was presented as a preventive
measure against penile cancer. Now that makes
sense because if you cut away 1/3 of the penis
you will certainly have 1/3 less penile cancer.
Oh, and the foreskin has been held responsible
for cervical cancer. And in this generation it
is being blamed for increasing the risk of
HIV-AIDS. But only in Africa and not in the
U.S.A.
So according to
traditional American medicine, the evil foreskin
has served no other purpose than to be an
inconvenient public health nuisance. But on the
other side of the hoopla and bad science, there
is another story. Very little has been written
about the function of the foreskin. It has two
distinct but slightly overlapping functions. By
covering the glans and keeping it moist, the
foreskin offers the glans protection against
being desensitized. During sexual activity the
movement of the foreskin over the glans is very
pleasurable. And anyone who has a foreskin knows
this but for some strange and unfathomable
reason it is never discussed and very rarely
acknowledged in mainstream American culture.
Now I am not
naive and I understand that we do not have huge
popular support for this bill. Nonetheless I
repectfully urge that you do not bottle up this
bill in committee. It deserves a measure of
daylight so that this issue can become a matter
of thoughtful discussion. One day, and that day
will eventually arrive, this bill will become
law and infants' rights will be respected and
protected. Today I ask that you do not impede
that process. I thank you for your time.
Edward Stamas
My name is
Brian O'Donnell. I am a primary care
Physician Assistant with a local medical group. I have a strong
interest in Adolescent Medicine, Men's Health
and HIV medicine. I hold a Masters Degree in
Health Sciences from Duke University School of
Medicine. I was certified as an HIV Specialist
from the American Academy of HIV Medicine as
well as an appointed lecturer at Yale University
School of Medicine. I have seen more than 20,000
patients throughout my career, the majority
being men.
When I entered
the medical profession, I never imagined I would
be standing in support of a bill to end
circumcision of male infants and children. Until
I started seeing patients I knew virtually
nothing about circumcision or the foreskin for
that matter. The only thing that one is taught
about foreskin in most medical and nursing
schools is that cutting it off is better-it's
cleaner and more hygienic. Probably about the
same as you have heard as well.
It wasn't until I
saw patients with normal intact genitals and the
harmful effects of circumcision (not all
circumcisions are created equal..it depends on
whom is performing the circumcision and their
experience) that I realized there was a lot more
to learn in order to provide the best care for
my patients. After much research, it became
clear to me that the truth about the value of
the foreskin and the harms of circumcision have
been suppressed, intentionally or not, by the
medical community for years.
In 1996, two
pathologists from Canada (Cold and Taylor) did a
complete anatomical study of the foreskin and
identified its major functions and its value in
normal sexual function. While accepted
internationally and published in the British
Journal of Urology, it remains ignored by the
medical community of the United States. Fourteen
years and millions of unnecessary damaging
genital alterations later wasting billions of
health care dollars, most American physicians
and nurses continue to deny the harms of
circumcision.
It is clear that
the personal, religious and monetary motivations
that exist in the medical community influence
their decision making and in turn the mind set
of the general population. While trying to
appear unbiased they continue to instill fear in
parents that if they choose to not circumcise
their sons, they are putting them at risk for a
host of diseases and social ridicule. This is
just not true.
I'd like to take
a moment to share a couple of cases that
contributed to my pursuit of information about
circumcision and led me to where I stand on the
subject today.
When performing a
routine physical exam on a 22 year old man who
had no complaints I noticed abrasions and
scarring on the underside of his penis. In
addition he had skin bridges and arced scars
from a scalpel across his glans. When I asked
about the abrasions, he stated "that is what
happens whenever I have sex". He thought it was
normal. There had never been a note in his chart
identifying the damage caused by circumcision.
He had had excessive amounts of tissue removed
when he was circumcised as an infant causing him
to have tearing and friction along the
circumcision scar. The scalpel severed his
glans. Because he was dark skinned the scars
were very obvious. When I requested the medical
records from the hospital where he was born and
circumcised, an ivy league affiliated hospital,
the first 8 days of his records were missing
rendering a search of his circumciser
impossible.
The second case
involved a six year old Spanish speaking boy who
was having pain with urination at the tip of his
penis. It turned out he was having ballooning of
the foreskin (not a serious condition) which was
pulling on the glans and causing pain. He had
adhesions that had not yet separated freeing the
foreskin from the glans. After calling the local
pediatric urologist and explaining that the boy
needed a simple adhesion release and not a
circumcision the pediatrician stated "and
Abraham said they should all be circumcised".
Again I requested that the least invasive
procedure be performed. After referring, the boy
was subjected to a complete circumcision and in
the week that followed the urologist was
unresponsive at returning calls to the patient's
parents regarding his pain management. This boy
was the first in his family to have been
circumcised.
Since becoming
educated about circumcision and it's
consequences, I have educated many of my
colleagues. I am happy to say that in my last
practice, very few of our newborns were
subjected to this painful and damaging surgery.
Although circumcision rates have fallen
dramatically over the last two decades as
parents become more informed, more than 50
percent of boys continue to be circumcised.
Because of the
inability of the American medical community to
do the right thing and end this practice,
turning to you and the law is a necessary step.
Cutting off parts of a child’s sexual organs is
wrong, whether a boy or a girl, for any reason
other than absolute medical need. Boys deserve
the same protection as girls under the
Constitution and you have an obligation to
ensure that. President Bill Clinton was right
when he signed the bill protecting girls from
any form of genital alteration. He was wrong
when he excluded boys. You have the opportunity
to start the process to correct this egregious
mistake.
My name is Robert O'Connor. I'm a Boston resident and I
volunteer for
NOCIRC which is a non-profit organization
that provides educational information on the
foreskin and circumcision. I am offering
testimony in support of Senate bill # 1777.
I'd like to talk about the anatomy and function of the
foreskin. The foreskin is sometimes described as
"a flap of skin" or as a "redundant" piece of
anatomy. This is inaccurate. The foreskin is a
specialized, sensitive, functional organ of
touch. It is an extension of the penile shaft
skin and contains a rich concentration of blood
vessels and nerve endings. The undersurface of
the foreskin contains mucous membrane which
contains glands that secrete emollients,
lubricants, and protective antibodies. Similar
glands are found in the eyelids and mouth.
The foreskin provides physical protection to the head of the penis
as well as producing antibodies that defend
against infection. The foreskin is as sensitive
as the fingertips. During sexual activity, the
foreskin enables the penile shaft skin to glide
back and forth facilitating smooth movement
between partners and stimulating the female
partner by moving pressure rather than by
friction only.
The foreskin requires no special care. When a boy is old enough to
bathe himself, he can wash himself by retracting
the foreskin, rinsing with warm water and
returning the foreskin to its original position.
The foreskin should not be retracted in infancy.
Circumcision is almost unheard of in Europe, South America, and
non-Muslim Asia. The practice of circumcision in
the United States derives from 19th century
medical opinions in English speaking
countries. Originally hailed as a cure for
Masturbation and Epilepsy, circumcision has in
more recent times been touted as a prevention
for Penile Cancer and AIDS. Both diseases are
virus based and come about due to risky
behavior. Any study that recommends circumcision
for health benefits is relying on a small sample
of individuals with high risk behaviors and
extrapolating the results to apply them to the
general population.
Recent statements by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of
British Columbia, the British Medical
Association, and the Royal Australasian College
of Physicians conclude there are no medical
benefits to routine infant circumcision. It does
however carry risks including physical
deformities, infection, and death. Even when the
desired outcome is achieved, sexual sensitivity
of the male is reduced and the right to
self-determination has been violated.
I urge legislators to prohibit the cutting of sexual organs of any
person under the age of 18 or of any
non-consenting adult. Furthermore I urge the
legislators to implement an educational program
to increase parental understanding of the
foreskin and the trauma of circumcision.
Thank You.
Erik K.
(not pictured)
I am Peter Adler,
a Massachusetts attorney. It is a privilege to
address this famous legislature on such an
important matter.
Congress and 14
states have made female genital cutting illegal.
At issue is whether to ban male circumcision as
well. The legal memorandum I have submitted
argues that circumcision is already illegal,
even with parental consent.
This makes your
job much easier. You need not address the merits
of circumcision, consider parents’ beliefs, or
create new law. This bill is needed, however, to
enforce the law.
First, cutting
anyone’s genitals without consent is criminal
assault. There is no exception for boys. We may
not prosecute circumcision, but only because it
is routine, as were slavery and discrimination
against women.
Second, in
banning female genital cutting, Congress found
that it violates the 14th amendment right to
privacy and security of the person. The
Massachusetts Constitution contains the same
provision. Since every person has the same
rights, both female and male genital cutting are
unconstitutional. The 14th amendment also
prohibits protecting females without extending
equal protection of the law to males. The
government is sworn to uphold the Constitution,
and thus I believe to abolish all genital
cutting.
Third,
circumcision is unlawful child abuse, defined in
Massachusetts as “impairment of any organ”, and
causing or even risking physical or emotional
injury.
Fourth,
circumcision violates human rights law adopted
by the United States, including the right of
minors to security of the person and freedom
from cruel treatment.
Parental consent does not
make circumcision legal. The law does not allow
parents to expose their children to harm for
religious reasons. Parental consent
to what medical associations agree is
unnecessary surgery is also legally invalid. Congress
found that banning genital cutting does not
violate parents’ religious rights. Moreover,
children have their own rights to choose a
religion.
Ignoring the law,
if anything is sacred, our bodies are sacred,
and our most fundamental values are freedom and
equality. We should let each man decide for
himself whether circumcision is such a good
idea. Men have decided that it is a terrible
idea, as reportedly only one intact man in
10,000 opts for circumcision! Your vote will let
our defenseless boys reach adulthood intact to
use their most private parts as nature intended;
will help abolish this gruesome, unnecessary
surgery nationwide; and will save taxpayers’
money as well.
I am Ronald
Goldman, Ph.D., Executive Director of the
Circumcision Resource Center and author of
Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma. My Ph.D.
is in psychology, and I seek to raise awareness
about harmful psychological effects of
circumcision.
Infant neurological
development, clinical experience, trauma theory,
and research on circumcised infants all support
the conclusion that circumcision is traumatic.
Circumcision results in extreme pain and
significant increases in heart rate and level of
blood stress hormone. Some infants do not cry
because they go into shock from the overwhelming
experience. Pain medication, if it is used, does
not eliminate the pain or the trauma. Long-term
infant behavioral changes and disruptions in
mother-child bonding due to circumcision have
been observed. An MRI showed permanent changes
to a circumcised infant’s brain.
Circumcision trauma
has long-term effects. In a medical journal
survey of 546 circumcised men who reported
circumcision harm, the following effects and
feelings were noted.
• anger, rage, sense
of loss, shame, sense of having been victimized
and mutilated
• low self-esteem,
fear, distrust, and grief
• relationship
difficulties, sexual anxieties, and depression
• reduced emotional
expression, lack of empathy, and avoidance of
intimacy
Some of these men
wish they had been given a choice at a later
time rather than having circumcision forced on
them when they were too young to resist. The
survey does not suggest that all circumcised men
have such feelings or how common the feelings
are, only that they persist in some circumcised
men, and more research is needed.
Lack of awareness
and understanding of circumcision, avoidance of
the discomfort of questioning circumcision, and
fear of disclosure help to explain why many
circumcised men do not express dissatisfaction.
Medical societies in Australia, New Zealand, and
the United Kingdom recognize the long-term
psychological risks of circumcision.
Some harmful effects
may not be connected to circumcision because
they appear many years later. Because
circumcision is common in the U.S., its effects
are common and interpreted as normal. Symptoms
of circumcision trauma fit the symptom pattern
of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
American discomfort with and avoidance of the
topic is a PTSD symptom. Some people cannot even
say the word “circumcision.”
Psychological,
social, economic, and political factors affect
doctors who study circumcision, advocate
circumcision, or take convenient neutral
positions on circumcision when they privately
know it is harmful. Like many circumcised men,
circumcised doctors are subject to emotional
repression and denial about circumcision. What
doctor wants to admit he or she has caused
serious harm by circumcising hundreds or
thousands of infants? Defending circumcision
requires minimizing or ignoring the harm,
accepting false beliefs, and producing inflated
medical claims. My medical journal article
titled “Circumcision Policy: A Psychosocial
Perspective” describes non-medical factors that
could affect the values and attitudes of
circumcision policy committee members, the
process of evaluating the medical literature,
and the medical literature itself. These factors
include circumcision status of doctors and their
children and the number of circumcisions that
they have performed. Financial incentive also is
a motivating factor for some doctors to
circumcise. We cannot trust many American
doctors about circumcision.
We have not had the
courage to admit we have made a very serious
mistake. As with other traumas, there is a
compulsion to repeat it. We have been more
concerned with avoiding adult discomfort than
with protecting helpless infants from extreme
pain and trauma. Infants are real people with
real feelings. They feel more than adults do. I
urge everyone to watch a circumcision video,
feel empathy for the infant, trust your
instincts, and inform your family and friends.
(Dr.
Goldman testified to make a public statement,
not to take a position on the bill.)
