Last month, the New York City Health Department reported a Brooklyn newborn baby’s death, caused by complications from neonatal herpes. The infection was allegedly contracted through a controversial Jewish circumcision ritual, where the mohel, the person who was originally infected and performing the circumcision, used his mouth to suck the blood away from the incision. Male circumcision, the removal of the foreskin covering the human penis, has long been a controversial practice in various countries by residents of different races and religions. The story of this infant’s death has once again brought male circumcision into the spotlight and caused renewed debate on whether circumcision is an advisable practice or should be prohibited by law. Advocates and critics of circumcision have both argued their sides of the story through careful research and studies, but there is still no definitive proof to support either side as having the scientific answer. At what point is circumcision absolutely necessary? The answer will perhaps never be found. However, many experts—including legal and medical professionals—argue that the debate comes down to personal choice. Whether the choice should be made by the family or the patient himself is where the most controversy lies—and perhaps where proponents and opponents of the procedure can find some common ground.
Advocates for male circumcision stand rather firmly and are very expressive of their position. Religious scholars Allan J. Jacobs and Kavita Arora argue male circumcision should be preserved due to its roots in religion (Jacobs). In some religions, circumcision is performed on newborn babies, for reasons such as offering the foreskin to god or goddess of fertility to ensure children. Hence, their argument is that circumcision is a form of celebration of the religion and believers are entitled to their rights to practice their chosen religion. Regulating circumcision, as a result, would be a breach of their religious freedom. In addition, some proponents of circumcision are influenced because of the researched medical benefits of the procedure. Clinically, circumcision may be practiced on infants and children as a treatment method for some certain diseases or for other preventative reasons. According to a study done by the New York City Health Department (NYHD), circumcised infants are at 4% less risk for getting urinary tract infections than non-circumcised infants (NYHD). The same study also suggests a reduced likelihood of getting sexually transmitted diseases and HIV infections in circumcised men, and possibly a reduced risk for cervical cancer in female partners of circumcised men (NYHD).
However, the data provided by the research and studies are not enough for doctors universally agree on recommending circumcision for all boys. For instance, opposers like Doctor Friedman, a pediatrician at Mayo Clinic Ohio, argue that the decision to get circumcised should be made by the boy himself when he grows up and it is his right to maintain a whole body until then (Friedman). And while there are benefits to circumcising a boy medically, there are the inevitable risks, such as bleeding, swelling, infection, and many other types of penile injuries (NYHD).
What, then, motivates parents to sign the consent form for doctors to circumcise their newborn babies? Joseph Mazor, a scholar in the Department of Philosophy at London School of Economics, argues that an adult’s decision to circumcise his or her baby is subject to a variety of biases and a significant potential lack of information (Mazor). In other words, when parents give consent to let doctors perform the irreversible procedure, they are somehow biased and blindly basing judgments on whatever they are being advised to do. While unaware of much of the evidence regarding the costs and benefits of circumcision, parents make the circumcision decision for the children and leave them marked for life. Children who are circumcised might end up resenting their parents for such a reckless decision that is made for them when they have no control over their own body. It begs the question—who has the ownership over an infant’s body?
Naturally, one would assume that the infant himself should claim the ownership over his own body. However, doctors sometimes find themselves detaining babies or children and giving them treatments against their will. This is because, as U.S. medical malpractice lawyer and law professor at Case Western Reserve University Jessie Hill claims, the U.S. federal law demonstrates babies, children, and adolescents are not mentally developed enough to make their own medical decisions (Hill). Hill’s statement legally demonstrates that babies are not able to make medical decisions for themselves because they are not mature enough to make such important, complex, and sometimes life-threatening decisions for themselves. In fact, the norm is that the baby is often excluded from the medical decision making process. Therefore, babies in fact do not own their body, as they have no control over what the adults are determined to do to them.
If the owners themselves do not have ownerships over their own bodies, who does? Hill also offers the readers some clues. Hill claims that, to assure that a best decision is made for the minor, the decision should be made together by the doctors, the minor’ parents or legal guardian, and only “sometimes” the minor (Hill). The parents, in the case of circumcision, claim the ownership of their babies’ bodies. According to U.S. federal law, one is not able to consent to his or her medical treatment until the age of eighteen. Since circumcision is usually a procedure that is done rather within days or months of a child’s birth, the child has absolutely zero control of his own body, but suffers from his parents’ choice. A baby’s opportunity to choose whether he desires circumcision is deprived from him by his parents, simply because his parents have total authority over his body at this young age. Fiona Woollard, a moral philosopher who specializes in the philosophy of pregnancy and parenthood, argues otherwise. In her essay, “I, Me, Mine: Body-Ownership and the Generation Problem”, Woollard demonstrates that, even though some argue parents own their children just like one owns the fruits of his or her property, a person does not own the fruit of his or her property when the fruit is a whole person (Woollard). That is, parents should not have full authority to their children’s bodies, because their children have their rights to their own bodies. Children’s bodies should not be considered the parents’ properties and hence, the decision of such an irreparable procedure should be left to the children when they are physically and mentally grown. For one thing, critics of circumcision point to a considerable body of evidence that circumcision makes a big difference when it comes to a man’s sexual experience. Brian Earp, a professor at the Department of Gender and Sexuality Studies, points out that circumcision diminishes a man’s sexual function, sensitivity, and pleasure (Earp). When circumcised babies grow up to be men, these now cut men might experience sexual frustration due to the procedure that their parents agreed to when they were kids.
Nonetheless, the parents might not be entirely to blame. When parents claim the body ownership of their kids and give consent to a circumcision procedure, their decision is most likely influenced by mass media. According to a research done by American Academy of Pediatricians in 2014, about 78.5% of Americans think the media they are consuming on a daily basis is somehow influencing their decisions (American Academy of Pediatricians). However, information on mass media can sometimes be wrong or misleading, and hence the media may cause misconceptions of circumcision for its audience. For instance, Hugh Young, American media studies scholar, argues in his essay “That Thing: Portrayal of the Foreskin and Circumcision in Popular Media” that, at least one episode of almost every American sitcom and soap opera are devoted to discussing circumcision, and in most cases, circumcision is portrayed as “extremely popular among men regardless of religion”, or the procedures are harmless and necessary (Young). Therefore, when the media fails to check its facts on the procedure and yet insist on serving the fake stories to the public, it might mislead its audience into believing male mutilation is necessary. Some parents might be influenced by the unverified information and misrepresentations of circumcision in the press and mass media, and might wrongfully decide to circumcise their children.
While misrepresentations of circumcision are being produced by the media, circumcision-related propagandas aiming at the female audience are thriving at the same time. Jill di Donato, a lifestyle writer for Huffpost, argues that “intact penises are the butt of jokes on shows targeting female audiences” (Donato). In other words, TV shows often target jokes about uncircumcised penises on women and these shows subconsciously affect women to make the decision to circumcise their babies. For example, there is a scene on the smash-hit TV show Sex and the City, a show at its peak had 10.6 million viewers mostly consisted of women, where Charlotte, one of the four women leads on the show, makes fun of an uncut man she is dating by calling him a “Shar-Pei”, a breed of dog known for its deep wrinkles with its skin dripping down the body. Follows Miranda, another female lead in the show, adding, “I am so circumcising my kids—I don’t want to know there’s woman out there calling my son a Shar pei! (‘Old Dogs, New Dicks’)” The show sells the idea that women prefer circumcised penises over intact ones to audiences, by having two of its two main female protagonists comparing an uncut man to a dog. The show sends out a message that if a mother decides to leave her son’s penis intact, she will be responsible for her son being laughed at by the women he is dating. Shows like Sex and the City majorly influence parents’ choice, particularly the mothers’, by negative portrayals and biased encouragement of circumcision. The popular media, in a way, claims the infant’s body by manipulating parents and pushing them into making the decision to circumcise their babies.
The question of body ownership continues to haunt the public as the practice of circumcision on male newborns still remains the norm in the U.S. It is high time for citizens to cast doubt on the ethics of the practice that is being performed on American newborn infants. As the public research and learn about the procedure, the question surrounding male circumcision is no longer about right or wrong any more. Nor is the procedure about religious freedom or modern medicine—it is about the choice of both the individual and the family. Rather than taking a strong side for one side of the argument, people should carefully consider arguments from both sides and decide what is best for them. While parents are wondering if they should circumcise their baby boys, perhaps they should ask themselves some questions beforehand—is the procedure their call to make? Are they fully aware of the pros and cons of this elective surgery? Have they done sufficient research to make such a life-altering decision? It can be foreseen that the fight for infants’ body ownership will be a long-lasting one, but it is surely a fight worth fighting for.