Tye and Sardi recently reviewed the evidence purporting to implicate male circumcision, especially when performed early in infancy, in psychological problems in men. Here we provide a critical evaluation to determine ...Tye and Sardi recently reviewed the evidence purporting to implicate male circumcision, especially when performed early in infancy, in psychological problems in men. Here we provide a critical evaluation to determine the veracity of their evidence and claims. Missing from their review were critiques pointing out fundamental flaws in key studies. We argue that psychological stress in some men may be caused by anti-circumcision propaganda telling them that they are victims of “genital mutilation”, a term adopted from dissimilar female practices in particular ethnic groups. Sexual dissatisfaction results. We critically discuss claims about foreskin “gliding”, the eccentric foreskin-related sexual practice of “docking”, and the use of lubricant in masturbation. We further find that a study claiming to show numerous differences in socio-affective processing in men circumcised as neonates stem from statistically flawed and one-sided data that has been misinterpreted, and in fact shows the opposite of the hypothesis that psychological problems in some men can be attributed to the pain of their circumcision as newborns. Importantly, since the brain regions responsible for empathy, namely subcortical gray matter and white matter in frontal and parietal regions, were similar in neonatally circumcised and uncircumcised men, the null hypothesis remains null. In conclusion, we find no compelling evidence to support newborn circumcision pain being responsible for psychological problems in neonatally circumcised men. Men who come to believe that they are victims of their infant circumcision are in actual fact likely victims of false claims perpetrated by activist community groups with trenchant opposition to circumcision.展开更多
The British Medical Association(BMA)guidance on non-therapeutic circumcision(NTMC)of male children is limited to ethical,legal and religious issues.Here we evaluate criticisms of the BMA’s guidance by Lempert et al.W...The British Medical Association(BMA)guidance on non-therapeutic circumcision(NTMC)of male children is limited to ethical,legal and religious issues.Here we evaluate criticisms of the BMA’s guidance by Lempert et al.While their arguments promoting autonomy and consent might be superficially appealing,their claim of high procedural risks and negligible benefits seem one-sided and contrast with high quality evidence of low risk and lifelong benefits.Extensive literature reviews by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in developing evidence-based policies,as well as risk-benefit analyses,have found that the medical benefits of infant NTMC greatly exceed the risks,and there is no reduction in sexual function and pleasure.The BMA’s failure to consider the medical benefits of early childhood NTMC may partly explain why this prophylactic intervention is discouraged in the United Kingdom.The consequence is higher prevalence of preventable infections,adverse medical conditions,suffering and net costs to the UK’s National Health Service for treatment of these.Many of the issues and contradictions in the BMA guidance identified by Lempert et al stem from the BMA’s guidance not being sufficiently evidence-based.Indeed,that document called for a review by others of the medical issues surrounding NTMC.While societal factors apply,ultimately,NTMC can only be justified rationally on scientific,evidence-based grounds.Parents are entitled to an accurate presentation of the medical evidence so that they can make an informed decision.Their decision either for or against NTMC should then be respected.展开更多
文摘Tye and Sardi recently reviewed the evidence purporting to implicate male circumcision, especially when performed early in infancy, in psychological problems in men. Here we provide a critical evaluation to determine the veracity of their evidence and claims. Missing from their review were critiques pointing out fundamental flaws in key studies. We argue that psychological stress in some men may be caused by anti-circumcision propaganda telling them that they are victims of “genital mutilation”, a term adopted from dissimilar female practices in particular ethnic groups. Sexual dissatisfaction results. We critically discuss claims about foreskin “gliding”, the eccentric foreskin-related sexual practice of “docking”, and the use of lubricant in masturbation. We further find that a study claiming to show numerous differences in socio-affective processing in men circumcised as neonates stem from statistically flawed and one-sided data that has been misinterpreted, and in fact shows the opposite of the hypothesis that psychological problems in some men can be attributed to the pain of their circumcision as newborns. Importantly, since the brain regions responsible for empathy, namely subcortical gray matter and white matter in frontal and parietal regions, were similar in neonatally circumcised and uncircumcised men, the null hypothesis remains null. In conclusion, we find no compelling evidence to support newborn circumcision pain being responsible for psychological problems in neonatally circumcised men. Men who come to believe that they are victims of their infant circumcision are in actual fact likely victims of false claims perpetrated by activist community groups with trenchant opposition to circumcision.
文摘The British Medical Association(BMA)guidance on non-therapeutic circumcision(NTMC)of male children is limited to ethical,legal and religious issues.Here we evaluate criticisms of the BMA’s guidance by Lempert et al.While their arguments promoting autonomy and consent might be superficially appealing,their claim of high procedural risks and negligible benefits seem one-sided and contrast with high quality evidence of low risk and lifelong benefits.Extensive literature reviews by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in developing evidence-based policies,as well as risk-benefit analyses,have found that the medical benefits of infant NTMC greatly exceed the risks,and there is no reduction in sexual function and pleasure.The BMA’s failure to consider the medical benefits of early childhood NTMC may partly explain why this prophylactic intervention is discouraged in the United Kingdom.The consequence is higher prevalence of preventable infections,adverse medical conditions,suffering and net costs to the UK’s National Health Service for treatment of these.Many of the issues and contradictions in the BMA guidance identified by Lempert et al stem from the BMA’s guidance not being sufficiently evidence-based.Indeed,that document called for a review by others of the medical issues surrounding NTMC.While societal factors apply,ultimately,NTMC can only be justified rationally on scientific,evidence-based grounds.Parents are entitled to an accurate presentation of the medical evidence so that they can make an informed decision.Their decision either for or against NTMC should then be respected.
