Urologist Renounces Infant Circumcision

Urologist Renounces Infant Circumcision; Discusses Risks, Harms, & Lack Of Benefits

Dr. Snyder, former president of the Virginia Urological Society, talks about the obvious ethical problems with performing an unnecessary procedure on a child that cannot consent.

He also de-bunks the myths that newborn circumcision can stop penile cancer (the rarest of all male cancers), urinary tract infections, or HIV.

Finally, Dr. Snyder addresses the real risks associated with circumcising infants, including:

- Death, usually by bleeding or infection
- Loss of the entire penis or parts of the glans (head)
- Various healing complications such as skin bridges
- Meatal stenosis (urethral strictures), which can prevent urination and damage the kidneys
- Sexual side effects from tight erections due to so much skin being cut off

Dr. Snyder was actually surprised that non-therapeutic circumcision continues to this day, seeing as most major U.S. medical associations have made it clear since the early 1970's that newborn circumcision is not a medically indicated procedure. He concludes that, with circumcision rates plummeting in the US, circumcision will likely fall completely out of favor in the US within a generation, as happened in other circumcising countries like the UK, New Zealand, and Australia decades ago.

Doctor Discusses Circumcision Controversy



James L. Snyder, M.D., F.A.C.S., Past President of the Virginia Urological Society discusses the controversy around infant circumcision.
Warning: Medical photos of circumcision harm.


Two thoughts came to mind listening to Dr. Snyder speak:

First -- Of the thousands of US doctors who continue to perform or condone non-therapeutic circumcisions today, how many are actually giving parents honest disclosure on the harms, risks, and ethical problems of child circumcision? My hunch is that the answer is zero. Any ethical doctor capable of truthfully discussing these issues would surely have already stopped performing non-therapeutic circumcisions altogether. (All US doctors swear by the Hippocratic Oath to "First Do No Harm.")

Second -- Dr. Snyder's conclusions sound remarkably similar to the conclusions of a number of large international medical organizations: that non-therapeutic circumcision of children is harmful, risky, unnecessary (by definition), and a violation of a child's rights. Consider the conclusion of KNMG, the assocation representing over 40,000 Dutch medical professionals, from their 17-page report last year condemning circumcision:

The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organisations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children’s rights to autonomy and physical integrity. Contrary to popular belief, circumcision can cause complications – bleeding, infection, urethral stricture and panic attacks are particularly common. KNMG is therefore urging a strong policy of deterrence. KNMG is calling upon doctors to actively and insistently inform parents who are considering the procedure of the absence of medical benefits and the danger of complications.
As circumcision continues to fall out of favor in the US, I can't help but think that most intelligent, educated doctors in this country will reach the same conclusions regarding the unnecessary genital cutting of children, especially considering tomorrow's male doctors will most likely be intact.

During the transition period, I suspect that doctors who do continue to perform non-therapeutic circumcision on children will increasingly face lawsuits from both the children who are cut and the children's parents, who are so often being misled by the medical professionals they are supposed to trust.
www.barefootintactivist.com/