Circumcision debate by Intaction : 1896 Dr. R.N. Tooker wrote a popular book, All About The Baby, which advised mothers that circumcision of baby boys was “advisable in most cases.” He recommended the operation mainly for preventing “the vile habit of masturbation.” 1894: Dr. Peter C. Remondino in the National Popular Review advocated; “the wholesale circumcision of the Negro race is an efficient remedy in preventing their predisposition to discriminate raping so inherent in that [Negro] race.”
That’s right. This fact is extensively documented in the historical literature. The idea started in the 1890’s that masturbation was a dirty vile habit that needed to be stopped. Medical experts from across America began promoting circumcision to parents as a way to prevent masturbation. The “experts” led parents to believe that masturbation would cause mental insanity and was also the root cause of many diseases. Notable people of the day like John Harvey Kellogg wrote in his book, “Plain Facts for Young and Old,” about curing masturbation, “A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, the operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment.”
There are essentially three stakeholders involved with the decision to circumcise an infant. The baby-patient, the parent-guardian, and the doctor. The physician is supposed to be bound by ethical principles of beneficence (serve the best interests of patients and their families) and non-maleficence (“first, do no harm”). The standard of “serving the interests of families” can be a slippery slope as doctors can be forced to do things against their better judgement to appease parents. Pro-circumcision or religious advocates typically want babies circumcised immediately because older children and adults would opt out if given the opportunity. See extra information on circumcision.
The most comprehensive study available that assesses the psychological impact of circumcision on children after infancy was conducted by Ramos and Boyle (2000) and involved 1072 pre-adolescent and adolescent boys who were circumcised in a hospital setting. Using an adapted version of a clinically established PTSD interview rating scale, the study’s authors determined that 51 percent of these boys met the full diagnostic criteria for PTSD and noted that other variables such as age at circumcision (pre-adolescence versus adolescence) and time elapsed since the procedure (months versus years) were not predictive of a PTSD diagnosis (Ramos & Boyle, 2000). As a point of comparison, the rate of PTSD among veterans of the Iraq war is approximately 20 percent (NIH, 2009).
Intaction is funded via private donations and volunteer assistance primarily by men and women that have been adversely affected by genital cutting. We promote the benefits of an intact body and the harm of genital cutting. We seek to achieve our goals through education, advocacy, and activism. We empower our members by providing them a constructive way to address the physical and emotional harm that was inflicted on them. Action is in our name. Foreskin is in our DNA. We accept the challenges of creating change, we meet our goals, and then chart new ones. We have no highly paid directors or staff like some big name popular causes. In fact, we are not paid at all. Our compensation is the satisfaction we receive from the many people whose lives we have touched. We help assure parents that keeping their son intact was the enlightened decision. We’ve helped many babies to stay intact. We help build body positive confidence in intact men so they can appreciate their own natural body. We’ve helped many cut men, essentially victims of genital cutting, to feel like they now have a voice, when as infants they didn’t have a choice. See extra information at https://intaction.org/.