Save

Critical Evaluation of Adler’s Challenge to the cdc’s Male Circumcision Recommendations

In: The International Journal of Children's Rights
Authors:
Beth E. Rivin University of Washington School of Law, Seattle, Washington, USA brivin@uw.edu

Search for other papers by Beth E. Rivin in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Douglas S. Diekema Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Seattle Children’s Hospital, Seattle, Washington, USA diek@uw.edu

Search for other papers by Douglas S. Diekema in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Anna C. Mastroianni Section of Urology, VA Puget Sound Health Care System and School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA amastroi@uw.edu

Search for other papers by Anna C. Mastroianni in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
John N. Krieger Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, California, USA, jkrieger@uw.edu; jdklausner@mednet.ucla.edu

Search for other papers by John N. Krieger in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Jeffrey D. Klausner Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, California, USA, jkrieger@uw.edu; jdklausner@mednet.ucla.edu

Search for other papers by Jeffrey D. Klausner in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
Brian J. Morris Brian J. MorrisDSc PhD, Professor Emeritus, School of Medical Sciences, Building F13, University of Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia

Search for other papers by Brian J. Morris in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Download Citation Get Permissions

Access options

Get access to the full article by using one of the access options below.

Institutional Login

Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials

Login via Institution

Purchase

Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):

$40.00

We evaluate Peter Adler’s challenge to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (cdc) draft recommendations on male circumcision (this issue, see pp. 237–262 ). The cdc advocates elective male circumcision (mc) to improve public health in the usa based on strong scientific evidence. In marked contrast to the cdc, Adler’s criticisms depend on speculative claims and obfuscation of the scientific data. Adler’s central argument that circumcision in infancy should be delayed to allow a boy to make up his own mind as an adult fails to appreciate that circumcision later in life is a more complex operation, entails higher risk, is more likely to involve general anaesthesia and presents financial, psychological and organisational barriers. These limitations are avoided by circumcision early in infancy, when it is convenient, safe, quick, low risk, usually involves local anaesthesia and provides benefits immediately. Benefits of male circumcision include: protection against: urinary tract infections that are ten times higher in uncircumcised infants; inflammatory skin conditions; other foreskin problems; sexually transmitted infections and genital cancers in the male and his female sexual partners. Circumcision during infancy is also associated with faster healing and improved cosmetic outcomes. Circumcision does not impair sexual function or pleasure. Some authorities regard the failure to offer circumcision as unethical, just as it would be unethical to fail to encourage paediatric vaccination. Since the benefits vastly outweigh the risks, each intervention is in the best interests of the child. In conclusion, Adler’s criticisms of the cdc’s evidence-based male circumcision policy are flawed scientifically, ethically and legally, and should be dismissed as endangering public health and individual well-being.

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 1354 163 13
Full Text Views 181 11 0
PDF Views & Downloads 51 10 0