An Open Letter to the Author of
‘How Circumcision Broke the Internet’.
Brian D. Earp believes circumcision is worth talking about and he would like Mr. Stern and the editors of Slate magazine to know why.
Dear Mr. Stern,
I recently read your article, “How Circumcision Broke the Internet” for Slate magazine [republished as "'Intactivists' Against Circumcision" in Canada's National Post].
I understand your concern about overheated rhetoric in public debates as well as the misuse of science to support untenable positions.
As a scientist and ethicist who studies circumcision professionally, I will admit that I have seen this happen on both sides of this particular controversy.
I think, however, that in your hurry to admonish “the intactivists” for pushing their anti-circumcision arguments too far, you may have fallen prey to some of that very same rhetorical excess (as well as misuse of science) in your own piece.
First, when you said that circumcision used to be “practiced by most families” I’m glad that you added the qualifier, “in America at least.” This is an important point.
Circumcision is extremely uncommon in most parts of the world, and about 70-80% of men globally are left intact.
Over 70% of those who are circumcised come from the Muslim world where it is done as a rite of passage; it is also a rite of passage in countries like South Africa, where at least 39 young men recently died from complications related to circumcision, such as excessive bleeding from their penises.
Europeans, by contrast, (including the British; as well Latin Americans, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, the Japanese, the Chinese, Russians, and Indians–that is, most of the developed world) very rarely circumcise outside of religious communities (if at all).
A majority of doctors from these countries insist that any “health benefits” conferred by circumcision – even when the procedure is performed correctly – are dubious at best.
In fact, 37 of Europe’s most pre-eminent medical authorities (along with the distinguished Canadian pediatrician, Dr. Noni MacDonald) have recently expounded on this point in the flagship journal 'Pediatrics'.
Also, I noticed that you cite a “systematic review” by Brian Morris (and a co-author) in support of one of your claims about penile sensitivity.
Your readers may not be aware that Professor Morris (Sydney University) runs a pro-circumcision advocacy website, has founded a highly active circumcision lobby group (some of whose board members derive a substantial income from performing circumcisions), and has recently been profiled in the International Journal of Epidemiology as being engaged in systematically distorting the academic literature on circumcision.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
..
No comments:
Post a Comment