By Rodney D. Adam, M.D.
Arizona Daily Wildcat
September 19, 1997

No benefits to female circumcision

Editor:

In a response to Jennifer McKean's column on female genital mutilation (circumcision), a letter by Jon Leonard, published in the September 17, 1997 Wildcat, implied that male circumcision was as inappropriate as female circumcision.

However, it is important to know that, unlike female circumcision, there are medical benefits to male circumcision. It has been known for half a century that cancer of the penis is almost nonexistent in circumcised males. More recently, other medical benefits of circumcision have become apparent. The major risk factor for urinary infections in boys is lack of circumcision; thus, circumcision provides significant protection from urinary infection. In addition, a number of recent studies have demonstrated that sexual acquisition of HIV (heterosexual or homosexual), is reduced 50 to 90% by male circumcision. There are also other less important medical benefits to circumcision.

It remains true that most male circumcisions in the US are still performed for religious or social reasons. Whether the medical benefits of male circumcision are sufficient to justify routine circumcision for medical reasons is still being debated. However, regardless of the outcome of this debate, male circumcision is a far cry from female genital mutilation.

Rodney D. Adam, M.D.
Infectious Disease Section, College of Medicine