News

Medical Circumcisions 'Unnecessary and Premature'

Friday 11th November 2005
The majority of men circumcised for medical reasons have had a completely unnecessary operation, a leading medical ethicist has admitted.

Speaking on the BBC World Service Outlook programme, Michael Wilkes, Head of Ethics at the British Medical Association, admitted that doctors have circumcised boys for "no good reason" and said that, "the majority of people that have been circumcised in the past for what were put to them or their parents as good medical reasons were probably no such thing and those people certainly have a right to make a claim that what was done to them was an unnecessary and premature intervention at a time when they had no capacity or say in the matter".

The vast majority of the problems that have been treated by circumcision in the past, such as tightness of the foreskin, are easily treated with simple alternatives such as topical steroid creams and gentle stretching, says NORM-UK, the UK charity representing thousands of men dissatisfied with the operation. NORM-UK says that five separate studies have shown that at least 90% of circumcisions being performed in British hospitals are entirely unnecessary.

"It is encouraging to see more of the medical profession acknowledging the problem", said Dr John Warren, Chairman of NORM-UK, "So many men and boys are being needlessly subjected to this when other, less severe, less expensive treatments are generally more effective. Not only is circumcision almost never necessary, it damages nerves and tissue that are an essential part of intercourse. Many men circumcised as adults find that their sexual function is diminished, and some research has shown that circumcision can lead to erectile dysfunction or other problems later in life".