Barbarism, 2009

Let's play pretend. Let's say that there's an operation that everyone undergoes at age 21-- removal of the left pinky finger, for example. There's no reason for it; it's just something everybody does. There are ostensibly scientific-sounding people who point out that people with left pinkies have 100% higher risk of left pinky finger cancer than people without left pinkies. Besides, everyone does it, and most people agree that people who've had the procedure are just more attractive. It's neater, you see-- more streamlined, more aesthetically pleasing.

When you reaches your 21st birthday, you goes to your-- oh, let's say, dentist. Doesn't make a lot of sense, but you're probably getting their wisdom teeth out too, so it can all be done at once. And the longer it's put off, the worse the recovery, so-- there you are. The dentist straps your left arm down-- and your right too, for good measure. He stabs you a few times with the novacaine hypodermic, which has no time to take effect because he follows immediately with a big scalpel. He hacks off your pinky while you scream bloody murder and the assistant offers you a sip of sugar-water to calm you down. It's over in a minute or so-- the dentist holds some pressure, then checks the site to make sure it's not bleeding, then wraps some vaseline-soaked gauze around it. "Leave that there till later today. Then you can rewrap it with some more vaseline later."

You slump in your seat while the assistant removes the restraints and pats you on the shoulder. "See, it wasn't so bad... you're not even crying." You look at her dazedly; you're in shock, and couldn't produce a sob to save your life. But it's all over, and you're grateful. Your parents got through it. Your siblings, friends, coworkers... everyone manages, so surely you'll be all right. They all say you won't remember when all's said and done... and now you look just like everybody else.

Well... there is that one whack-job at work who insisted on keeping his left pinky. Weird. He says he came with ten fingers, so why forfeit one just because it's what's done? But he's in the minority and clearly insane-- no one keeps their pinkies except for certified granola-crunching flower children, after all.

Your head is swimming and your hand aches. You ask feebly for some pain medication, but the assistant, who keeps coming back to make sure your stump isn't bleeding, shakes her head. "Sorry," she says with sympathy, "I can't give you anything. You might get an infection, and anything I give you for pain could mask the symptoms. You'll be okay." Pat, pat.

You close your eyes, sick to your stomach. All you can do is pray for sleep and time to ease your pain.

Sound ridiculous? Unnecessary? Downright stupid? Of course it does. No one would volunteer to have his finger chopped off, "just because." Certainly no one would think of inflicting such a procedure on a person who could not consent, could not even understand what was happening or why. And yet... we do it every single day, to defenseless baby boys who have no choice in the matter whatsoever. And we wonder why our society is getting more violent by the day?

I am sick to death of circumcisions. There, I said it.

It's not like my position on them is vague or unspoken-- everyone who works with me knows where I stand. I despise them. I think they are barbaric, horrible, hideous, disgusting, and appalling on every level. I loathe having to assist with them in any way, and I absolutely cringe when I have to clean up the mess afterward. It infuriates me that we allow people to perpetrate this kind of violence on helpless newborns!!

This morning, one of the OBs came in to circumcise two babies. He had a 12-year-old boy with him, shadowing him for a school project. "Now, Thomas," Dr H said to the boy, "I did this to you, remember. You sure you want to see this?" Thomas insisted that he did. One of the lactation nurses was passing and commented, "That's awful, how can he subject a little boy to that?" EXCUSE ME?? How can we subject INFANT BOYS to that??!?!?!

Seriously... it's grotesque. I know people say it can be done humanely, but I humbly beg to differ. There is nothing humane in mutilating the body of an hours-old baby: strapping him down on a cold plastic board, letting him scream his lungs out, offering no comfort but sugar-water on a pacifier or a gloved finger, providing nothing for anesthesia except-- maybe, and not even usually-- inadequate injections of lidocaine or a smear of EMLA (topical lidocaine that is, by the by, not recommended for use on infants under 1 month of age), and then brutally clamping his penis in a device that looks like it was developed by sadistic Inquisitors during the Dark Ages and hacking away one-third to one-half of the skin of his most sensitive organ. Don't believe this is what happens? Don't take my word for it.

And for what? There is no medical indication for routine infant circumcision: so says the American Academy of Family Physicians, so says the American Academy of Pediatrics, and so say I. So why do we do it? Because it's "cleaner"? (It's not. And cleaning an intact penis is no more difficult, and no harder to teach someone to do, than cleaning an ear.) Because it "prevents cancer"? (It doesn't. There's no evidence that an intact man who practices even minimal hygiene will induce cancer in himself or a partner.) Because we want baby "to look like daddy"? (That's important... why?) Because "the other boys will laugh"? (Not if they're intact too. And not once they find out what they're missing without their foreskins.)

With the overwhelming evidence falling squarely on the side of not circing, why is it still such common practice? This is something I simply can't figure out. Are people so brainwashed that they're willing to sacrifice their sons' physical (and eventually sexual) wellbeing to a misguided standard of social acceptance? I don't think parents wake up sometime during pregnancy and say to each other, "I know, honey! Let's mutilate our beloved baby boy as soon as he arrives!" I think they genuinely believe they're doing what's best for-- or at least, they're not harming-- their infants. I honestly believe that if these parents were given true informed consent on circumcision, if they really knew what their little guys would endure, most would choose to leave their sons' penises intact. Maybe if they were required to watch this video, produced in informative (and graphic, so be warned) detail, the appalling statistics would change.

I wish I could convince every expectant parent to thoroughly and comprehensively educate themselves about circumcision. I've seen some of the most informed parents-- loving, caring people who would no more put their children in danger than they would club baby harbor seals for sport-- who still opt to circ, with no more convincing rationale than "that's how it's done" or "hey, his dad survived it." I've seen a disturbing trend among immigrant families, whose home cultures have never routinely circumcised their infants, choosing the procedure in order to give the impression that they're really assimilating into American society. Most new parents give it no more thought than whether they'll choose to diaper their infant (bearing in mind, by the way, that there are those who don't, but the sad fact is that circumcision is not the benign procedure it's painted to be. Mishaps happen; there are risks. Moreover, allowing a surgeon to remove the prepuce of a male newborn is circumventing that new little person's right to bodily integrity. Does anyone honestly think that a brand-new baby boy, if we could ask him, would-- if given the choice-- declare with enthusiasm, "Sure, lop it off!!"