Male circumcision is a very significant process as it has numerous health and social effects towards the health of male individuals. Internationally, about 25% of males undergo circumcision for spiritual, cultural, medical, or parental choice reasons (Tobian 1479). Nonetheless, disagreement surrounds the process and its advantages and threats to health. There is significant proof that circumcision safeguards men from HIV infection, urinary tract contaminations, and ulcerative sexually transmitted illnesses (Tobian 78). On the other hand, there is not much scientific proof of adversative impacts on sexual, mental, or emotive health.
Surgical risks connected to circumcision include predominantly bleeding, penile damage, and local infections, and the consequences of the agony experienced with the existence of the foreskin, against the threat of the impediments of the process (Earp 18). For people and their relatives to make knowledgeable decisions, it is essential to be presented with the best accessible proof concerning the known outcomes and threats. As a result, a male should be circumcised to alleviate all the health-related challenges attributed to the failure of undergoing circumcision. Secondly, from a religious point of view, it is prudent to undertake evolution from childhood to adulthood through the circumcision rite. If a male child is circumcised, there is a sense of masculinity encircled within their minds. However, it is recommended that they should undertake the procedure in a medical facility to minimize the threat of discomfort, blood loss, and penile injury.
Antagonists of male circumcision state that the process institutes genital mutilation executed with parental approval but not the child’s sanction and acclaim that circumcision is postponed until the age of 18 (Sorokan 311). Nonetheless, parents present consent for precautionary processes. For instance, immunization includes hepatitis B injection and acting in the best interests of their kids. UNAIDS suggests offering information on threats and profits of early child neonatal male circumcision so that custodians may make knowledgeable pronouncements in their children’s best interests as the principal significance (Medlock 4017). Moreover, a prohibition on neonatal male circumcision rebuffs sacred liberties to Jewish and Muslim parents, which may be theoretically unlawful.
Earp, Brian D. “Do the benefits of male circumcision outweigh the risks? A critique of the proposed CDC guidelines.” Frontiers in Pediatrics 3 (2015): 18.
Medlock, Jan, et al. “Effectiveness of UNAIDS targets and HIV vaccination across 127 countries.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114.15 (2017): 4017-4022.
Sorokan, S. Todd, et al. “Newborn male circumcision.” Paediatrics & child health 20.6 (2015): 311-315.
Tobian, Aaron AR, and Ronald H. Gray. “The medical benefits of male circumcision.” jama 306.13 (2011): 1479-1480.
Tobian, Aaron AR, Ronald H. Gray, and Thomas C. Quinn. “Male circumcision for the prevention of acquisition and transmission of sexually transmitted infections: the case for neonatal circumcision.” Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine 164.1 (2010): 78-84.