MEDICAL FRAUD and the criminal assault of boys
Urinary Tract Infections
The American Academy of Pediatrics said: "It should be noted that these studies in Army hospitals are retrospective in design and may have methodologic flaws."
- Press Release March 6, 1989 AAP Releases Circumcision Statement.
The Canadian Paediatric Society, the Canadian Medical Association and medical organizations throughout the world do not accept the conclusions of Thomas Wiswell's study. In The Lancelot, March 18, 1989, five pediatricians from Sweden made the following statement: "It would not be easy to find a parallel in medicine or biology...that UTI can be prevented by extirpation of a piece of normal, healthy tissue of universal occurrence in males. That the prepuce is a mistake of nature seems improbable." - The Prepuce: A Mistake of Nature?
Thomas Wiswell's findings are inconsistent with common medical knowledge.
Dr. Thomas Wiswell's study which purports that circumcision prevents urinary tract infections is scientifically flawed and would hardly pass the tests of a legitimate study. Its objectives and conclusions are highly questionable. Dr. Martin S. Altschul M.D. (who received his doctorate in medicine from Johns Hopkins University Medical School and an M.S. in statistics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology) reviewed the study by Dr. Wiswell. The results were recalculated to indicate a 1% vs. 05% rate (intact vs. circumcised). However, the initial findings were reported by the media and the myth continues. That urinary tract infections are ten times more common in uncircumcised males than in those who have been circumcised is inconsistent with common medical knowledge and findings throughout the world.
Dr. Altschul stated that Wiswell's findings were confusing, inconsistent and did not agree with the state of medical "common knowledge." The state of medical "common knowledge" regarding infant male UTI is: "In all age groups except early infancy, females have a much higher rate of UTI than males. Male infants are more likely to be born with abnormalities of the urinary tract. Although such abnormalities are rare, they are the predominant cause of infant UTI. Infant UTI is therefore a serious condition that often requires surgical correction of an underlying cause."
All confirmed cases of UTI occurred in infants who had urinary birth defects
Dr. Altschul conducted a study in the Northwest Permanente Hospital, similar to the one conducted by Thomas Wiswell, in order to find out why Wiswell's results were inconsistent. In Altschul's words: "I found not a single conformed case if UTI in a normal male infant. All the confirmed cases occurred in infants who had clear-cut urinary birth defects. Does Dr. Wiswell suggest that circumcision could prevent a disorder that a child had at birth? Such a conclusion would defy all human logic." Dr. Altschul was asked the common question: "What ratio of preventable UTI would justify male circumcision?" He answered: "What rate of preventable UTI would justify routine female circumcision?"
Recently in "The Surgery Book" by Robert M. Youngson, M.D. published by St. Martins Press, 175 - 5th Avenue New York, NY, Dr. Youngson describes the Wiswell study as a farce. Dr. Youngson also takes issue with the advocates of circumcision stating that there are no valid medical reasons for circumcision and that it is merely cosmetic surgery.
Urinary tract infections seldom found in males -Easily treated with antibiotics
Urinary tract infections are very common in females; however, these infections are effectively treated with antibiotics and seldom cause serious physical damage. Would not similar treatment in males, who may occasionally develop urinary tract infections, be just as effective? What medical evidence indicates that urinary tract infections often result in serious complications? If these complications are rare, then why the great concern? Many females have repeated urinary tract infections during their lifetime and do not suffer any permanent harm? Is the physiology of the male urinary system so different that males suffer severe damage while females do not? Or is the amputation of millions of foreskins to prevent a few isolated cases of urinary tract infections the preferred solution? Is routine surgery on non-consenting individuals really an acceptable preventative measure? If so how far does this logic go, just the foreskin? Should not the prime purpose of medicine be to prevent the loss of normal, healthy and vital parts of our bodies as long as possible, and not to amputate them?
Circumcision does not prevent urinary tract infections in older males
Older males who develop prostate problems frequently develop urinary tract infections even though they are circumcised. If circumcision prevents urinary tract infections as we are told, how do we account for this fact? Do older males who develop urinary tract infections also suffer from serious complications which could lead to disaster? Or is the urinary tract infections (which seldom occur) in younger males which is of prime concern? If these infections are not life threatening to older males, then why the great concern about its prevention in younger males? Medical experts acknowledge that urinary tract infections in males are no more serious than those occurring in females. Treatment with antibiotics is just as effective when treating males. Again the threat of "infections leading to serious complications" is a deceptive reason used to coerce parents into circumcising their sons when in reality such complications are extremely rare and pose no more threat to males than to females.
Penile Cancer
"Why should we amputate the foreskins of a million males in order to prevent ten cases of penile cancer?"
The statement that penile cancer almost never occurs in circumcised males is questionable. Penile cancer is seldom found in males regardless of age. Penile cancer is extremely rare in both circumcised and uncircumcised males. Penile cancer is an age related disease which is usually found in older men who are 70 years of age or older. Most males in this age group are intact, and therefore the conclusion that only uncircumcised males develop penile cancer may appear logical, but is not valid when other relevant factors such as age are considered. When circumcised males reach this vulnerable age group, is there any guarantee that they too will not develop penile cancer, and at the same rate? Perhaps the ultimate question should be answered: "Why should we amputate the foreskins of a million males in order to prevent 10 cases of penile cancer, even if circumcision prevented penile cancer?" Misuse of statistics and making false claims is a deplorable means of frightening ignorant parents into circumcising their sons.
"The threat of penile cancer hangs over the discussion like some mystical demon. It deserves to be exorcised, not circumcised."
Edward Wallerstein, author of Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy (1980) made the following comment in the American Journal of Diseases of Children Vol. 140, No.1, January 1986 Swafford's updating of estimated penile cancer risks in U.S. males - one in 602 in 1980, to one in 909 Danish males in 1985 (where the males are uncircumcised), provides an interesting basis of comparison. The often-overlooked fact is that, taking the Danish data, 908 of 909 Danish males will not be at risk of penile cancer." In reply TD Swafford, M.D. stated: "I concur with Wallerstein's observation. As he recently stated, "The threat of penile cancer hangs over the discussion of circumcision like some mystical demon. It deserves to be exorcised, not circumcised."
"It is an incontestable fact that there are more deaths from circumcision each year than from cancer of the penis"
Dr. James Snyder, past President of the Virginia Urological Society, notes that the low incidence of penile cancer in the United States is not due to circumcision because "....the population of American men born before 1940, now in the group at risk for this cancer, is a group of predominantly uncircumcised men." Research indicates that good hygiene prevents penile cancer and, according to Dr. Sydney Gellis, "It is an incontestable fact....that there are more deaths from circumcision each year than from cancer of the penis.
I could never accept this idea of circumcising every male to forestall cancer of the penis and/or cervix. Personally I hadn't seen smegma since the time I was a child, and I knew that this same situation applied to every other sensible, civilized man. I feel it is an insult to presume that a child who would grow up to trim his fingernails, blow his nose, brush his teeth, and clean his anus, would be too stupid to learn how to retract the foreskin and to wash the glans penis- a procedure no more difficult nor demanding in time than washing a finger. This entire categorizing of males as so lacking in common sense relative to penile hygiene is preposterous and insulting. If one can believe the chauvinistic propaganda foisted upon us by the news media, there have even been males who have learned to tie their shoelaces and fly to the moon. The rate of cancer of the penis in the United States in our circumcised male population is about 1 to 2 cases/ 100 000 males. The rates in nearly all parts of Europe are similar. In England, Scandinavia, Germany, and Switzerland - and in South America and Japan - where circumcision is the exception, the incidence of cancer of the cervix is the same or less than in the United States, where circumcision is routine. -Thomas J. Ritter, M.D. "Say No to Circumcision!" 40 compelling reasons why you should respect his birthright and keep your son intact. Hourglass Book Publishing P.O. Box 171, Aptos, Ca 95001
"the cost of preventing one case of penile carcinoma by circumcising all neonates would be $13. 6 million"
A 1984 Canadian study estimated that the cost of preventing one case of penile carcinoma by circumcising all neonates would be $13. 6 million. Furthermore, no data support the claim that circumcision is a preventative measure against carcinoma of the cervix. Israeli and Scandinavian women have an equally low incidence in this cancer, even though most Israeli men are circumcised and most Scandinavian men are not. - Randy Rockney, M.D., Brown University Program in Medicine Memorial Hospital of Rhode Island, Pawtucket, Rhode Island. AFP/ October 1988
It is estimated that the number of male circumcised in the USA each year is 1.25 million. The cost of these circumcisions may range from $200 million to $300 million dollars... in order to "supposedly prevent" a few cases of penile cancer which predominately occurs in males who are 70 - 80 years of age. Imagine what putting two billion dollars, spent on circumcision over a ten year period, into research or in the treatment of diseases, would do. What a tragic waste of money which could have indeed benefited the nation.
President Clinton stated that the USA has an appalling record for immunization in the Western World. He stated that only Haiti and Bolivia had worse records. It is ironical that millions of males have undergone needless surgery in order to prevent conditions which seldom occur, but little has been done to provide children and adults with essential services which would improve their quality of life. It is time to realize that the real purpose of medicine is that of restoring and healing, rather than the senseless amputation of normal, healthy and vital body parts. It is time the Merchants of Mutilation woke up.
Medical Ethics Network