Recently, we discussed the warnings from the director-general of the World Health Organization, Dr. Margaret Chan, as she gave a sobering Keynote address at a conference about the crisis of Antibiotic Resistant Infections in Copenhagen, Denmark. In that post, we learned of the severity and extent of our modern day plague.
Circumcision rates are steadily declining in the United States, but not drastically enough. Drug resistant bacteria is such a tremendously looming issue, that in Hawaii Medical Journal one author noted that the infant “has enough portals of entry for organisms as it is. It seems totally unnecessary to aid and abet lurking bacteria by adding a raw wound to his genitalia.”
In a special statement released by Doctors Opposing Circumcision, the very significant risk of completely unwarranted circumcision is stressed:
The advent of MRSA in epidemic proportions increases risks associated with male neonatal circumcision beyond those previously contemplated and further increases the desirability of the non-circumcision option. MRSA and other antibiotic-resistant varieties of SA, such as vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (VRSA), increase risk, including death, to newborn circumcised boys. In view of this increased risk, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists should review their policy (2002) of offering elective medically unnecessary non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision at parental request.
Knowing that circumcision is an elective surgery with little if any benefits, I can not fathom why elective circumcision on our boys is even allowed anymore.
Putting aside the long term implications that removing a part of a boy’s sex organ has on its proper functioning, given the nature of hospital acquired infections these days and their ability to resist even IV antibiotics, why are we still cutting our boys?
Basic human rights set aside, while circumcision may be a common surgery, it is an invasive one leaving a large wound given at a hospital that shares a diaper space with feces. Should that wound get infected, are we really that comfortable with the strength of our antibiotics to expose our littlest babies to this elective surgery?
Bacteria is so resistant to antibiotics these days that infections regularly require much stronger antibiotics than the infections when we were children required. When my daughter was very young, I was told she needed antibiotics. I’ve mentioned this before. It was from a skin infection which resulted from her atopic dermatitis. After two weeks of antibiotics didn’t quite clear the issue up, we had to extend out the prescription. But first, before we could do that, we had to test her liver functioning to make sure her liver was still able to handle them. She was only six months old! Our antibiotics are so strong these days that our children getting a yeast infection as a consequence is the least of our concerns.
Why would we risk these outcomes simply to circumcise our sons?
I’m not saying these things to pass judgement on people who have circumcised their sons. I have mentioned on a few occasions that one of my biggest regrets in life is allowing my son to be circumcised in 2001, so I’m certainly not pointing fingers. I just want to make sure people realize that hospital acquired infection really does happen, and community acquired infection isn’t that far behind in drug resistance.
It’s not worth it. Whatever the reasons ladies, circumcision just really is not worth it. The risks are becoming way too high.