Response To Circumcision 2 Parents Do Best For Their Child

I need a response to the following post.
This has been an issue in recent years, and I've heard plenty of mixed opinions-- they seem to be about split half and half. Most of the physicians that I know and interact with do recommend circumcision due to the potential benefits of decreased risk of STIs/STDs, decreased bacteria buildup, decrease in the risk of various cancers, as well as decreased risk of UTIs, etc. However, most of those aforementioned physicians are older, and according to our textbook and based on statistics, I wonder if younger physicians feel differently, given the fact that male circumcision in the US has gone from 83% (in 1960) to only 77% (as of 2010). To look into a generational difference in medical opinion could prove fascinating. Just as there are arguments for anything else, there is most certainly bound to be an argument against it as well. Apparently, circumcision can decrease sensitivity in the penis (the glans to be specific), it apparently can prove to be a traumatic procedure for infants, and apparently men who are circumcised later in life engage in riskier sexual behavior (according to our textbook). I also read that among all US physicians, it's pretty split half and half, and that in modern day, most physicians say that the pros do not exceedingly outweigh the cons, and that parents should ultimately do whatever they think is best for their child. This makes sense, especially when we take religion into consideration. I won't be having any religious arguments, and I am not religious myself. However, I believe everyone has the right to believe in and practice whatever helps them sleep at night. If two parents believe it to be in their son's best interest to be circumcised, and the circumcision is happening in sterile environment, and the infant is given a proper amount of anesthesia, then the parents are right in requesting that their son be circumcised because they have decided that is what is in their son's best interest. After reading through the textbook, I was curious to see if anesthesia was frequently (or not) utilized during infant circumcision. I found this quote, "Most newborns do not receive adequate anesthesia. Only 45% of doctors who do circumcisions use any anesthesia at all. Obstetricians perform 70% of circumcisions and are least likely to use anesthesia - only 25% do. The most common reasons why they don't? They didn't think the procedure warranted it, and it takes too long" (Stang, 1998). (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. I, personally, had no clue that about only 45% of physicians utilize anesthesia for the procedure. I can only imagine the amount of pain that an infant would be in while undergoing a circumcision with no anesthesia. So, for me, that is a huge factor to consider. I would imagine that this is where the potential trauma comes into play. I would also imagine that the reason that the anesthesia utilization rates are so low is because infants are not capable of receiving mass amounts of anesthesia at once merely because they are infants, and their bodies are small and not developed. So, my opinion is mostly irrelevant in the world of circumcision, except as it pertains to any children in my future. And, much like the majority of physicians recommend, I would objectively agree that because the pros and cons are about equal, it should be left to the parents to decide and take into consideration. In the textbook, it mentions that glans desensitization due to circumcision is not significant, and a recent study (mentioned in the textbook, page 109), notes that after conducting an experiment, no sensitivity differences were reported between a group of circumcised and uncircumcised men. It appears as though everyone has a different opinion, and again, it should be left to the parents of the infant to decide what is best for their child.
When I was in undergrad, we studied female circumcision that takes place in various regions of Africa. I know that a lot of men raise the argument that if female circumcision should not be permitted, male circumcision should not be either. To that, I would say that the removal of the clitoris only serves (to the best of my knowledge), in certain religious/cultural groups, as a way to keep the girl from experiencing sexual arousal. Whereas, circumcision on male infants is for medical reasons (some remain religious reasons, true, but in the US there is usually an underlying medical reason like the ones I listed above). There are no medical benefits to removal of the clitoris, and the procedure is extremely risky. I'm not saying that one is better than the other, because that is not the case, but that argument never did make much sense to me for that very specific and medical reason.
The provided CPS website provides a whole host of reasons as to why it's maybe a good idea to circumcise a male infant. The list is too long to copy and paste here, but I appreciate those medical reasons, and I appreciate the decreased risk of those various medical issues. I, personally, would more than likely have any son that I might have, circumcised. Unless the physician expressed that there was a very clear reason as to why the procedure would be more of a risk than a benefit, I would probably have my son circumcised given it occurred in a sterile environment (much like any other operation, in a hospital), and that my child be given the appropriate and safe amount of anesthesia for the procedure. I highly doubt that my potential/future son would hate me for life for having him circumcised, and if he were to have any issue with it, hopefully that would be the biggest of my issues with my potential/future son. For me, the pros outweigh the cons, but medically and objectively speaking, the pros and cons are apparently about equal, and I believe whatever the parents believe to be best, is the best way to go.