No.
"I am in favor of leaving the penis alone. Pediatric opinion is swinging away from routine circumcision as unnecessary and at least mildly dangerous. I also believe that there is a potential danger of emotional harm resulting from the operation. Parents should insist on convincing reasons for circumcision and there are no convincing reasons that I know of (as cited in Wallerstein, 1980)."
- Dr. Benjamin Spock,
www.noharmm.org/pollack.htm
This is a controversial and emotional issue, but to be fair it must be brought to light that research shows some modest medical benefit from circumcision. The procedure is virtually never medically indicated for newborn boys. There is modest increased protection against risks many years into the boy's future, but these risks are already low even without circumcision. Many physicians consider the normal state of physiological phimosis at birth to continue as late as adolescence. Physiological phimosis is in distinction to pathological phimosis where the condition presents as a medical issue that needs to be addressed. There are also serious side effects from circumcision, including disfigurement, functional loss and sometimes amputation of the penis. While circumcision-related death is very rare, it can and does occur.
They know about the benefits of male circumcision for both sexes.
Advocates of circumcision claim it prevents infections (called balanitis ) on the head of the penis and reduces chances of penile cancer.
No, government health care programs like Medicaid in the United States or the National Health Service in the UK do not provide infant circumcision since it is not a medically necessary procedure. Circumcision has no known medical benefits, and no major medical association recommends routine infant circumcision. Circumcision caries with it serious risks of adverse outcomes including prolonged bleeding, infection, severe pain, and surgical error that can result in damage to the penis.
No. it is unlikely that they would cover it unles there was something wrong with it. circumcision is an unecesary procedure that has no benefits to health. on the contrary it is bad for health and many people have to deal with the harmfull effects latter in life.
Well they're right. There are no reasons except forimediate medical problems and religious ones to perform circumcisions. I live in Sweden and here in Europe it's only done for those reasons. I've heard people say it's hard to clean but that is not true. Not harder then for us women. The foreskin is there for a reason which is to protect. It's not done as a routine anywhere in this world.
No, the penis is not shortened by circumcision.
There are no advantages in the removal of the protection and the sexual pleasure that is available from the removal of the foreskin. Circumcision is a religious an cultural rite and there are in fact no health benefits to be had from it. Even Authority's in the US state this position but are cagey in their wording as there is still a thriving industry in both the medical profession and the market for foreskins.
No circumcision is not beneficial to health. on the contrary it is harmful.
No, penis size has nothing to do with circumcision.
Circumcision has nothing to do with infertility.
The circumcision scar is permanent and it can not be gotten rid of.
No, it is nothing to do with it. Circumcision is the removal of the foreskin from the penis.