From a Netfriend (14 November 2002):

Last year and again recently there were many posts against circumcision which were well documented and graphically described. There has been little said in favour of circumcision. Although I am not personally knowledgable on the subject I will quote from two books.

The first is ‘None of These Diseases’ by S.I.McMillan who points out in 25 chapters that the Jews by following God’s laws did not contract particular diseases common in other nations. The title refers to God’s instructions to Moses and promise that if they were obedient they would be free from sickness. ‘Medical science is still discovering how obedience to the ancient prescriptions saved the primitive Hebrews from the scourges of epidemic plagues’.

On circumcision he has several statistics to show the relationship of uncircumcision to penile cancer. ‘Why are Jewish men almost entirely free of this lethal cancer? Medical researchers have found that this spectacular freedom results from the practice of circumcision , instituted by God over four thousand years ago’. I cannot quote the 9 pages and 37 source notes for the chapter, but it is worth a read. Another interesting aspect McMillan covers is why science now confirms God’s instruction to perform the circumcision on the 8th day. It appears that the blood clotting components in the blood are at a peak then. ‘By the eighth day, however, we see that the available prothrobim skyrockets to 110% of the adult level’.

There may have been other reasons other than health reasons for God to include this law, but whether they realised it or not the Ancient Hebrews received a health benefit

The other book is ‘What the Bible says about healthy Living’ by Rex Russell where he suggests why God would design a penis with a foreskin and then give instructions to cut it off! After referring to the spiritual aspect he goes on to say ‘ The ongoing value of literal circumcision is shown by medical research; it proves that circumcised males have a lower incidence of infection and carcinoma of the penis. Also, the female partners of uncircumcised males have more infections, which in turn result in a higher incidence of cancer of the cervix’.

~~~

A response:

the claims of medical benefits are not accepted by majority medical opinion. Most poignantly, six Australasian medical associations have only just recently issued a joint statement on the matter. The following is the first paragraph of their summary statement:

“The Division of Paediatrics and Child Health, Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) has prepared this statement on routine circumcision of infants and boys to assist parents who are considering having this procedure undertaken on their male children and for doctors who are asked to advise on or undertake it. After extensive review of the literature the RACP reaffirms that there is no medical indication for routine male circumcision.”

Please note that the bolding of the last part of the sentence is that of the Royal Australian College of Physicians, not mine. They are trying to emphasise the point!

The six medical associations which jointly issued this statement are: a.. Division of Paediatrics and Child Health of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians b.. Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons c.. New Zealand Society of Paediatric Surgeons d.. Urological Society of Australasia e.. Royal Australasian College of Surgeons f.. Paediatric Society of New Zealand That’s a pretty weighty refutation! And they are well aware of all the claims made about so-called benefits.

The claims of medical benefits are problematic on three grounds: First, the evidence for them is highly dubious. Second, even if the evidence for them was solid, as a strategy to combat the problems, the routine amputation of healthy parts of the body as a first line of attack is not good medicine. Third, the claims of medical benefits omit to mention the serious harm done by circumcision. Historically, most claims of medical benefits usually play on whatever hysterical fears people of the time have. Most such claims usually prove to be highly dubious when subjected to rigorous scientific enquiry.

However, the prior question which you should answer is why, when majority medical opinion rejects the practice, you feel driven to defend it. Are you Jewish? Have you been circumcised? Have you circumcised your children? These three conditions can put enormous psychological pressure on a person to rationalise the practice. However, there are better ways of responding. Most parents did what they thought was right according to the best medical advice at the time. Time moves on and medical knowledge improves. It is perhaps more helpful to accept that we live in an imperfect world where people get things wrong. My own father used to tell me of how he had his healthy tonsils removed on the kitchen table under chloroform because that’s what doctors thought was right at the time. It made me shudder. We’ve also come a long way since then!