alt Hacker News> subjecting newborn boys
It's an elective procedure. No one has made it mandatory.
> by giving some disease prevention excuse that is minimally effective at best and bogus at worst.
A reported 10x reduction in UTIs does not seem "minimal."
> if it’s ethical to dock a dog’s tail or clip its ears because you think it looks better
Usually it's done for working dogs to reduce their chance of injury. Even in countries where the practice is fully illegal exceptions are made for working dogs.
> But for a newborn? Well, that’s just how we do things.
We tend to respect peoples religions. Judaism, Islam and some branches of Christianity require it for males. We accept the practice for newborns under the logic that it will be less traumatic and less risky than doing it when they come of age later in life.
Replies
Yes, it is not a mandatory procedure. However that misses the point. As an elective procedure made without an immediate and compelling reason, it should be left to the individual to make the decision and no one else. It should not be done routinely and the decision is not to be made casually. Most American parents simply elect to have the procedure done because they consider it “normal” and don’t investigate much further, if it all.
As for UTI reduction, I should have framed this differently. There is a reduction, but is that reduction worth it? Tonsillectomies used to be routine, but now they aren’t and are only suggested if there is a chronic problem. Surveys have been conducted and found that an overwhelming number of intact men would not have the procedure done just to have fewer UTI’s. I for one, would rather treat such infections as they arise rather than amputate some tissue just so that I could deal with those uncommon infections less often.
>”We accept the practice for newborns under the logic that it will be less traumatic and less risky than doing it when they come of age later in life.”
It is said that it is less traumatic to do this at birth, but I question this. I suspect people only believe this because babies cannot articulate what is happening to them and none of us are able to remember anything from our infancy. I have no idea what babies “think” but if we agree that this surgery is traumatic and risky, I simply don’t believe one can argue that it is less traumatic and less risky for a human who is only a few days old. A newborn cannot possibly understand and contextualize the intense pain that it is being subjected to, both during the procedure and during the recovery. Whereas an adolescent or an adult opting for this procedure would be informed beforehand, give explicit consent, and be given sufficient anesthesia.
> We tend to respect peoples religions. Judaism, Islam and some branches of Christianity require it for males. We accept the practice for newborns under the logic that it will be less traumatic and less risky than doing it when they come of age later in life.
We don't really respect people's religions in general when it comes to harmful practices inflicted on others, including their own children. Plenty of historical practices have been phased out from many religions for this very reason, and children of cult members are sometimes taken into the state's custody for this reason.
Circumcision happens to sit at a crossroads of not being extremely harmful (unlike, for example, female "circumcision", that is genital mutilation), being actively practiced for a long time, and being practiced by a currently very well-respected religion (Judaism, mostly).
But make no mistake - if tribal people who practice genital mutilation on their girls or other forms of more extreme body modification tried to do so in the USA or Europe, they would be stopped, prosecuted, and lose custody of their children - as well they should. Freedom of religion comes second to the right to a healthy and happy life.