Anti-Circumcision Bias

In his article Male Circumcision: What Would Newborns Say (Oct. 11-17), Dr. Gifford Jones blatantly shows his anti-circumcision bias. Almost all of his “points” are full of misinformation. Let us examine some of these points.

1. Dr. John Taylor’s anatomical studies of the foreskin are well known. However, it is a leap to say that this translates into reduced sexual pleasure. Neither Dr. Taylor nor anyone else has shown a scientific double blind study proving that circumcised men have less sexual pleasure than uncircumcised men.

2. Nature gave us ear lobes without earring holes and other features with which we tamper. The argument that we should not remove the foreskin because it is supplied by nature should not hold.

3. On the one hand, Dr. Jones discounts the benefit regarding penile cancer because it is so uncommon. On the other hand, he makes a big deal regarding disfiguring complications of circumcision even though these are even rarer than penile cancer.

4. Reduction in transmission of HIV and genital herpes is a huge benefit and should not be easily discounted.

5. There is no proof presented, nor does any exist, that erectile dysfunction is related to circumcision. Erectile dysfunction is rooted in psychosocial causes as well as atherosclerotic disease. I am not aware of any published studies linking it to circumcision.

Parents do have a right to decide whether or not to circumcise their sons, just as they have a right to decide upon immunization and other health related decisions regarding their children.

Dr. Gifford Jones should be more careful to present accurate information in his articles; or he should admit that he is only presenting his personal opinion.

Dr. Aaron Jesin operates a family medical practice and a circumcision clinic in Toronto.

The Epoch Times publishes in 35 countries and in 19 languages. Subscribe to our e-newsletter.