No national medical association in the world today recommends infant
circumcision, including the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and
the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). In its
2012 statement on circumcision, the AAP claimed that “the health
benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks,” yet it also
stated that “the true incidence of complications after newborn
circumcision is unknown”. The AAP lacks the evidence it needs to make a
comparison between risks and benefits.

The AAP’s statement was met with strong criticism from a large group of
European and Canadian doctors representing various foreign medical
associations, in the AAP’s own journal “Pediatrics.”  Infant
circumcision is not practiced by most of the rest of the world, except
where it is done for religious reasons.  You can read what these
doctors wrote at

In 2014, the United Kingdom’s National Health Service stated that the
risks of circumcision outweigh the benefits, the exact opposite
position of the AAP. See

In September 2015, the Canadian Paediatric Society did NOT recommend
circumcision, and it stated that the benefits do NOT outweigh the
risks.  See

Here is another excellent, in depth critique.

“A CDC-requested, Evidence-based Critique of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention 2014 Draft on Male Circumcision: How Ideology
and Selective Science Lead to Superficial, Culturally-biased
Recommendations by the CDC” by  Robert S. Van Howe, MD, MS, FAAP*
Professor and Interim Chair of Pediatrics Central Michigan University
College of Medicine

“Similarities in Attitudes and Misconceptions toward Infant Male
Circumcision in North America and Ritual Female Genital Mutilation in
Africa” by Hanny Lightfoot-Klein, author of the book “Prisoners of
Ritual: An Odyssey into Female Genital Circumcision in Africa”

One young man sued the retired doctor and hospital (Good Samaritan
Hospital in West Islip, New York) where he was circumcised
unnecessarily as an infant, against his will and without HIS consent.
He received a financial settlement. You can read about his case at

A group of doctors called Doctors Opposing Circumcision (DOC) was
formed by physicians opposed to non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision.
You can learn more about them at

I would be interested in your impressions of these educational
materials, and in knowing if you would be willing to share them with
others. Too often, parents are asked to make a decision about
circumcision based on no information, little information, or

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely, Petrina Fadel

“Parents do not know what they are choosing, and physicians do not feel
what they are doing.” – Ronald Goldman, Ph.D., psychologist and author

MALE Circumcision REMOVES 16+ Functions. Do you know what they are?

1. Frenar Band, or Ridged Band

The frenar band is a group of soft ridges near the junction of the
inner and outer foreskin. This region is the primary erogenous zone of
the intact male body. Loss of this delicate belt of densely innervated,
sexually responsive tissue reduces the fullness and intensity of sexual
response. [Source: Taylor, J. R. et al., “The Prepuce: Specialized
Mucosa of the Penis and Its Loss to Circumcision,” British Journal of
Urology 77 (1996): 291-295.]

2. Mechanical Gliding Action

The foreskin’s gliding action is a hallmark feature of the normal,
natural, intact penis. This non-abrasive gliding of the penis in and
out of its own shaft skin facilitates smooth, comfortable, pleasurable
intercourse for both partners. Without this gliding action, the corona
of the circumcised penis can function as a one-way valve, making
artificial lubricants necessary for comfortable intercourse. [Source:
P. M. Fleiss, MD, MPH, “The Case Against Circumcision,” Mothering: The
Magazine of Natural Family Living (Winter 1997): 36-45.]

3. Meissner’s Corpuscles

Circumcision removes the most important sensory component of the
foreskin – thousands of coiled fine-touch receptors called Meissner’s
corpuscles. Also lost are branches of the dorsal nerve, and between
10,000 and 20,000 specialized erotogenic nerve endings of several
types. Together these detect subtle changes in motion and temperature,
as well as fine gradations in texture. [Sources: 1. R. K. Winkelmann,
“The Erogenous Zones: Their Nerve Supply and Its Significance,”
Proceedings of the Staff Meetings of the Mayo Clinic 34 (1959): 39-47.
2. R. K. Winkelmann, “The Cutaneous Innervation of Human Newborn
Prepuce,” Journal of Investigative Dermatology 26 (1956): 53-67.]

4. Frenulum

The frenulum is a highly erogenous V-shaped structure on the underside
of the glans that tethers the foreskin. During circumcision it is
frequently either amputated with the foreskin or severed, which
destroys or diminishes its sexual and physiological functions.
[Sources: 1. Cold, C, Taylor, J, “The Prepuce,” BJU International 83,
Suppl. 1, (1999): 34-44. 2. Kaplan, G.W., “Complications of
Circumcision,” Urologic Clinics of North America 10, 1983.]

5. Dartos Fascia

Circumcision removes approximately half of this temperature-sensitive
smooth muscle sheath which lies between the outer layer of skin and the
corpus cavernosa. [Source: Netter, F.H., “Atlas of Human Anatomy,”
Second Edition (Novartis, 1997): Plates 234, 329, 338, 354, 355.]

6. Immunological System

The soft mucosa (inner foreskin) contains its own immunological defense
system which produces plasma cells. These cells secrete immunoglobulin
antibodies as well as antibacterial and antiviral proteins, including
the pathogen killing enzyme lysozyme. [Sources: 1. A. Ahmed and A. W.
Jones, “Apocrine Cystadenoma: A Report of Two Cases Occurring on the
Prepuce,” British Journal of Dermatology 81 (1969): 899-901. 2. P. J.
Flower et al., “An Immunopathologic Study of the Bovine Prepuce,”
Veterinary Pathology 20 (1983):189-202.]

7. Lymphatic Vessels

The loss of these vessels due to circumcision reduces the lymph flow
within that part of the body’s immune system. [Source: Netter, F.H.,
“Atlas of Human Anatomy,” Second Edition (Novartis, 1997): plate 379.]

8. Estrogen Receptors

The presence of estrogen receptors within the foreskin has only
recently been discovered. Their purpose is not yet understood and needs
further study. [Source: R. Hausmann et al., “The Forensic Value of the
Immunohistochemical Detection of Oestrogen Receptors in Vaginal
Epithelium,” International Journal of Legal Medicine 109 (1996): 10-30.]

9. Apocrine Glands

These glands of the inner foreskin produce pheromones – nature’s
powerful, silent, invisible behavioral signals to potential sexual
partners. The effect of their absence on human sexuality has never been
studied. [Source: A. Ahmed and A. W. Jones, “Apocrine Cystadenoma: A
Report of Two Cases Occurring on the Prepuce,” British Journal of
Dermatology 81 (1969): 899-901.]

10. Sebaceous Glands

The sebaceous glands may lubricate and moisturize the foreskin and
glans, which is normally a protected internal organ. Not all men have
sebaceous glands on their inner foreskin. [Source: A. B. Hyman and M.
H. Brownstein, “Tyson’s Glands: Ectopic Sebaceous Glands and
Papillomatosis Penis,” Archives of Dermatology 99 (1969): 31-37.]

11. Langerhans Cells

These specialized epithelial cells are a component of the immune system
in the penis. [Source: G. N. Weiss et al., “The Distribution and
Density of Langerhans Cells in the Human Prepuce: Site of a Diminished
Immune Response?” Israel Journal of Medical Sciences 29 (1993): 42-43.]

12. Natural Glans Coloration

The natural coloration of the glans and inner foreskin (usually hidden
and only visible to others when sexually aroused) is considerably more
intense than the permanently exposed and keratinized coloration of a
circumcised penis. The socio-biological function of this visual
stimulus has never been studied.  The glans ranges from pink to red to
dark purple among intact men of Northern European ancestry, and from
pinkish to mahagony to dark brown among intact men of Color. If
circumcision is performed on an infant or young boy, the connective
tissue which protectively fuses the foreskin and glans together is
ripped apart. This leaves the glans raw and subject to infection,
scarring, pitting, shrinkage, and eventual discoloration. Over a period
of years the glans becomes keratinized, adding additional layers of
tissue in order to adequately protect itself, which further contributes
to discoloration. Many restoring men report dramatic changes in glans
color and appearance, and that these changes closely mirror the natural
coloration and smooth, glossy appearance of the glans seen in intact
[Source: P. M. Fleiss, MD, MPH, “The Case Against Circumcision,”
Mothering: The Magazine of Natural Family Living (Winter 1997): 36-45.]

13. Length and Circumference

Circumcision removes some of the length and girth of the penis – its
double-layered wrapping of loose and usually overhanging foreskin is
removed. A circumcised penis is truncated and thinner than it would
have been if left intact. [Source: R. D. Talarico and J. E. Jasaitis,
“Concealed Penis: A Complication of Neonatal Circumcision,” Journal of
Urology 110 (1973): 732-733.]

14. Blood Vessels

Several feet of blood vessels, including the frenular artery and
branches of the dorsal artery, are removed in circumcision. The loss of
this rich vascularization interrupts normal blood flow to the shaft and
glans of the penis, damaging the natural function of the penis and
altering its development. [Sources: 1. H. C. Bazett et al., “Depth,
Distribution and Probable Identification in the Prepuce of Sensory
End-Organs Concerned in Sensations of Temperature and Touch;
Thermometric Conductivity,” Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry 27
(1932): 489-517. 2. Netter, F.H., “Atlas of Human Anatomy,” Second
Edition (Novartis, 1997): plates 238, 239.]

15. Dorsal Nerves

The terminal branch of the pudendal nerve connects to the skin of the
penis, the prepuce, the corpora cavernosa, and the glans. Destruction
of these nerves is a rare but devastating complication of circumcision.
If cut during circumcision, the top two-thirds of the penis will be
almost completely without sensation. [Sources: 1. Agur, A.M.R. ed.,
“Grant’s Atlas of Anatomy,” Ninth Edition (Williams and Wilkins, 1991):
188-190. 2. Netter, F.H., “Atlas of Human Anatomy,” Second Edition
(Novartis, 1997): plate 380, 387.]

16+ Other Losses

– Circumcision performed during infancy disrupts the bonding process
between child and mother. There are indications that the innate sense
of trust in intimate human contact is inhibited or lost. It can also
have significant adverse effects on neurological development.
-Additionally, an infant’s self-confidence and hardiness is diminished
by forcing the newborn victim into a defensive psychological state of
“learned helplessness” or “acquired passivity” to cope with the
excruciating pain which he can neither fight nor flee. – The trauma of
this early pain lowers a circumcised boy’s pain threshold below that of
intact boys and girls. This has been proven in a study during
vaccination time. [Sources: 1. R. Goldman, Circumcision: The Hidden
Trauma (Boston: Vanguard Publications, 1997), 139-175. 2. A. Taddio et
al., “Effect of Neonatal Circumcision on Pain Responses during
Vaccination in Boys,” Lancet 345 (1995): 291-292.]
– Every year some boys lose their entire penises from circumcision
accidents and infections. They are then “sexually reassigned” by
castration and transgender surgery, and are expected to live their
lives as females. [Sources: 1. J. P. Gearhart and J. A. Rock, “Total
Ablation of the Penis after Circumcision with Electrocautery: A Method
of Management and Long-Term Followup,” Journal of Urology 142
(1989):799-801. 2. M. Diamond and H. K. Sigmundson, “Sex Reassignment
at Birth: Long-Term Review and Clinical Implications,” Archives of
Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 151 (1997): 298-304.]
-Every year many boys in the United States and elsewhere lose their
lives as a result of circumcision – a fact that is routinely ignored or
obscured. [Sources: 1. G. W. Kaplan, “Complications of Circumcision,”
Urologic Clinics of North America 10 (1983): 543-549. 2. R. S.
Thompson, “Routine Circumcision in the Newborn: An Opposing View,”
Journal of Family Practice 31 (1990): 189-196.