Science – Rolling Doughnut

I have pessimistic thoughts on protests

Protesting is necessary. There are injustices in the world that won’t fix themselves. It takes commitment and bravery to fight because power, the cause of most injustice, loves compliance.

Protest is also dangerous. Some of that is because power¹ loves compliance. Protest needs to remain focused and controlled. I don’t want to say “non-threatening”, since I don’t mean a willingness to accept whatever sham of rights power is willing to concede. No, not that. But at best it will be unpleasant. People whose rights aren’t violated – or who are content to have their rights violated, especially – will let you know you should like having your rights violated. They are miserable people. It will be necessary to face and ignore that nastiness.

But the danger I’m thinking of is more the danger from unleashing energy into combatting injustice. It’s easy to lose the thread on the principle involved in the fight. It’s inviting for anyone with a message to attach themselves to a protest and hijack it for other purposes. It isn’t easy to control that, either, because it’s seductive to think, “More people are joining us, we’re winning!”. Maybe, but maybe not.

Obviously the last couple days are on my mind. The protests from both Friday and Saturday reflect my point. Friday it was the predictable violence². It isn’t inevitable with a protest with a focused message, but Friday’s protests weren’t focused. “Anti-Trump” is a choose-your-own-adventure opportunity for grievances. But that also means it’s foolish to judge opposition to Trump on this inevitable violence.

Yesterday’s protest resulted in no violence, as far as I’m aware. I think that has much to do with coherence on the message. The danger awaits, though, for what the marches hope to accomplish. I’ve seen many astute voices pointing out that yesterday was the beginning. That’s correct. The work begins now. But I don’t think that work is to keep the momentum. The work is to prevent the message from fracturing. I’m not optimistic.

The stated principle for yesterday’s protest, as I understand it, was that women are human beings deserving equal rights. Great, I’m on board. But it’s clear this movement has the potential for power. That focus on principle will disappear. Here, I’ll pick a random example I encountered. The list has the above principle. It then expands to the LGBTQ community. I’m still on board because I think this is the same principle at its core. Human beings deserve equal rights. Third is resisting racism. Yep, still there.

Then, with numbers four, five, and six, are climate change, income inequality, and universal health care. That’s a fracturing divergence. “… we must immediately address the damage we have done and continue…” I agree that climate change is real, and that humans are a reason. But there’s so much room to disagree on how to address the damage. Maybe we’ll agree on what to do, but there will be disagreement.

For income inequality, “Wages for working people must rise. Wages for working people must rise. A healthy and growing middle class is not a naturally occurring phenomenon. It must be cultivated through sensible economic policy.” I agree that a healthy and growing middle class is not a natural phenomenon. The natural human condition is dirt-scratching poverty. But what is the sensible economic policy that raises wages for working people? Is it by decreeing the minimum wage is $X? That is economic policy, but it is not sensible. Work that can’t justify the minimum wage will be automated. The goal is an economy in which people can support themselves (with the understanding that no perfect economy can exist). I can’t support a push for an economic policy based in feelings that will not work. But attaching “income inequality” to the push for equal rights means fracturing the movement.

And universal health care. Opposition to what other countries do is not a wish for poor and sick people to die already. That every other industrialized nation does this does not mean they do it perfectly, or that they do not get free-rider benefits from the United States because we don’t do it their way. It also does not prove it can be replicated here.

It’s clear a push like this expects the result of yesterday’s march to be the further implementation of a progressive political platform. That just takes a message that “women’s rights are human rights” and makes it explicitly – and incorrectly – political. The coherence of the demand disappears.

Some of this I already know from experience with protesting and agitating for change. I’ve protested in sunshine and rain, in heat and cold. I’ve had people yell at me and I’ve had respectful conversations. It’s a messy process with rewards and perils throughout. Along with, “I hadn’t thought of it that way,” there’s disagreement and the “with us or against us” mentality within the group. I’ve seen people be right for unbelievably wrong reasons. It’s a fringe rather than universal, but the fringe gets the attention. Did you see more of the peaceful protests from Friday or the smashing windows? And when someone encounters a group protesting what they haven’t thought about or don’t agree with, do they remember the person trying to convince them or the lunatics? What’s more effective, “May I talk with you about genital mutilation” or “May I talk with you about genital mutilation and how vaccines cause autism and the one percent”? The former is principled in science and ethics. The latter is “I have a mishmash of agenda items and you need to accept them all.” Putting human equality into a mix of progressive (or conservative) political policies is no different.

Maybe I’m wrong on thinking this is putting human equality into a mix of progressive political policies. It’s possible, and if it’s true, do you want to convince me or condescend to me? Whether I’m right or wrong, that’s your choice.

For example:

I’ve seen so many men today screaming about rights for Islamic women and genital mutilation. I look forward to your march re: those issues!

Or do you guys only bring those issues up to try to de-legitimize someone else’s voice?

And a sample response:

@JulieDiCaro I think we both know the answer to that question.

I’ve marched and written extensively on the rights involved. I get laughed at for it. I get screamed at. I’m told how disrespectful I am when I emphasize the principle³ involved. There’s no curiosity that I maybe know what I’m talking about from research and experience. I don’t hold the right view, so my opinion should be mocked.

The same condescension is in those tweets. Maybe one/some/all of these men know? Or maybe they’re all awful people merely trying to change the subject. It’s probably the latter. Probably.

I composed a reply on Twitter but deleted it because 140 characters wouldn’t convey the message. Ms. DiCaro is saying “Don’t hijack the moment.” I agree with that sentiment but not the delivery. For example, I don’t jump into discussions purely about female genital mutilation to say “what about men?” unless the discussion includes crackpot opinions presented as fact or shoddy wishing masquerading as a principled defense of why girls deserve protection and boys should be happy about circumcision. But if you really want equality, “my body, my choice” applies to boys, or it can mean “my child, my choice” applies to girls. If you don’t stand for principle, don’t be shocked if it leads where you don’t want to go.

Anyway, my point is that protests lose focus. They work against uniting a coalition on shared principle, preferring to enforce ideological rigidity. Yes
terday’s march and what follows can be principled. It won’t be. There were speakers yesterday advocating for equal rights who also support male genital mutilation. Some rights are more equal than others, somehow, which will probably become generalized into the platform, so do not be surprised when this movement collapses into an incoherent, powerless mess without the necessary vigilance to adhere to “women are human beings deserving equal rights”. Prove me wrong, please.

Post Script: Damnit, I realized I didn’t talk about nazis yet. I’ve rambled enough, so I’m not going to work this into the above. Fucking nazis are evil scum. Don’t sucker-punch evil fucking nazi scum. Because it’s dumb and counter-productive and escalates into more violence. Yes, Hitler. But a street corner in Washington, DC on January 20, 2017 is not Omaha Beach. Maybe it will be if we don’t challenge President Trump’s administration every second until 1/20/21, 1/20/25, or his impeachment. But we’re not there today. Not sucker-punching evil fucking nazis is not appeasement. Sucker-punching nazis is closer to the definition of conceding principles in favor of political expediency. That isn’t righteous. That’s a different form of authoritarianism. And if you want to require this fight continue until 1/20/25, sucker-punching nazis is a great way to create the lawlessness excuse Trump wants in order to make that a reality.

¹ Power expects compliance from everyone, not just women. This is why emphasis on “patriarchy” is so weird to me. I’ve yet to encounter an instance of someone saying “patriarchy” in which saying “power” wouldn’t be more precise. I’m open to explanations and/or scenarios for why that isn’t true.

² Destruction of property is violence. Someone has to clean it up. Someone has to pay for its repair or replacement. That requires work, so destroying someone’s property necessarily involves forcing someone to do something they wouldn’t otherwise need to do. It is force.

³ Non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual is unethical. All human beings are equal, with the same rights. I’m a feminist, including on that principle. But some feminists don’t believe this right is equal. So sure, I’m a feminist, but the label isn’t enough for me to know that we agree on human rights.

Liberty, But Only If Your Parents Let You Have It

I have no problem with the label libertarian, even when it’s conflated with the Libertarian Party. I have a problem with being associated with what passes for thinking on the rights of children among too many self-proclaimed libertarians. Somehow the libertarian view for so many shakes down to something equivalent to children as parental property. This is most easily seen when the topic turns to male circumcision. So it is again. In response to charges filed against a rabbi/mohel in Bavaria following the recent court decision in Cologne declaring that non-therapeutic circumcision of a child violates the child’s rights to physical integrity and self-determination, Doug Mataconis writes at Outside the Beltway (links in original):

There’s also been a bizarre movement growing against circumcision itself here in the United States and in Europe. Just last year, for example, a referendum that would’ve banned circumcision in the City of San Francisco was scheduled to appear on the November 2011 ballot before being removed. The motivations for this version of the anti-circumcision movement seems to be something similar to what the Judges in Cologne stated, that it was some kind of assault about a party who is unable to grant consent. …

Surgically removing a normal, healthy, functioning body part from an individual who does not consent should be recognized as battery, yes. That is not bizarre. It’s merely extending the usual rational standard for non-therapeutic surgical intervention on healthy children to male genitals.

… Andrew Sullivan, for example, contends that infant circumcision is an assault on infant boys. Left out of the argument, though, is the fact that parents have been long assumed to be able to competently make medical decisions for their minor children. …

Except there are limits, including a specific limit on the option for parents to make “medical” (i.e. non-therapeutic) surgical decisions for the genitals of their minor children. USC § 116 – Female genital mutilation clearly establishes conditions upon which we ignore this alleged competence. If non-therapeutic genital cutting falls within the realm of making “medical” decisions for a child as a parental right, then 18 USC § 116 infringes on this supposed parental right. If this is about parental rights rather than individual rights, the child, whether male or female, would be irrelevant to the law. It isn’t. It’s about the harm to the child. Section (b) makes it clear that all non-therapeutic genital cutting on female minors is illegal, including any cutting analogous to or less harmful than male circumcision. Section (c) demonstrates that no parental justification will be accepted for this intervention on their daughter(s). The primary consideration becomes whether or not male circumcision is harmful, not this:

… Leaving that argument aside, I would think that any ban on circumcision in the United States would, because of the First Amendment, have to include an exemption for Jews and Muslims who consider the procedure a requirement of their religion.

Because boys don’t have the same basic human rights as everyone else, at least for the physical integrity of their normal, healthy genitals? Eugene Volokh’s parental and religious rights posts during last year’s San Francisco ballot initiative identifies a plausible response to this. Again, the correct question is whether or not male circumcision is harmful, not why parents might choose it for non-therapeutic reasons.

On the question of harm, the evidence is quite clear. Circumcision inflicts harm every time. The individual loses his foreskin. He has nerve endings within his penis severed. He may lose his frenulum. He will have a scar. There is also the risk of complications. Some males will suffer those, and some subset will suffer horrible outcomes. The mortality rate from non-therapeutic child circumcision is very low, thankfully, but it isn’t zero. Treating individuals as statistics is hardly a libertarian position.

Next, he quotes an ad hominem attack by Jonathan Tobin:

Circumcision opponents may claim they are not anti-Semitic, especially since their campaign also targets Muslims. But there is little doubt that the driving force behind this movement is resentment toward Jews and a willingness to go public with sentiments that long simmered beneath the surface in Germany and elsewhere in Europe.

Just last week, French scholar Michel Gurfinkiel wrote on his blog that anti-Semitism has increased in France since the Toulouse massacre in March. Since then violence has grown, fed by what he calls a rejection of Jews and Judaism. In France, these sentiments are fed by the Jew hatred openly expressed by the expanding Muslim population. Throughout Europe, the demonization of Israel hasn’t just increased hostility to the Jewish state; it has served as an excuse for anti-Semitism to go mainstream for the first time since World War Two. Just as some claim circumcision critics aren’t intrinsically anti-Semitic, there are those who blame anti-Semitism on Israeli policies. But when you add all these factors together what you get is an undeniable upsurge in Jew-hatred.

There is significant doubt that resentment is the driving force. I won’t speak for Germany, although I think the court’s ruling was not based in religious animosity. The ethical human rights-based case against non-therapeutic circumcision exists on its own. It’s clear, based in the basic rights to physical bodily integrity and self-determination. The ability to find instances of anti-Semitism does not discredit that case or the general movement to restrict non-therapeutic circumcision to those who choose it for themselves. Where anti-Semitism occurs, and it unfortunately does, it discredits the individual purveyor, not the movement as a whole. And such instances should be denounced without ad hominem against anyone who shares only an opposition to non-therapeutic circumcision on non-consenting individuals.

Mataconis’ response to Tobin’s charge:

If that’s true, then it is a quite troublesome development. Even leaving this element out of it, though, there’s something troublesome about this entire affair. Circumcision has been an accepted practice in Western societies for centuries …

That’s interesting but proves nothing. History provides plenty of examples of rights being violated for a long time. The rights are no less violated. Non-therapeutic circumcision constitutes guaranteed physical harm to the child in pursuit of his parents’ preference(s). It’s the objective versus the subjective.

… and, in the case of two religions, it isn’t just an elective medical procedure, it is a requirement of their faith. …

Being a requirement of Judaism and a recommendation in Islam are relevant, but they are not the first question in this context. The circumcision is being imposed on someone. It’s an odd conception of free
dom that says imposing surgery on someone else is an individual right within religious freedom. Under the proposed public policy stance, religion would have to adapt. That expectation is no different from the numerous declarations in religious texts that we do not permit in civil law. Religion deserves no special exemption. The protection required is for individuals to choose circumcision for their own bodies, not for others.

… The arguments of the circumcision opponents strike me as being little more than ridiculous nonsense that, for some, has turned into some kind of weird cult of the foreskin. As far as I’m concerned, parents are perfectly capable of making this decision for their sons and the state really has no business getting involved in at all. When you bring the element of religion into it, state interference becomes even more problematic. One would hope that the government in Berlin will intervene and put an end to the nonsense that the judges in Cologne started.

Non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual violates basic human rights. That isn’t ridiculous nonsense. We apply it completely to females. We don’t apply it to males. Instead, it’s easier to smear with words like cult and fetish. Fine, if that’s the standard, we should start telling activists against female genital cutting/mutilation that they’re spouting ridiculous nonsense that is some kind of weird cult of the clitoris? We wouldn’t because there we recognize the facts. With circumcision we forget to apply the same standard that protects the property interest of the individual. For reasons. That makes no sense.

It’s certainly not within a reasonable understanding of libertarianism. For anarchists, sure, opposition to the state becomes the overriding goal. But if one assumes a state to be legitimate with a specific interest in protecting the rights of its citizens, then it’s legitimate for the state to prohibit this form of possibly unwanted harm. That is the approach that recognizes humans rather than statistics. (To hope that politicians will step in to reverse a judge is a foolish action to endorse.) Parents don’t just circumcise their sons. They effectively circumcise the autonomous adult he will become. Proxy consent based on anything other than clear medical need is insufficient to permit that.

**********

Post Script: In the comments to his post, Mataconis responded with a standard trope:

Fine. Then if you have a son, don’t get him circumcised, that’s your choice.

Treating children as property is not libertarian. The correct formulation is “If you don’t want to be circumcised, don’t have yourself circumcised”. That’s the method to protect individual preferences, not the illegitimate force of individual preferences on another. Shared DNA is not a defense.

That flows into a later comment:

What is the medical benefit the foreskin provides?

To the silly question, it protects the glans and provides sexual sensitivity. But let’s assume neither is true. “It’s mine” is sufficient. The onus is not properly on the person who doesn’t want his property taken to explain why his property shouldn’t be taken. Or, at least, that’s what I thought libertarians believed.

Science Requires Ethics, Part 3

Jake responded to my last entry in our ongoing series. (My first and second entries.) I’ll just jump in. Addressing my view that he is a pro-circumcision advocate, Jake writes:

I find this a rather peculiar statement. I suppose in a sense that any attempt to weigh benefits against risks will have some subjective qualities, and perhaps that can’t be avoided altogether. However, as subjective values are meaningless to another person I would hope that most observers try as objective as is reasonably possible. I certainly try; I can only hope that I succeed.

I am uninterested in convincing or encouraging parents to circumcise their sons, and have been careful to avoid making a recommendation either way. Anyone sufficiently interested (not to mention patient) can verify this by working through the many thousands of my public comments over the years – I use the same name everywhere, so it is not difficult to find them via Google. Indeed, I believe that such advocacy would be contrary to my pro-parental choice position: I genuinely believe that parents should make that decision, not me.

Unlike my perception of many individuals I’ve encountered when discussing circumcision, I believe that Jake advocates parental choice with the intention he states, which is that I think he accepts the decision by parents who do not choose to circumcise their sons. Many parental choice advocates do not believe that decision is valid in their parental choice worldview. In that respect, my saying that Jake “uses his conclusion to encourage parents to circumcise” was incorrect.

Rather, I believe that he is effectively a pro-circumcision advocate because he views his assessment of circumcision as containing some level of objectivity. It can’t, just as my assessment can’t. The difference between our views, I think, is that mine involves the child’s opinion, placing it above that of his parents.

I don’t have an opinion on circumcision, per se. I think it’s an odd choice for a healthy male to make, but that’s the lens of my preferences and experience. Jake has his own opinion, which is clear from his choice to have himself circumcised as an adult. Again, I think that’s odd, but my opinion on that is irrelevant because his choice is valid for him.

On the topic before us, though, the focus of infant circumcision must be infant circumcision, not infant circumcision. I write from the former, while I believe Jake writes from the latter. That difference is why I claim that his conclusion is subjective and incomplete.

Next, Jake considers my take on an appeal to authority:

My first inclination was to agree, but on reflection I think it would depend on the situation. Consider the following hypothetical scenario:

PERSON A: Circumcision is awful because the AAP don’t recommend it.
AAP: [Introduces a recommendation in favour of circumcision]
PERSON A: Oh, the AAP are biased, ignore them.

Here the appeal to authority is utterly invalid. It is quite apparent that it is a sham: the AAP are being presented as an authority merely because the person hopes to gain an advantage by doing so. The person clearly has no integrity, nor any credibility, and can and should be ignored. …

This scenario is close to what I considered. Although I wouldn’t go as far as Jake does in condemning the person’s integrity without more information, it is the response I predict any person to have to the scenario and why I despise appeals to authority.

Even though Jake’s first scenario exemplified my point, his second scenario is instructive:

… Now consider this:

PERSON A: Circumcision is awful because the AAP don’t recommend it.
AAP: [Introduces a recommendation in favour of circumcision]
PERSON A: Okay, the AAP now recommend it, so it’s okay.

In this situation, it seems to me that this is a valid appeal to authority, in that the person is willing to adapt their position once the authority changes theirs.

I disagree, again because the focus of the appeal is infant circumcision, not circumcision. It’s an abdication of judgment in favor of someone else’s conclusion. If Person A is the individual being circumcised, I am indifferent to his acceptance of the authority’s conclusion and judgment. That’s not what’s at stake.

It’s possible to make this too broad. I am not suggesting that expert opinion is worthless or should be ignored. I am saying that, when the focus is on infant circumcision, and specifically the circumcision of healthy infants, citing the authority’s subjective conclusion of a net benefit (or neutrality) is a diversion from the individual child’s lack of need and possible preference for keeping his normal foreskin. The AAP is relatively neutral today, and I contend they’re wrong because they ignore facts (out of philosophical ignorance).

Next, on circumcision versus vaccination:

I see: Tony applies a different standard for surgery and vaccinations. This doesn’t make much sense to me, for several reasons. Firstly, from an admittedly pedantic point of view, is there really that much of a difference? Surgery involves risk. Vaccinations involve risk. Surgery involves cutting the skin. Vaccinations (as delivered by a needle) also involve cutting the skin, albeit in a minor way. So I have to ask, where exactly would you draw the line?

Secondly, does it make sense to create multiple standards? To my mind, no. But I may be biased: I’m trained as an engineer, and when I observe lots of different little rules I see a situation in which there ought to be one, more general rule. Special cases are usually an indication that the general rule needs some more attention. Maybe one shouldn’t apply engineering principles to ethics. I don’t know, but I can’t see any reason why one shouldn’t…

Yes, there is a difference. Surgery removes a healthy, functioning body part. Vaccination does not. I draw the line between them for that primary reason. So, yes, it makes sense to create multiple standards.

In turn, it doesn’t make sense to create multiple standards for boys versus girls for the same parental activity and justifications. Later, in response to my view that anti-FGM laws would not be overturned if female genital cutting was shown to have potential benefits, Jake writes:

In an ideal world, I wish I could say that anti-FGC laws would indeed be overturned if scientific knowledge changed significantly. However, I’m sorry to say that Tony is probably right in that they wouldn’t be. I don’t think that this has anything to do with rights, though: it’s a simple case of collective prejudice. The notion that FGC is horrific is deeply ingrained into modern, Western society, and it takes an awful lot to dislodge that notion. I know this from personal experience: I have to make a conscious effort to think about FGC objectively, and have to fight the knee-jerk reaction. And I consider myself very open-minded.

I accept that circumcision can have potential benefits. I am opposed to prohylactic¹ infant genital cutting because pursuing these potential benefits for an individual who can’t consent is unethical. It is unethical because there are real and potential harms. Jake is wrong in his view because he is valuing science in a manner that leaves it insufficiently tethered to ethics. It’s a view that, because we can achieve something, it is ethically valid to pursue it. I find that approach abhorrent. It gives parents the choice to pursue an option that is not theirs to pursue. Their opinion must be subordinate to the objective facts of their child’s healthy body.

To my point that adults can choose condoms and that parents can’t know if their sons will be irresponsible
, Jake replies:

To both points, I agree. Nevertheless, it seems difficult to deny that if it were performed during infancy, circumcision would help to reduce this risk when the child became an adult.

I’m not denying that it might help reduce this risk, but it requires a specific, low-risk, low-probability situation to be effective. The choice of surgery to chase a miniscule benefit must be left to the individual.

Of course, it’s worth a reminder that the studies in Africa involved adult volunteers. Leaving aside the ethical difference, declaring that circumcision would help males (especially Western males) circumcised as infants is speculation. There are more variables involved, including the foreskin’s adherence to the glans in infants and the prevalence of HIV in the society.

In response to my review of his opinion on “most effective/least invasive”:

Here I believe Tony has misunderstood, or at least has not considered the issue with sufficient care. If there is a medical problem to address, then the physician’s responsibility is to solve that problem while exposing the patient to the least risk. That’s the essence of the “most effective/least invasive” standard. But if there is no medical reason for considering circumcision, then it is meaningless to even consider the “most effective” solution. If circumcision is being considered for non-medical reasons then it is in all probability the only solution to the problem (that being that the child is not circumcised). So it is the wrong standard to apply.

I believe I’ve understood him correctly. He is wrong. If there is no medical reason (i.e. need) for circumcision, it’s unacceptable to permit it on children. Normal genitals are not a “problem,” no matter how opposed the boy’s parents are to his normal genitals. I repeat my earlier criticism: Jake is begging the question he wants to answer. Medical need is the standard for proxy consent to surgery. Without medical need, the process stops. No intervention is valid.

At this point Tony declined to list ‘”surgeries we recognize as offensive” that are valid when benefits and risks are properly weighed’, stating:

I am not citing any particular science or surgeries because that was not my point.

This is a shame. I had hoped that Tony would at least try. I cannot think of any, and my suspicion is that this is because none exist. And if none exist, then Tony’s earlier objection that “Setting the ability to chase potential benefits as the ethical standard opens the range of allegedly valid parental interventions to include any number of surgeries we recognize as offensive” seems a rather empty objection.

Immediately following my objection, I wrote that “I am attacking a way of thinking,” which is to say that I reject the notion that because we can achieve a potential benefit, it is ethically valid to pursue it. At its core, prophylactic infant circumcision is about chasing potential benefits. I reject that for the multitude of reasons I’ve presented. Speculating that I did not cite any because none exist is a straw man.

Citing “surgeries we recognize as offensive” is a pointless diversion. However, I’ll play along briefly. I nominate removing the breast buds from infant females to reduce their risk of breast cancer. I have no idea if this would work or it’s been studied in any manner. It doesn’t matter, because my point was to reject the thinking that believes a potential benefit may be chased. I suspect this would be offensive to most parents, as it almost always is when I raise it in debate. Non-essential, healthy, functioning breasts are different from non-essential, healthy, functioning foreskins, somehow. My guess is that Jake’s approach to this would be his utilitarianism, which would assess whether removing breast buds has a potential benefit. (Unless he has some objection I haven’t determined.) If it does in his evaluation, it is a valid choice for parents, even if only chosen by those few parents who don’t find it offensive. I reject that because the healthy girl may not want the intervention.

It is meaningful to compare female genital cutting to male genital cutting because, ethically, they involve the same issue. Unnecessary surgery on a non-consenting individual is wrong.

If you take that last sentence as axiomatic, then you will probably see the two issues as similar (although, presumably, there’s no reason to focus on genital surgery in particular). Those of us who adopt a different ethical principle – something like “harmful surgery on a non-consenting individual is wrong” see no problem with circumcision, and a problem with female genital cutting.

(I realize that I’m about to object to an issue of semantics in his axiom, but I’m certain I’ve gotten the gist of any future clarification correct.)

All surgery is harmful, including circumcision. It’s meant to achieve some benefit greater than the harm. Jake concludes that circumcision is, at worst, neutral. But that is his subjective evaluation. It is as irrelevant as my opinion that it is a net harm. Proxy consent is not valid for prophylactic infant circumcision because circumcising healthy infants is objective harm pursuing subjective benefits. Jake writes:

… Evaluation of potential benefits should not be dismissed as mere opinion. The literature contains a relatively large amount of data, which can be summarised in the form of objectively quantifiable data.

Potential benefits are based on objectively quantifiable data. Determining the value of applying those objectively quantifiable data to the objectively healthy penis of an infant male is subjective, mere opinion. Deriving an opinion is only valid for the male himself as applied to his body.

Finally:

There is an obvious double standard. Girls may not have their healthy genitals cut for any reason. Boys may have their healthy genitals cut for any reason. That’s the valid comparison.

That’s not even correct. Try getting a surgeon to perform a glansectomy on a healthy boy. Or castrate him. Or perform any number of other surgeries on his genitals. He or she will refuse. Most such surgeries are a net harm (except when actually needed, in which case the benefits are considerably greater, thus making them a net benefit), and cannot therefore be ethically performed. Circumcision is unusual precisely because it is a surgery which is neutral or (depending who you ask) a net benefit. And that’s why the reason for a specific circumcision doesn’t really matter.

I think it’s obvious that my declarative statement about genital cutting implied “as it’s commonly practiced in Western society,” which would preclude intentional glansectomy, for example. Moving on.

What Jake omits here is telling. Circumcision is neutral or a net benefit, according to him. He’s ruled out that prophylactic infant circumcision can be a net harm, the glaring mistake in his analysis.

A male who suffers a serious complication from circumcision would unquestionably qualify as experiencing a net harm. That risk is inherent in every circumcision. But leaving that aside, a “normal” circumcision has results. Evaluating those results, even if just on a cosmetic level, is a subjective process. There is no correct, objective way to evaluate a change, which is what circumcision is. All tastes and preferences are subjective to the individual. Even a preference regarding the potential health benefits of circumcision. The possibility of “No, thank you” is why infant circumcision is unethical.

¹ I am no less opposed to ritual infant circumcision. Discussing it in depth here would be a distraction. For a primer on my opinion, see here.

Hanna Rosin Is Still Wrong On Circumcision, Revisited

Hanna Rosin returns with another apologia showing her determination to remain blind to the ethics against infant circumcision.

… But now that I have done my homework, I’m sure I would do it again—even if I were not Jewish, didn’t believe in ritual, and judged only by cold, secular science.

First, interviewing and/or reading the websites of Edgar Schoen and Brian Morris is not doing one’s homework. They are pro-circumcision advocates who promote bizarre theories. Two of them appear nearly verbatim in Rosin’s essay.

On the larger point, she’s mistaken. Cold, secular science demonstrates that an infant male’s foreskin is healthy. Intervention is not indicated. The cold, secular science she refers to replaces ethics with utilitarian conclusions devoid of any concern for the child’s opinion. This is inexcusable where proxy consent is involved for a medically unnecessary surgical intervention.

There’s a lot of nonsense in this next paragraph, so I’ll unpack it slowly:

Every year, it seems, a new study confirms that the foreskin is pretty much like the appendix or the wisdom tooth—it is an evolutionary footnote that serves no purpose other than to incubate infections. …

No. Every year, it seems, a new study confirms that there is some other potential benefit to be chased for a minor risk. Very few studies have been done on whether or not the foreskin is an “evolutionary footnote that serves no purpose other than to incubate infections.” This is her bias creeping in. She doesn’t value the male foreskin, so it must have no value. This despite the clear evidence that the foreskin contains nerve endings, among the many facts that disprove her opinion. It’s an illogical avoidance of the issue involved. Only the individual can draw a subjective conclusion for himself such as the one Rosin presents.

… There’s no single overwhelming health reason to remove it, but there are a lot of smaller health reasons that add up. …

Again, this is her subjective evaluation because the boy’s health is the only objective fact involved.

… It’s not critical that any individual boy get circumcised. …

She ignores the idea of the child as an autonomous person with basic individual rights. The excuse will be the collective, which I’ll dismantle momentarily.

… For the growing number of people who feel hysterical at the thought, just don’t do it. …

This is the usual trope: If you don’t like circumcision, don’t circumcise your son(s). That dismisses the individual in favor of the notion that his parents’ have ownership interests in this part of their ~~child’s~~ son’s body. For the male who doesn’t want to be circumcised, his opinion is correct for his body. If he was healthy at the time of his circumcision, proxy consent was invalid. He can’t undo his parents’ decision (for their own subjective reasons).

… But don’t ruin it for the rest of us. …

Rosin is digging deeper into her self-absorbed approach to this topic, further proving the ownership mentality necessary for her stance to appear viable.

… It’s perfectly clear that on a grand public-health level, the more boys who get circumcised, the better it is for everyone.

It’s perfectly clear that on a grand public-health level, the more males who get circumcised, the better it is for everyone if our HIV epidemic ever begins to resemble the African epidemic relevant to the randomized controlled trials involving adult male volunteers that showed a reduction in the risk of female-to-male vaginal transmission. But the usual caveats apply. America’s HIV situation differs from Africa’s. STD transmission requires sexual activity, which excludes male minors from the target group. All other potential health benefits from infant male circumcision involve only risks to the individual and are not relevant to the collective public health angle Rosin peddles here.

Twenty years ago, this would have been a boring, obvious thing to say, like feed your baby rice cereal before bananas, or don’t smoke while pregnant. These days, in certain newly enlightened circles on the East and West Coasts, it puts you in league with Josef Mengele. Late this summer, when the New York Times reported that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control might consider promoting routine circumcision as a tool in the fight against AIDS, the vicious comments that ensued included references to mass genocide.

People who suggest mass genocide are idiots, but the ethical point stands. Without ethics, the cold, secular science Rosin presents would permit any number of offensive interventions. What could we study about cutting the genitals of adult female volunteers that we could then apply to healthy female minors at the request of their parents? How is that offensive suggestion suddenly rational when changing the gender from female to male?

There’s no use arguing with the anti-circ activists, who only got through the headline of this story before hunting down my e-mail and offering to pay for me to be genitally mutilated. …

This is ad hominem. I haven’t hunted down her e-mail. I’m not suggesting that she be genitally mutilated. Instead, I’m offering a logical, fact-based rebuttal to her personal opinions about what she wants the facts to be.

… But for those in the nervous middle, here is my best case for why you should do it. Biologists think the foreskin plays a critical role in the womb, protecting the penis as it is growing during the third month of gestation. Outside the womb, the best guess is that it once kept the penis safe from, say, low-hanging thorny branches. Nowadays, we have pants for that.

I’ve seen it before from Brian Morris¹, but I thought Rosin would be a bit less ridiculous. Instead, she repeats it as logic, as her best case, rather than dismissing it for the obvious nonsense it is. If the evolutionary purpose of the foreskin was to protect the penis from, say, low-hanging thorny branches, it’s purpose is not suddenly irrelevant because we wear pants. The foreskin’s purpose is to protect the penis, full stop. What it protects the penis from is a matter of circumstance particular to each male’s life, not the level of civilization of his time.

After rehashing some of the last 140 years of circumcision history, this:

… Circumcision, it turns out, could reduce the risk of HIV transmission by at least 60 percent, which, in Africa, adds up to 3 million lives saved over the next twenty years. …

Condoms, it turns out, could reduce the risk of HIV transmission by nearly 100%.

To the ethics, she omits that the studies involved adult volunteers. She hasn’t made the ethical case for why circumcision should be forced on non-sexually active infants.

These studies are not entirely relevant to the U.S. They apply only to female-to-male transmission, which is relatively rare here. But the results are so dramatic that people who work in AIDS prevention can’t ignore them. Daniel Halperin, an AIDS expert at the Harvard School of Public Health, has compared various countries, and the patterns are obvious. In a study of 28 nations, he found that low circumcision rates (fewer than 20 percent) match up with high HIV rates, and vice versa. Similar patterns are turning up in the U.S. as well. A team of researchers from the CDC and Johns Hopkins analyzed records of over 26,000 heterosexual African-American men who showed up at a Baltimore clinic for HIV testing and denied any drug use or homosexual contact. Among those with known HIV exposure, the ones who did turn ou
t to be HIV-positive were twice as likely to be uncircumcised. There’s no causal relationship here; foreskin does not cause HIV transmission. But researchers guess that foreskins are more susceptible to sores, and also have a high concentration of certain immune cells that are the main portals for HIV infection.

But the results are so dramatic that we must apparently discard our rational minds and circumcise infants to prevent a disease from spreading in the U.S. in a way that it doesn’t generally spread now. We must do this because researchers are guessing, and look, we have self-reported anecdotal data to rely on. She’s proven nothing by citing this.

Regarding the study of 28 nations, which 28 nations did Halperin choose? I can pick a group of countries that will show the opposite. The real problem is behavior, not anatomy. Rosin admits as much, indirectly, when she states that the foreskin does not cause HIV transmission. Remember, correlation does not equal causation.

Then there are a host of other diseases that range from rare and deadly to ruin your life to annoying. Australian physicians give a decent summary: “STIs such as carcinogenic types of human papillomavirus (HPV), genital herpes, HIV, syphilis and chancroid, thrush, cancer of the penis, and most likely cancer of the prostate, phimosis, paraphimosis, inflammatory skin conditions such as balanoposthitis, inferior hygiene, sexual problems, especially with age and diabetes, and, in the female partners, HPV, cervical cancer, HSV-2, and chlamydia, which is an important cause of infertility.” The percentages vary in each case, but it’s clear that the foreskin is a public-health menace.

This is the “something may go wrong” theory mixed with the “we can do this, so it must be ethical” non-standard employed in Rosin’s cold, secular science. It’s devoid of any context for how common those risks are, differences between minors and adults, risk factors and possible prevention and treatment options. The whole thing is a diversion, completed with the shameless fear-mongering of “the foreskin is a public-health menace.”

This mundane march of health statistics has a hard time competing with the opposite side, which is fighting for something they see as fundamental: a right not to be messed with, a freedom from control, and a general sense of wholeness. For many circumcision opponents, preventive surgery is a bizarre, dystopian disruption. …

Yes, because the opposite side is grounded in reason and objective facts. I’ve made the case extensively why this is true. Rosin has yet to show why this is false (in any of her attempts).

… I can only say that in public health, preventive surgery is pretty common—appendix and wisdom teeth, for example. …

Remember, she’s established her case for preventive medicine on the idea that the foreskin has no purpose, which is false. There’s also recent evidence suggesting the “unnecessary” appendix has a function, proving that cold, secular science is always learning more. And she’s demanded that we accept infant circumcision as a matter of public health, yet has provided no legitimate public health risks requiring infant circumcision. Phimosis, for example, is not a public health risk in any way. (It doesn’t automatically require circumcision, either.)

Sexual pleasure comes up a lot. Opponents of circumcision often mention studies of “penile sensitivity regions,” showing the foreskin to be the most sensitive. But erotic experience is a rich and complicated affair, and surely can’t be summed up by nerve endings or friction or “sensitivity regions.” More-nuanced studies have shown that men who were circumcised as adults report a decrease in sexual satisfaction when they were forced into it, because of an illness, and an increase when they did it of their own will. In a study of Kenyan men who volunteered for circumcision, 64 percent reported their penis to be “much more sensitive” and their ease of reaching orgasm much greater two years after the operation. In a similar study, Ugandan women reported a 40 percent increase in sexual satisfaction after their partners were circumcised. Go figure. Surely this is more psychology than science.

This paragraph supports my contention that the value of circumcision is subjective to the individual, meaning the decision should be left to the individual who will live with the results, not his parents who invoke their own subjective preferences.

People who oppose circumcision are animated by a kind of rage and longing that seems larger than the thing itself. Websites are filled with testimonies from men who believe their lives were ruined by the operation they had as an infant. I can only conclude that it wasn’t the cutting alone that did the ruining. An East Bay doctor who came out for circumcision recently wrote about having visions of tiny foreskins rising up in revenge at him, clogging the freeways. I see what he means. The foreskin is the new fetus—the object that has been imbued with magical powers to halt a merciless, violent world—a world that is particularly callous to children. The notion resonates in a moment when parents are especially overprotective, and fantasy death panels loom. It’s all very visual and compelling—like the sight of your own newborn son with the scalpel looming over him. But it isn’t the whole truth.

She’s speculating about motive in a way that borders on a return to ad hominem. It all circles back to her self-absorbed, “don’t ruin it for us” mentality. She likes circumcision so I am mistaken in being angry about surgery performed on my healthy infant body. Society would’ve rejected that parental choice on the ethical stance I’ve established, if only I’d been born a girl. By now it’s clear that Hanna Rosin has no intention of doing anything more than working backwards from her conclusion, avoiding the facts that challenge her opinion. That’s something, but it’s not the case against the case against circumcision the title of her essay promises.

¹ I’m not interested in providing Morris a direct link for search engine purposes. Read his speculation here: http://www.circinfo.net/why_are_human_males_born_with_a_foreskin.html

Nancy McDermott Is Wrong On Circumcision

In replying to an essay against infant circumcision by Ethan Epstein at Spiked, Nancy McDermott attempts to defend parental proxy consent for routine infant male circumcision. She is mistaken.

The main problem with The Circumcision Discussion in general, and with Ethan Epstein’s article in particular, is the appeal to Science with a capital S to validate what is essentially a personal decision for parents. There isn’t really overwhelming evidence for or against infant circumcision, which makes this issue quite unambiguously a matter of preference, and more so than some other issues such as breastfeeding or vaccination where the scienctific research is abundant.

There is overwhelming scientific evidence against infant circumcision: the boy is healthy. Surgery on that healthy person is only unambiguously a matter of preference if the healthy person makes the decision for himself. It is not a valid personal decision for parents to make for their healthy children, male or female.

A good blogger would stop here because McDermott’s case is already refuted. But there’s more to say. Effectively, McDermott advocates using science without the capital E of Ethics. Would we entertain a discussion of whether or not removing the breast bud’s of female minors is a valid parental decision because it might reduce her risk of breast cancer? Of course not. Yet, we abandon such critical thinking because circumcision has a long history. We ignore that science without ethics encourages us to choose the science we prefer while ignoring objective reality. Again, the child is healthy. He needs no intervention. Therefore, the child’s human rights are involved, even when medical intervention is indicated. As discussed here it is the ~~primary~~ sole issue because the child is healthy. McDermott’s argument is the usual sophistry unleashed to defend genital cutting on male children as a parental right, despite the lack of need and demand that we only extend this right to their children of one gender.

She continues:

But that hasn’t stopped Epstein from trying to use Science to support what is essentially his own particular set of prejudices. In the end, his attack on infant circumcision is not based so much on evidence but rather on a degraded notion of personal autonomy that is contemptuous of parents and reduces the whole parent/child relationship to the matter of a few inches of skin.

Defining the foreskin down as “a few inches of skin” indicates a particular set of prejudices. Defining surgery as a relationship tactic indicates a particular set of prejudices, as well.

As for being contemptuous of parents, I am. When parents engage in contemptible behavior, I will call their behavior contemptible. Since it’s always worth repeating in this discussion, the child is healthy. Performing surgery on him (or her) for the parents’ subjective reasons is unethical because it violates a basic human rights principle: Performing medically unnecessary surgery on a non-consenting person is wrong. Where facts differ from any of the conditions involved in that principle, the discussion changes to proxy consent. But circumcision as understood in this essay involves all of the facts involved in the principle. Proxy consent is not valid.

Referring to Epstein’s essay, McDermott continues (footnote removed):

Take for instance his attempt to establish – or rather to assert – that male infant circumcision is on a par with ‘female circumcision’. It’s a comparison that defies even a basic familiarity with human anatomy. ‘Female circumcision’, or Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) as it is usually called, involves the removal of some or all of a woman’s external genitalia and is associated with side effects like intense pain, infection, haemorrhaging, infertility and urinary incontinence. Comparable surgery in a man would involve the removal of most of the penis and the scrotum. But male circumcision as it is currently practiced consists of the removal of the foreskin and nothing else. Statistically it is a very safe procedure with few complications (in some cases, there may be minor bleeding or a local infection).

The moral equivalency exists because medically unnecessary surgery on a non-consenting person is wrong. Gender is irrelevant. Extent of damage is irrelevant. The World Health Organization defines female genital mutilation as “procedures that intentionally alter or injure female genital organs for non-medical reasons.” The intent is generally different between male circumcision in America and female genital cutting in other cultures, but a well-intentioned act can still be objectively harmful. Outcome matters. And male circumcision meets the definition applied to female genital cutting, since the male child’s genitals are intentionally altered for non-medical reasons.” There is usually a difference in degree, but there is no difference in kind.

Given that male genital cutting matches the definition applied to female genital cutting, it’s crucial to explore how McDermott is under-informed about FGM. As it’s typically practiced, it involves removal of some or all of a female’s external genitalia. But FGM is defined to include “all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, e.g. pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterizing the genital area.” These (less commonly practiced) forms are similar in enough ways to male circumcision to make the point. Parents who force it on their daughters often give similar subjective reasons for both procedures. Yet, our anti-FGM laws make no distinction for extent of cutting or personal preference involved in the parents’ decision. The focus is on the autonomy (and health) of the minor, which is where the focus should be.

Yet, it’s easier to explain why McDermott is wrong. How does she arrive at the implied conclusion that removing a male child’s foreskin is not “the removal of some or all” of his external genitalia? Implicitly (and incorrectly) positing that the foreskin and its removal are trivial isn’t enough. She ignores the truth that, as surgery, circumcision is harm. Instead, she relies on self-reporting studies that she believes support her stance (footnote omitted):

Epstein doesn’t do much better when he tries to show evidence for psychological trauma and sexual dysfunction as a result of circumcision. He relies on a 2002 paper written by self-proclaimed ‘intactivists’ which indicates that some men enjoy sex less after circumcision. Had he more objectively investigated what he says is ‘quite evidentially true’, he might have come across any number of studies that show the opposite. My favourite is a large-scale study from 2008 (with over 4,500 participants) in which an overwhelming majority of Kenyan men reported no difference in sexual satisfaction or function after their circumcisions.

What is incompatible in comparing a study that indicates some men enjoy sex less after circumcision and a study that shows an overwhelming majority of men reported no difference? “Some men” and “overwhelming majority” are both synonymous with “less than 100%” for the purposes of the ethical discussion of medically-unnecessary child circumcision. Some males will not be happy being circumcised. I am not. Some men will suffer more than the standard, “acceptable” damage. The issue is about an individual right, not a right based on parental desires.

Continuing:

It is striking that midway through Epstein’s article the CDC’s proposal to ‘promote’ infant circumcision mysteriously transforms into a plan to ‘m
andate’ infant circumcision. This is not a slip and it’s not just that Epstein has got his facts wrong (although he has). …

I’ll pause here to make the point that I am not defending Epstein’s article. Were I to write about it, I’d call out the same flaw McDermott notes about the CDC’s intentions, as I wrote when the CDC news stories broke in August.

… Rather he makes this change in terminology because he isn’t really talking about the CDC at all any more. He’s talking about parents. For anti-circumcision activists, all infant circumcision is mandated in the sense that infants do not consent to it.

Exactly.

In what seems an attempt to defend her indifference to what the boy doesn’t need and may not want, her next paragraph demonstrates how she’s failed to grasp this fundamental aspect of the ethical case against infant circumcision.

On one level Epstein is right. It is of course impossible for an infant to consent to anything, and parents make decisions large and small on behalf of their children all the time. Some of these decisions affect their future and many are far more difficult than the question of whether or not to have your infant circumcised.

That some decisions parents make are “far more difficult” does not validate parental proxy for infant male circumcision.

In the second excerpt above, McDermott mentions the parent/child relationship. This inevitably leads to a mistake that advocates of infant circumcision, or at least of parental choice, make. McDermott is no different:

Many of the choices we make as parents profoundly affect our children. But when we look back at our own lives it is often things that didn’t concern us directly at all that had the greatest impact – things like parents’ decision to divorce, to change jobs, or to emigrate. As children we rarely have any say and yet we manage to adapt and often to flourish. One of the major reasons we are able to develop this resilience is because we can depend on our parents. It is the parent/child relationship – each one unique and dynamic, a complex mix of love and trust, and mutually crazy-making – that creates the sense of inner confidence that helps us learn shape our own destinies.

By counterpoising the ‘personal autonomy’ of an infant to the judgment of his parents, Epstein and others who campaign against circumcision reduce the relationship between parents and their sons to one moment; a moment that forever defines the child as victim and the parent as victimiser regardless even of what the boy himself thinks about it later in his life. Once a victim, always a victim.

McDermott’s shift from discussing the parent-child relationship to the parent-son relationship reveals the flaw in her thinking. There’s a key distinction because she talks in generalities to establish parental authority before shifting to a specific case in which she omits a gender from consideration to reach her preferred outcome. If parents have a right to choose that is superior to the personal autonomy and health of their sons, that same right exists superior to the personal autonomy and health of their daughters. She rejects objective health and risks in favor of subjective decisions by parents for their sons, yet accepts objective health and risks as a defense against subjective decisions by parents for their daughters. That right doesn’t exist, but if it did, she’s being contemptuous of the parents of daughters because she refuses to let them exercise their right. She’d deny that, but regardless, it’s clear she started with her preferred outcome and worked her way backwards to find only the relevant facts she needed.

She concludes:

There are all sorts of reasons why parents do or don’t circumcise their sons. For some it is the embodiment of their faith, for others it is simply custom. For some the thought of subjecting their child to any unnecessary pain or alteration is unacceptable. The important point is that the choice takes place within the context of the parent-child relationship. ….

Again, the choice she’s defending takes place between the parent-son relationship. She’s established this separate category, incorrectly as I’ve shown, without offering an explanation for why this is legitimately a separate category beyond an incorrect assumption that the removal of some or all of a female minor’s external genitalia is offensive in a way that removal of some or all of a male minor’s external genitalia is supposedly not.

…The CDC is not, as Epstein implies, planning to circumcise every male infant in the United States, but the change in its recommendation, just like every other official pronouncement about the right way to raise children, should be greeted with scepticism. Not because, as Epstein argues, it might lead parents to make a wrong choice, but because it questions their right to make choices in the first place.

Somehow I suspect she doesn’t believe we should be skeptical about the official pronouncement (i.e. a law) from the United States Congress criminalizing the parental “right” to choose female genital mutilation. But we are not to question the parental right to make that choice for sons, with circumstances and reasoning explicitly rejected for female minors. Her essay is a self-absorbed excuse for parents and their made-up right to impose their whims based on irrational traditions and willful ignorance.

Hanna Rosin Is Still Mistaken On Circumcision

Hanna Rosin summarizes the responses to her circumcision post from yesterday “into three basic categories”:

1. How can we do this to a child without his consent? There are so many things we do to children without their consent – change their school, banish their friends, give them drugs, abandon and neglect them. Removing a foreskin should not even fall in the top 20 ways to ruin your child’s life.

Right, ethics. She again fails to address this valid concern. Stating that “X is worse than Y” grants no legitimacy to Y.

2. “Foreskins are, well, fun,” writes one gay reader. My authority here is obviously limited. That said, all that research of specific areas of male sensitivity (Andrew cites some here) has always struck me as dubious. Erotic pleasure is a rich and complicated thing. Specific percentages of sensitivity can’t possibly sum up the experience.

Those last two sentences are true. Yet, she’s said nothing in defense of infant circumcision with either statement. Even if she’d explained why the research of specific areas of male sensitivity strikes her as dubious, what would that prove about infant circumcision? An extension of the ethical argument she’s failed to confront involves each individual deciding what constitutes preferred pleasure and sensitivity from and for his normal body. Erotic pleasure is a rich and complicated thing unique to the individual. Specific percentages of sensitivity evaluated by another can’t possibly sum up the experience for the individual.

3.Preventative surgery is a “bizarre notion.” This is somewhat more convincing. But for one thing, “surgery” is a bit of an exaggeration. We certainly cause infants minor pain for the greater public good many times, in the form of vaccines. It depends, I suppose, whether you consider HIV and STD’s a widespread public health crisis, or something affecting only a very few. I could get into the specifics of the research here, but I won’t.

Why is surgery in quotes? It is not an exaggeration to call circumcision surgery. Even her source from yesterday’s article, WebMD, defines circumcision as “the surgical removal of the foreskin, the tissue covering the head of the penis.” If there is a risk of death, no matter how small, circumcision is surgery. Her statement suggests a lack of curiosity on the subject for anything beyond what she wants to believe.

The vaccine argument is interesting and related. However, circumcision is the (surgical) removal of healthy, functioning tissue. The associated pain is a separate, secondary aspect for consideration. Our ability to control pain and its temporary presence are not defenses for performing the offending surgical procedure. Controlling pain does not render the intervention humane.

Nor are a boy’s genitals subject to the alleged needs of the public good. STDs require specific, individual actions. Those are actions that infants will not be undertaking for many years. When they begin engaging in those actions, they must use condoms, regardless of whether or not they still have their foreskin. Conveniently, a condom’s effectiveness is considerably higher than that of circumcision.

On the specifics of the research, it would be useful for her to state them. I’ll probably agree with her. It’s not necessary, though, because the discussion must circle back to ethics because she’s advocating circumcision on healthy infants, not adult volunteers. What we can do is not synonymous with what we should do.

**********

I didn’t include this in my objection yesterday because it disappears as an issue once we get the question of infant circumcision correct, but it’s an interesting point to pursue because a willingness to comprehend circumcision from perspective of the child’s rights is essential to ultimately grasping why circumcision is wrong. From her entry today:

…, my post defending circumcision taps into the current fears about “big government trying to mandate certain types of medical procedures,” as one reader wrote in.

As a circumcised male, why do I care whether circumcision is mandated by the government or merely by my parents? The result – forced circumcision – is the same for me. Basically, Rosin engages in the “if you don’t like circumcision, don’t circumcise your son” defense. This is wrong. The case against circumcision centers on the boy as a (healthy) human being, not the boy as a son of parents making a choice.

Because… HIV!

It’s easy to talk about “public health” as if we’re all in one giant collective, with the same needs and desires. But that’s not true. We are each an individual, with specific, unique considerations. It is foolish to pretend that one approach is sufficient for everyone. It is offensive to behave as though the recipient of that one approach is irrelevant to whether or not it should be applied. Consider:

Public health officials [at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] are considering promoting routine circumcision for all baby boys born in the United States to reduce the spread of H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS.

The article is little more than the latest 6th Grade Current Events drivel churned out from the New York Times’ “Promote Infant Male Circumcision” template. Guess where the author/editor placed this paragraph in the story:

Circumcision is believed to protect men from infection with H.I.V. because …

The paragraph demonstrating that scientists do not yet understand how circumcision is supposed to reduce the risk of female-to-male HIV transmission should probably appear early, before the committed sentiments from those wishing to transfer the findings on adult volunteers in Africa to infant non-volunteers in America. Yet, it’s the last paragraph in the article. 916 words precede the significant fact that advocates do not yet know the relevant fact to support what they now wish to force on children.

Unsurprisingly, the word ethics appears nowhere in the article. The mere suggestion of potential benefits, despite the irrefutable fact that they are not needed and the high probability that they would not be desired, is enough to take pro-infant circumcision advocates seriously when the logic of basic human rights and medical ethics demands that we dismiss them from polite company. Instead, this passes for “serious”:

But Dr. Peter Kilmarx, chief of epidemiology for the division of H.I.V./AIDS prevention at the C.D.C., said that any step that could thwart the spread of H.I.V. must be given serious consideration.

“We have a significant H.I.V. epidemic in this country, and we really need to look carefully at any potential intervention that could be another tool in the toolbox we use to address the epidemic,” Dr. Kilmarx said. “What we’ve heard from our consultants is that there would be a benefit for infants from infant circumcision, and that the benefits outweigh the risks.”

Does “any potential intervention” have any ethical limitation? Removing the boy’s penis would surely solve the transmission problem. Is that acceptable?

I am, of course, being intentionally ludicrous. Removing a boy’s penis is not what Dr. Kilmarx is suggesting. Yet, he is promoting a mentality that how he fears HIV and values prevention is the only acceptable approach. Therefore, any intervention he deems appropriate must be appropriate. Because… HIV!

It will not work, for several key reasons, all easily identifiable and critical to the process:

He and other experts acknowledged that although the clinical trials of circumcision in Africa had dramatic results, the effects of circumcision in the United States were likely to be more muted because the disease is less prevalent here, because it spreads through different routes and because the health systems are so disparate as to be incomparable.
…

There is little to no evidence that circumcision protects men who have sex with men from infection.

Another reason circumcision would have less of an impact in the United States is that some 79 percent of adult American men are already circumcised, public health officials say.

Add to that the reality that any infant male circumcised today to ~~prevent~~ reduce his (already low) risk of HIV will not be sexually active until approximately 2024 or beyond. When he is sexually active, he’ll still need to wear a condom. Circumcision will have added nothing to his life as an HIV prevention. It’s success, however limited it would be, depends upon the male behaving irresponsibly. An assumption that a boy will be irresponsible is not a valid justification for the surgical removal of a healthy, functioning body part.

Yet, that basic human right – the same right accepted and codified for female minors – is denied to male minors for nonsensical reasons:

The academy is revising its guidelines, however, and is likely to do away with the neutral tone in favor of a more encouraging policy stating that circumcision has health benefits even beyond H.I.V. prevention, like reducing urinary tract infections for baby boys, said Dr. Michael Brady, a consultant to the American Academy of Pediatrics.

He said the academy would probably stop short of recommending routine surgery, however. “We do have evidence to suggest there are health benefits, and families should be given an opportunity to know what they are,” he said. But, he said, the value of circumcision for H.I.V. protection in the United States is difficult to assess, adding, “Our biggest struggle is trying to figure out how to understand the true value for Americans.”

This is the coward’s path¹. They won’t recommend it, but they’ll tell parents it’s really wonderful and prevents all these scary things. They’ll dismiss the risks and ethics involved, and they’ll ignore the statistics in context. For UTIs, the statistics show that all males, circumcised and intact combined, face approximately a 1% risk of UTI in the first year of life. The majority of those UTIs are easily treated without circumcision. Those that are not are generally caused by anatomical abnormalities, not the presence of the normal foreskin. [ed. note: Links when I can find them. It’s late.]

But none of that matters to those who believe that parents should decide what is best for their family regarding their son’s foreskin. We don’t extend this appalling idea that the family owns the foreskins of its sons to the genitals of its daughters. No, a female minor’s genitals belong to her, regardless of the parents’ opinions. That’s critical in displaying the hypocrisy and cultural blinders because the advocates are only discussing opinion. They’ve established a perceived value to non-therapeutic male circumcision. They’ve endorsed that with the power of their titles to those parents who want to believe the same illogical conclusion. Because they value it, they can’t conceive that the healthy child who will be surgically altered could possibly mind. He wants it, don’t you know, because dad likes it and mom likes it and what if his classmates laugh at him or girls won’t have sex with him? He needs to have less to be enough. And because… HIV! That he could conclude that non-therapeutic circumcision performed on him as an infant is mutilation is inconceivable. The person who believes that is allegedly the fringe lunatic who rejects the public health. Because… HIV!

To the CDC: My non-therapeutic circumcision as an infant was mutilation. My parents had no legitimate authority to request it. The doctor had no legitimate authority to perform it. I do not value circumcision for me. I never will, no matter how much your unethical experts tell me I should. I have never and will never need any HIV risk reduction because I do not engage in unsafe sex. Should I encounter any of the other medical maladies discussed in relation to circumcision, I will prefer the least-invasive effective treatment available. I believe in evidence-based medicine, particularly the simple-to-understand truth that healthy genitals are evidence that no surgical intervention is ethical on a child. Not even on the genitals of American boys.

¹ It is also why appeals to the authority of an organization like the AAP are unwise. They may present a (barely) acceptable tone today, but tomorrow is always a new day to be irration
al.

Uganda Epidemic != United States Epidemic

I’m slow getting to this story, but the United States loves irrational fears when it comes to the foreskin, so it’s still as relevant today. A re-evaluation of one of the studies used to claim that (voluntary, adult) male circumcision reduces the risk of female-to-male HIV transmission suggests that (voluntary, adult) male circumcision reduces the risk of herpes transmission by 25% and HPV transmission by 30%.

To the extent that adult males want to volunteer for these reasons, so be it. Everyone is entitled to his own decision. Personally, I’d rely on safe sex, not surgery. But that’s not how the data are being used in the U.S. Here, it’s predictably OMG 25% 30% OMG YOUR SON IS GONNA DIE A SAD HORRIBLE PAINFUL DEATH IF YOU DON’T CIRCUMCISE HIM BEFORE HE HITS THE DOCTORS HANDS IN THE DELIVERY ROOM OMG! OH AND WOMEN PREFER CIRCUMCISED PENISES WINKWINK. From one of the researchers involved:

Dr Judith Wasserheit went on to say: “All providers who care for pregnant women and infants have a responsibility to assure that mothers and fathers know that circumcision could help protect their sons from the three most common and most serious viral sexually transmitted infections, all of which cannot currently be cured.”

Again, notice how easily Dr. Wasserheit dropped voluntary and adult from the study’s results. If voluntary, adult circumcision was enough to protect the men involved in the study, surely the exact same is capable of protecting American males. Maybe she wants to suggest that the American STD situation is more dire than the situation in Uganda to justify dropping voluntary or adult?

But to her point, all providers for infants have a responsibility to assure that mothers and fathers know the objective status of their son’s foreskin health. Almost always that will mean a statement that no intervention is indicated or warranted. There is no defensible reason to impose surgical risks for a surgery that is a) not needed and b) can be postponed until the child can choose. That was the ethical standard applied in the study. American public health officials have not explained why American infant males should be provided fewer ethical protections.

As the BBC journalist shows, it’s possible to find different views. First, the key point that everyone forgets in the hysteria:

The reason why a foreskin might increase the risk of infection with various viruses is unclear.

Whatever the data reflect, this should not be forgotten. It’s reasonable to consider the possibility that there is a methodological flaw, for example. What if improper controls existed? What if the timeline was too short? This should not be ruled out, which further highlights the already clear ethical flaw in pushing these results as an excuse to circumcise infant males. And what if the mechanism suggests that some level of female genital cutting would also reduce risks? Would the current advocates endorse that research, or are findings like the current re-evaluated study merely a solution in search of problems?

Dr Colm O’Mahony, a sexual health expert from the Countess of Chester Foundation Trust Hospital in Chester, said the US had an “obsession” with circumcision being the answer to controlling sexually transmitted infections.

He said: “Sure, a dry skinned penis is a bit less likely to contract HIV, herpes and possibly genital warts but it will get infected eventually.”

That’s what I mean by a flaw in the timeline. If a male has unprotected sex – the only way circumcision could provide protection – with HIV-positive females, he will become infected. The choices are condoms/monogamy/circumcision or condoms/monogamy. Circumcision is superfluous and unnecessary, so infant circumcision is indefensible.

Keith Alcorn, from the HIV information service NAM, also warned against a knee jerk reaction.

He said: “We have to be careful not to take evidence from one part of the world and apply it uncritically to others.

Given the U.S. reaction, it’s too late for that.

“Male circumcision will have little impact on HIV risk for boys born in the UK, where the risk of acquiring HIV heterosexually is very low.

The same applies to the United States.

Linkfest

LINK: Think government ~~manipulation of~~ intervention in the economy is good? Read George Will’s latest column. (H/t: Cafe Hayek)

LINK: Jim Harper has an entry on Cato @ Liberty discussing President Obama’s pledge to post all bills for 5 days of public comment before signing them. Mr. Harper reviews the steps the administration has taken and offers a positive review of the idea, although he correctly criticizes the administration for playing loosely with the 5 day timeline.

I agree with that in principle, but that’s not my concern here. The deficit spending bill mistakenly labeled The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is now online for public comment. I thought about adding comments, but why? I’m realistic enough to understand that what I say will not matter. It will not matter how many people comment against it, this is a done deal. The five days concept as implemented is worthless political propaganda. Honestly, if members of Congress can’t be bothered to read the bill, yet they’ll happily vote by party line, they don’t care what the American people think. They’re trading favors for power. The game hasn’t changed. So, wake me when this fails and tell me what the next stupid idea is.

LINK: I reject non-therapeutic infant circumcision because it is logically and ethically unacceptable. I question the science surrounding claims, particularly those involving HIV risk reduction, because there are obvious holes in the argument. However, unlike (too) many activists, I have no problem with vaccines. I think the logical and ethical arguments differ, and I don’t believe in conspiracy theories about Big Pharma. And from what I’ve read, the autism-vaccine link appears weak, at best. This report seems to confirm that (link via Kevin, MD):

THE doctor who sparked the scare over the safety of the MMR vaccine for children changed and misreported results in his research, creating the appearance of a possible link with autism, a Sunday Times investigation has found.

I would use this as a lesson for everyone who thinks that a claimed HIV risk reduction for (adult, voluntary) male circumcision need to be concerned about the long-term reality of their idea. I think we will eventually look back on the HIV-foreskin connection and realize the mistakes in the studies. But I do not approach the topic from that angle. I don’t need it, of course. I can concede the point for the argument and rely on ethics and objective indications of health and easier methods prevention.

For now, it’s too late anyway. The link has gained widespread acceptance because people want to believe it, regardless of facts or reasonable caution. The mindset is the same, as this excerpt from Orac’s post at Respectful Insolence suggests. (I read the post, but there’s too much to parse easily, so I’m using the summary pulled by Kevin, MD.)

“None of this will matter to antivaccinationists,” he writes, “who view Wakefield as . . . a persecuted scientific hero . . . I’m sure that [anti-vaccine proponents] will wax ridiculous about what a great doctor and man Wakefield is and how it’s big pharma and its minions who, frightened by the implications of Wakefield’s work, are working hard to demonize him and suppress his ‘science.'”

When emotion precedes logic in an objective debate, reason is lost. That would be unfortunate but defensible if it only affected the decision maker. It does not. The individual fears of parents results in poorly conceived decisions for children. Vaccinate but circumcise. Don’t vaccinate and don’t circumcise. Neither combination is justifiable when weighing the evidence with logic and ethics.

LINK: To lighten things up just a bit, will the Mets never learn?

“Whatever they did last year, they already got paid,” [Francisco] Rodriguez told the New York Daily News. Whatever they did, I have all the respect in the world. They worked hard and they deserve it. This is a different year and different ballclubs now. I don’t want to make any controversy, but with me and (J.J.) Putz and the additions in the bullpen, I feel like now we are the team to beat.”

K-Rod should ask Carlos Beltran how that worked out last year. However, I love this rivalry.

Could government stimulus buy everyone a pony?

When media outlets publish scientific findings, do they behave responsibly or do they adhere to sensationalism? From CNN, this headline:

Could smoking pot raise testicular cancer risk?

As the article states in the lede, the study’s researchers have not moved beyond describing this as a “hypothesis”. How many people will read the just the headline and conclude that smoking marijuana leads to testicular cancer? The last few years of reporting on HIV and male circumcision has shown that people get carried away with fear despite the clear contradictions to the worst case scenario that rational thought provides. A responsible headline would say something like, “Researchers theorize marijuana-testicular cancer link”. That’s weak, I think, but it’s closer to the truth.

Notice, too, how the headline states “testicular cancer risk” rather than “risk of testicular cancer”. People who react with fear rather than reason will stop reading after “cancer”. Like HIV and male circumcision in America, few bother to examine the risk.

Testicular cancer is not common; a man’s lifetime chance of developing testicular cancer is about 1 in 300. Because treatment is so successful, the risk of dying from this cancer is very low: about 1 in 5,000.

But, CANCER! Now the prohibitionists will use another tactic, despite an obvious argument:

For patients using cannabis for medicinal purposes, the improvement in quality of life may outweigh any potential risk of testicular cancer, said [UCLA professor Steve] Shoptaw.

I’d shorten that to state that anyone who smokes marijuana might judge the improvement in quality of life may outweigh any potential risk of testicular cancer. All tastes and preferences are subjective. Individual liberty requires that we set aside our moral disfavor when making laws for any activity that does not intrude on the liberty of another individual. If you smoke pot, you are not harming me in a tangible way. Even if you increase your risk of testicular cancer. Contrary to the prohibitionists, the risk of being offended is irrelevant.