Pros and cons of circumcision
Is circumcision useful? What is it used for and why? This is a question that hasn’t found yet an unanimous answer. After the statements of the American Academy of Pediatrics, it didn’t take much for the counter-statements, moreover skeptical, of the big european key representatives of the pediatricians and urologists.
Romena Hitchcock expressed significant doubts on the need of circumcision for the infants, defining it a pure “imposed mutilation”. According to the president of the British Pediatric Urologists, there is no concrete scientific evidence that could lead to think to a real benefit for the human being derived from cutting off the foreskin.
Dutch bioethicist Gert Van Dijk’s take was harsh too. He underlined how the health benefits of such an operation are tangible only in the poorest areas of the planet meanwhile in the Netherlands there is no real need for it.
According to the American authorities, the benefits of circumcision are many and in some cases fundamental. Circumcision protects from Hiv, reduces the risks of contracting sexually transmitted diseases such as Hpv and herpes. Furthermore, it is said to reduce the risk of urinary tract infections and even of tumors.
In addition, contraindications would be absolutely limited. Less than 2% of the children operated has complained subsequently complications or infections due to the cut of the foreskin, and in these few cases the disorders have proved to be easily solvable.
To support the claim of the American doctors intervened the economists of the John Hopkins School of Medicine of Baltimore. According to the experts, in relation to the cost that the public health faces every year to contrast certain infections both typical of males and females, circumcision would allow the American state coffers, if applied on every american citizen, to save 313 dollars per day.