Letter: Circumcision myths
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: As the lively correspondence on the thorny subject of circumcision has shown, humans display a marked preference for comforting myths rather than new scientific discoveries.
Angela West's letter (1 October) shows that the myth that male circumcision prevents cervical cancer is still attractive even though it was conclusively disproved in a series of classic studies in the 1960s and 1970s. Sadly, current epidemiological studies show that cervical cancer, and, indeed, all cancers, are far more prevalent in circumcising Islamic countries than in Europe. The crucial factor, however, is living standards in Third World nations.
Numerous studies (including a classic study in the British Medical Journal of 2 December 1995) prove that the rate of penile cancer is twice as high in the US, where circumcision is de rigueur, as in Europe or Japan. The same is true of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.
Likewise, the myth that a circumcised penis is more hygienic has been disproved in a detailed study published in the November 1997 issue of the British Journal of Urology. Researchers found the obvious: a penis denuded of its protective covering is more exposed to dirt and contamination.
Additionally, P J Stewart's helpful reference to the old speculation that circumcision may have arisen as a way to prevent sand collecting under the foreskin (letter, 1 October) is a reminder that this myth was laid to rest by anatomical investigations published as long ago as August 1973 in the Journal of Urology. Experts found that foreign objects, such as sand, are flushed out of the foreskin with every micturition. Up-to- date scientists have agreed, then, that a foreskin can be comfortably and safely worn on any occasion and in any clime.
It would seem, then, that those with a pre-existing bias in favour of circumcision will justify it by whatever means, including medicalised myths. As one astute medical observer put it, "the desire to mutilate came first; the `reasons' came later."
F M HODGES
Wellcome Unit for the History of Medicine
University of Oxford
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments