Critical Evaluation of a Survey Claiming “Long-Term Adverse Outcomes from Neonatal Circumcision”*

Abstract

We critically evaluate an online "Global survey of circumcision harm" that gauged beliefs of men who thought that their neonatal circumcision had harmed them. Sequential evaluation of the survey data and claims reveal numerous serious flaws that are at odds with strong scientific evidence. Moreover, the one-sided study design and "loaded" survey title meant the findings were not representative of the general population of circumcised males. None of the participants' claimed physical problems were confirmed by a health practitioner. Belief in this seriously flawed survey has potential to cause psychological harm to vulnerable men influenced by anti-circumcision claims, and as such has serious detrimental implications for male sexual health. The survey appears driven less by empiricism and more by psychological forces, as we show in detail. The overwhelming body of high quality medical scientific evidence finds no adverse effect of male circumcision on sexual function and pleasure, but strong evidence for a wide array of lifetime benefits in protection against infections, dermatological problems, and genital cancers. Consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, children are entitled to low risk procedures that are beneficial to their health. In conclusion, the survey and its uncritical presentation do a disservice to evidence-based medicine, sexual health, mental health, public health, human rights, and pediatric policy development. It should therefore be dismissed as unreliable.

The Contrasting Evidence Concerning the Effect of Male Circumcision on Sexual Function, Sensation, and Pleasure: A Systematic Review

“…119 The distress caused by belief in an erroneous narrative may therefore have detrimental effects on men's sexual function and mental health. 106 The field of sexual medicine would benefit from a large-scale meta-analysis on the psychophysiological studies investigating whether there is any psychosexual effect of MC on sexual function or pleasure. To date, there are not enough high-quality studies to do this.…”

“…118 Men with sexual problems too embarrassed to consult a medical practitioner for advice and effective treatment may use “Dr Google”, where they will find an abundance of websites informing them that their infant MC is responsible for their problem. 106 Men whose sexual function is normal may also succumb to such fallacies, leading them to think their sex life has been diminished, so causing them anxiety and resentment of their parents' decision to have them circumcised. A systematic review has, moreover, found a strong correlation between depression and sexual dysfunction.…”

“… 105 Critics identified numerous errors in that study. 106 Participants were self-selected. Only men who believed that they had been harmed by neonatal MC were included in the study.…”

Do False Beliefs Predict Increased Circumcision Satisfaction in Men?

“…Examination of these invariably finds them to be methodologically flawed, with highly selective bibliographies, citations that do not support the claims, and speculations passed off as fact. A recent, and particularly egregious, example being a survey, by noted anti-MC campaigners, of men who thought that their neonatal circumcision had harmed them [43], but which was shown to be scientifically worthless in a detailed and lengthy critique [44]. Given Earp's long history of writing anti-circumcision polemics, one can only suspect that the article critiqued here is just another attempt by circumcision opponents to build a body of literature that they can cite in support of their misguided agenda.…”

Critical evaluation of arguments opposing male circumcision: A systematic review

“…The authors wish to draw the attention of readers to a recent critique of Hammond and Carmack by Bailis and co‐workers …”