5 Reasons male circumcision is not genital mutilation.

As a GP specializing in circumcisions, it’s important to address the misconception that male circumcision is equivalent to genital mutilation.

Here are five key reasons, supported by medical evidence and ethical analysis, why male circumcision is not the same as genital mutilation:

1. Proven Medical Benefits

• Male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, including genital herpes and high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV).

• Male circumcision lowers the risk of urinary tract infections, penile infections (Balantitis), foreskin infections (posthitis), or Balanoposthitis – infection or inflammation of both the glans and foreskin.

• Male circumcision also decreases the risk penile cancer, prostate cancer and cervical cancer for the female partners.

• Male circumcision can prevent conditions such as phimosis (a tightening of the foreskin) and Balantitis Xerotica Obliterans (BXO) (an inflammatory skin condition) and can actually be the treatment for these conditions.

• These health benefits distinguish circumcision as a preventive medical procedure, not an act of mutilation.

2. Low Risk When Performed Medically

• When conducted by a trained medical professional, circumcision is a safe procedure with a low complication rate.

• The complications arising from a medically performed circumcision are generally minor.

• The risks associated with non-medical or ritual procedures have a higher risk of complications and more likely to be sever in nature.

• The low risk profile of circumcision supports its classification as a medical procedure rather than an act of mutilation.

3. Ethical and Legal Justification

• Major medical and ethical reviews conclude that, when performed for medical, cultural, or religious reasons, male circumcision is not a violation of human rights or bodily integrity.

• Genital mutilation is widely recognized as a practice rooted in control, discrimination, and the violation of fundamental human rights.

• Ethically, circumcision is justified by the principle of beneficence: the benefits outweigh the harms.

4. Distinct from Female Genital Mutilation (FGM)

• Unlike FGM, which removes functional tissue and has no health benefits, male circumcision removes the foreskin (non-essential tissue) and provides clear, evidence-based health advantages.

• Leading health organizations and legal frameworks recognize this distinction, and equating the two is misleading and unsupported by medical evidence.

5. Parental Choice and Cultural Context

• Parents have the legal and ethical right to make informed decisions about their child’s healthcare, including circumcision, especially when considering cultural or religious values.

• The procedure is deeply rooted in many cultures and religions, and banning it could lead to unsafe practices outside the medical system.

“Infant male circumcision fulfills the principle of beneficence based on the established benefits of circumcision. The harms associated with infant male circumcisions compared with the significant benefits associated with it make infant male circumcision meet the non-maleficence principle.”

If you are looking for a male circumcision clinic or want to discuss the procedure or the potential health benefits of circumcision, please contact our clinic for personalized advice. We are committed to providing the highest standard of care and up-to-date information for families considering circumcision.

Reference List

1. Alkhenizan, A., & Elabd, K. (2016). Non-therapeutic infant male circumcision: Evidence, ethics, and international law. Found at Non-therapeutic infant male circumcision. Evidence, ethics, and international law perspectives - PubMed

2. Benatar, M., & Benatar, D. (2003). Between Prophylaxis and Child Abuse: The Ethics of Neonatal Male Circumcision. The American Journal of Bioethics, 3(2), 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1162/152651603766436216

3. Benatar, D., & Benatar, M. (2003). 3:2 Target Article authors respond to Commentators: How Not to Argue About Circumcision. The American Journal of Bioethics, 3(2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1162/152651603102387820

4. Friedman, B., et al. (2016). Pros and cons of circumcision: an evidence-based overview. International Journal of Infectious Diseases, 46, 60–65. Found at Pros and cons of circumcision: an evidence-based overview - PubMed

5. Healthy Male Australia. Circumcision: Benefits, risks & procedure. Found at Circumcision: Benefits, risks & procedure | Healthy Male

6. Healthdirect Australia. Circumcision. Found at Circumcision | healthdirect

7. Moses, S., Bailey, R. C., & Ronald, A. R. (1998). Male circumcision: assessment of health benefits and risks. Sexually Transmitted Infections, 74(5), 368–373. Found at Male circumcision: assessment of health benefits and risks - PubMed

8. Pintye, J., et al. (2019). Benefits of male circumcision for MSM: evidence for action. The Lancet Global Health, 7(4), e392–e393. Found it Benefits of male circumcision for MSM: evidence for action - The Lancet Global Health

9. Stuart Rennie, Adamson S Muula, Daniel Westreich  (2006) Male circumcision and HIV prevention: ethical, medical and public health tradeoffs in low-income countries. BMJ Jounal of Medical Ethics. 33 (6) . Found at 357.full.pdf

10. Tobian, A. A. R., et al. (2011). The Medical Benefits of Male Circumcision. PLoS Medicine, 8(7), e1000413. Found at The Medical Benefits of Male Circumcision

11. World Health Organization (2007). Male circumcision: global trends and determinants of prevalence, safety and acceptability. Found at unaids.org/sites/default/files/media_asset/jc1360_male_circumcision_en_0.pdf