'An insight into circumcised men seeking foreskin reconstruction: a prospective cohort study'

Genital Modifications in Prepubescent Minors: When May Clinicians Ethically Proceed?

When is it ethically permissible for clinicians to surgically intervene into the genitals of a legal minor? We distinguish between voluntary and nonvoluntary procedures and focus on nonvoluntary procedures, specifically in prepubescent minors ("children"). We do not address procedures in adolescence or adulthood. With respect to children categorized as female at birth who have no apparent differences of sex development (i.e., non-intersex or "endosex" females) there is a near-universal ethical consensus in the Global North. This consensus holds that clinicians may not perform any nonvoluntary genital cutting or surgery, from "cosmetic" labiaplasty to medicalized ritual "pricking" of the vulva, insofar as the procedure is not strictly necessary to protect the child's physical health. All other motivations, including possible psychosocial, cultural, subjective-aesthetic, or prophylactic benefits as judged by doctors or parents, are seen as categorically inappropriate grounds for a clinician to proceed with a nonvoluntary genital procedure in this population. We argue that the main ethical reasons capable of supporting this consensus turn not on empirically contestable benefit-risk calculations, but on a fundamental concern to respect the child's privacy, bodily integrity, developing sexual boundaries, and (future) genital autonomy. We show that these ethical reasons are sound. However, as we argue, they do not only apply to endosex female children, but rather to all children regardless of sex characteristics, including those with intersex traits and endosex males. We conclude, therefore, that as a matter of justice, inclusivity, and gender equality in medical-ethical policy (we do not take a position as to criminal law), clinicians should not be permitted to perform any nonvoluntary genital cutting or surgery in prepubescent minors, irrespective of the latter's sex traits or gender assignment, unless urgently necessary to protect their physical health. By contrast, we suggest that voluntary surgeries in older individuals might, under certain conditions, permissibly be performed for a wider range of reasons, including reasons of self-identity or psychosocial well-being, in keeping with the circumstances, values, and explicit needs and preferences of the persons so concerned. Note: Because our position is tied to clinicians' widely accepted role-specific duties as medical practitioners within regulated healthcare systems, we do not consider genital procedures performed outside of a healthcare context (e.g., for religious reasons) or by persons other than licensed healthcare providers working in their professional capacity.

Foreskin restorers: insights into motivations, successes, challenges, and experiences with medical and mental health professionals - An abridged summary of key findings

Demographically diverse surveys in the United States suggest that 5-10% of non-voluntarily circumcised American males wish that they had not been circumcised. Similar data are unavailable in other countries. An unknown proportion of circumcised males experience acute circumcision-related distress; some attempt to regain a sense of bodily integrity through non-surgical foreskin restoration. Their concerns are often ignored by health professionals. We conducted an in-depth investigation into foreskin restorers' lived experiences. An online survey containing 49 qualitative and 10 demographic questions was developed to identify restorers' motivations, successes, challenges, and experiences with health professionals. Targeted sampling was employed to reach this distinctive population. Invitations were disseminated to customers of commercial restoration devices, online restoration forums, device manufacturer websites, and via genital autonomy organizations. Over 2100 surveys were submitted by respondents from 60 countries. We report results from 1790 fully completed surveys. Adverse physical, sexual, emotional/psychological and self-esteem impacts attributed to circumcision had motivated participants to seek foreskin restoration. Most sought no professional help due to hopelessness, fear, or mistrust. Those who sought help encountered trivialization, dismissal, or ridicule. Most participants recommended restoration. Many professionals are unprepared to assist this population. Circumcision sufferers/foreskin restorers have largely been ill-served by medical and mental health professionals.

Psychological, psychosocial, and psychosexual aspects of penile circumcision

Policy statements on penile circumcision have focused primarily on disease, dysfunction, or sensation, with relatively little consideration of psychological and psychosocial implications of the procedure. There has also been minimal consideration of potential qualitative changes in the subjective experience of sexual activity following changes in penile anatomy (foreskin removal) or associated sexual biomechanics. We present a critical overview of literature on the psychological, psychosocial, and psychosexual implications of penile circumcision. We give consideration to differences among circumcisions performed in infancy, childhood, or adulthood. We also discuss potential psychosocial effects on parents electing, or failing to elect, circumcision for their children. We propose a framework for policy considerations and future research, recognizing that cultural context is particularly salient for the narratives individuals construct around penile circumcision, including both affected individuals and medical professionals who perform the surgeries. We argue that additional attention should be paid to the potential for long-term effects of the procedure that may not be properly considered when the patient is an infant or child.

Is Physical Alteration a Sufficient Reason to Prohibit Ritual Infant Circumcision?

European culture and thought have long disfavored ritual child circumcision, which is obligatory to Jews and Muslims. Much opposition to this practice hinges on the notion that it represents an unwarranted unconsented physical assault on the child. This article takes issue with that conclusion. Furthermore, even if one were to grant this conclusion, the offense is not of sufficient magnitude to warrant government action to halt the practice. On the other hand, suppression of ritual child circumcision may represent an attack against cultures and societies in which circumcision is practiced.