Re: Examining Penile Sensitivity in Neonatally Circumcised and Intact Men Using Quantitative Sensory Testing: J. A. Bossio, C. F. Pukall and S. S. Steele J Urol 2016;1848–1853

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.

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

INTRODUCTION

Active debate concerns whether male circumcision (MC) affects sexual function, penile sensation, or sexual pleasure.

AIM

To perform a systematic review examining the effect of MC on these parameters.

METHODS

PRISMA-compliant searches of PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were performed, with "circumcision" used together with appropriate search terms. Articles meeting the inclusion criteria were rated for quality by the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network system.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Evidence rated by quality.

RESULTS

Searches identified 46 publications containing original data, as well as 4 systematic reviews (2 with meta-analyses), plus 29 critiques of various studies and 15 author replies, which together comprised a total of 94 publications. There was overall consistency in conclusions arising from high- and moderate-quality survey data in randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, physiological studies, large longitudinal studies, and cohort studies in diverse populations. Those studies found MC has no or minimal adverse effect on sexual function, sensation, or pleasure, with some finding improvements. A consensus from physiological and histological studies was that the glans and underside of the shaft, not the foreskin, are involved in neurological pathways mediating erogenous sensation. In contrast to the higher quality evidence, data supporting adverse effects of MC on function, sensation, or pleasure were found to be of low quality, as explained in critiques of those studies.

CONCLUSION

The consensus of the highest quality literature is that MC has minimal or no adverse effect, and in some studies, it has benefits on sexual functions, sensation, satisfaction, and pleasure for males circumcised neonatally or in adulthood. Morris BJ, Krieger JN. The Contrasting Evidence Concerning the Effect of Male Circumcision on Sexual Function, Sensation, and Pleasure: A Systematic Review. Sex Med 2020;8:577-598.