writing

On the Mystery Box website (

http://www.mysteryboxshow.com/videoarchive/

) choose

three videos to watch. You will then write a 2-3 page double-spaced paper on how the three videos relate to each other: how are the stories similar and dissimilar to each other, and how do the videos relate to class material? Make three in-text citations to class material. Be sure to include an APA formatted reference sheet (not included in the page limit). You are welcome to look ahead to readings assigned later in the term to include in your paper.

Rubric:

Category Points

Appropriate length and formatting 3

Appropriately cited references and

reference page 3

Grammar, spelling, and paper structure 4

Synthesis of videos and class material 10

Class materials

https://isna.org/compare/

https://www.parsemus.org/projects/vasalgel/

https://time.com/4475634/trans-man-pregnancy-evan/

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/59mbm3/for-trans-men-reproductive-health-is-yet-another-obstacle-to-overcome

https://www.nia.nih.gov/health/sexuality-later-life

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/spring-fever

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1 HYPERLINK “https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=mDy0DhfuxfI&feature=emb_logo”& HYPERLINK “https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=mDy0DhfuxfI&feature=emb_logo”v=mDy0DhfuxfI HYPERLINK “https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=mDy0DhfuxfI&feature=emb_logo”& HYPERLINK “https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=mDy0DhfuxfI&feature=emb_logo”feature=emb_logo

https://www.cmaj.ca/content/183/17/1961

D
ow

nloaded
from

https://journals.lw
w
.com

/m
cnjournalb

y

B
hD

M
f5eP

H
K
av1zE

oum
1tQ

fN
4a+kJLhE

ZgbsIH
o4X

M
i0hC

yw
C
X
1A

W
nY

Q
p/IlQ

rH
D
3p1zuFA

1M
W
B
10pa1btgdD

/uIE
65hqa2rC

N
K
Q
jD
V
M
M
bhiS

hM
U
E
lIW

chQ
==

on
08/27/2018

Downloadedfromhttps://journals.lww.com/mcnjournalbyBhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3p1zuFA1MWB10pa1btgdD/uIE65hqa2rCNKQjDVMMbhiShMUElIWchQ==on08/27/2018

110 volume 40 | number 2 March/April 2015

Abstract

Purpose: To study which healthcare professionals (HCPs)
fi rst asked parents about their decision regarding circumci-
sion; whether parents felt they were given enough informa-
tion by their HCP; and what reasons parents cited for their
decision.
Study Design and Methods: Bilingual questionnaires were ad-
ministered to parents and expecting parents of boys (N = 60).
Close-ended survey responses were analyzed through factor
analysis to ascertain what types of beliefs parents used in
their decision making, whether they felt they had enough
information, and who fi rst asked them about their decision.
Results: Nurses were most likely to be the fi rst HCPs to ask
parents about circumcision. Parental personal and cultural

beliefs played an equal or more important role in infl uencing
decision making than medical information received. How-
ever, some parents noted that there was a lack of access to
accurate information regarding risks and benefi ts of male
circumcision.
Clinical Nursing Implications: Nurses continue to play a critical
role in acquisition of knowledge surrounding male circumci-
sion and serve as important liaisons between parents and
the proxy consent process. Nurses, as well as other HCPs,
should discuss circumcision early in pregnancy so parents
have ample time to ask questions, gather information, and
make an appropriate decision.
Key words: Circumcision; Informed consent; Neonate.

CIRCUMCISION
Parental

Decision Making in MALE
Lauren Sardi, PhD and Kathy Livingston, PhD

B
le

n
d

I
m

a
g

e
s

/
A

la
m

y

OPEN

Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

D
ebate among healthcare professionals (HCPs)
and ethicists continues surrounding male neo-
natal circumcision in the United States. Despite
evidence suggesting that HCPs are not uniform-
ly in favor of the routinized practice, the proce-
dure is nevertheless upheld and maintained in

hospital settings across the United States, which has one
of the highest circumcision rates of any industrialized na-
tion (World Health Organization, 2007).

Historically, circumcision was practiced in various
societies with its origins dating back millennia (Pinto,
2012). Historical records also show that circumcision
was performed as early as 4,000 years ago by Egyptians
(Pinto, 2012) and during biblical times by Jews who re-
garded it as a mark of the covenant between God and
Abraham (Henerey, 2004; Lang, 2013). In Western cul-
tures by the late 19th century, physicians regarded cir-
cumcision as a way to alleviate “genital irritation” that
was believed to cause such illnesses as blindness, gout,
hernia, epilepsy, and paralysis (Henerey, 2004). By the
mid-20th century, hospitals had replaced homes as the
typical place of birthing, and male neonatal circumci-
sion became a routine hospital procedure, rationalized
as a way to promote penile hygiene and prevent disease.
The belief that the uncircumcised penis was a source of
pathology increased the popularity of the procedure so

that by 1960, roughly 95% of boys born in the United
States were circumcised (Gollaher, 2000).

As male neonatal circumcision became routinized,
risks and benefi ts became critically debated between
those who regarded it as a prophylactic measure against
disease and those who saw it as an unnecessary and po-
tentially harmful surgery. The American Academy of
Pediatrics (AAP) reported in 1971 that it found “no
absolute medical indication for routine circumcision”
(p. 110), yet numerous medical studies emerged show-
ing a link between neonatal circumcision and reduced
HIV incidence, penile cancer, urinary tract infections,
and sexually transmitted diseases (Pinto, 2012).

Conversely, anticircumcision arguments emerged, saying
that circumcision was useful only for medical conditions not
present in newborns and for diseases potentially acquired
later in life. According to this view, neonatal circumcision
compromises a child’s right to self-determination (Lang,
2013) because the procedure is elective and the child cannot
issue informed consent for himself. There are many proce-
dures children cannot consent to but that may directly affect
them; parents are obligated and in most cases legally required
to make decisions on behalf of their children (Mazor, 2013).
Neonatal circumcision is different, however, in that in
most cases it is a cosmetic or ritualistic procedure capable
of infl icting harm and long-lasting or permanent damage,
including physical or emotional disabilities. Studies argue,
for example, that the penile foreskin is a healthy and nec-
essary part of the body (Lang, 2013), such that its removal
causes a reduction in sexual pleasure for the adult male
and compromises his bodily integrity (Lang, 2013; Merkel
& Putzke, 2013).

Opponents of circumcision have also argued that
the procedure compromises an infant’s right to self-
determination by giving his parents proxy consent over
a decision that could be deferred until the adult male
can decide for himself (Lang, 2013; Merkel & Putzke,
2013; Pinto, 2012; Sardi, 2011). In the United States,
male neonatal circumcision is the most common medi-
cal procedure performed without informed consent
from the patient himself (Gollaher, 2000; Pfuntner, Wier,
& Stocks, 2013). Therefore, it is ethically critical that
parents who opt for circumcision and, thus, consent by
proxy be given access to information about the benefi ts
and risks of the medical procedure.

In 2012, the AAP Taskforce on Circumcision replaced
their policy statement from 1999 in which they opined
“the risks do not outweigh the benefi ts” (AAP, 1999)
to an updated statement acknowledging that the health
benefi ts of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks
(AAP, 2012, p. 585). The AAP taskforce did not recom-
mend routine circumcision for all male newborns, but
reported that “the benefi ts of circumcision are suffi cient
to justify access to this procedure for families choosing
it and to warrant third-party payment for circumcision
of male newborns” (AAP, 2012, p. 585). The taskforce
also acknowledged that “Parents are entitled to medically
accurate and nonbiased information about circumcision,
and they should weigh this medical information in the

Circumcision continues to be a common

but elective procedure performed on

newborn baby boys in the United States.

March/April 2015 MCN 11

1

Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

112 volume 40 | number 2 March/April 2015

benefi ts, but the risks of the procedure, and what sources
of medical information these parents rely on.

Study Design and Methods
A survey questionnaire, available in both English and Span-
ish, was administered to a convenience sample of 60 par-
ents or expecting parents at a private obstetrics/gynecology
offi ce, a women’s health clinic, and a pediatrics clinic. In-
dividuals qualifi ed for participation if they were 18 years
of age or older, and were the parent, expecting parent, or
stepparent of a male child (hereafter, participants are re-
ferred to as “parents”). Parents of sons older than 5 were
excluded because recall was unreliable regarding their deci-
sion-making process as it had originally occurred. A sample
size of 60 was determined suffi cient to achieve correlation
coeffi cients that could account for a high degree of variance
in the majority of factor loadings in our analysis.

All surveys and information forms for parents and ex-
pecting parents were forward translated from English into
Spanish by institutional review board (IRB) employees fl u-
ent in the regional dialect of our target population. The
Spanish survey was then back translated into English by
different IRB employees who were also bilingual and fl uent
in that regional dialect. The survey instrument was based
primarily on close-ended questions used in previous classic
studies of circumcision attitudes (Adler et al., 2001; Bin-
ner et al., 2002; Tiemstra, 1999). Our survey addressed
the following questions: (1) Which HCP fi rst asked parents
about their decision regarding circumcision? (2) Did par-
ents feel that they were given enough information about
the procedure by HCPs? and (3) What were the various
factors that infl uenced parental decision making? Demo-
graphic data were also collected at the end of the survey.

The principal author obtained IRB approval through
her home institution as well as the affi liated hospitals of the
clinics and waiting rooms. The principal author was only
allowed access to three hospital pediatric waiting rooms
and one obstetrics/gynecology clinic waiting room because
of the perceived controversial and sensitive nature of the
study. With a research assistant who was fl uent in Spanish,
the principal author handed out surveys to parents in those
waiting rooms and instructed parents to complete it if they
wished and to return the materials in a sealed envelope to
the receptionist. Thus, parents were allowed freedom and
privacy to complete the survey in the waiting room, and
the completed surveys were picked up at a later time.

Results
A total of 60 participants completed the parent question-
naire. Table 1 displays percentages regarding biographical
data of the participants including their self-identifi ed gen-
der, race/ethnicity, religious affi liation, marital status, and
the participant’s relationship to the youngest male child.
Our convenience sample tended to be homogenous in terms
of most demographic data reported, in that the majority of
parents self-identifi ed as a mother (n = 53, 88.3%) who
was a person of color (n = 52, 86.6%) and who was more
likely to identify as Catholic or Protestant (n = 39, 83%).

context of their own religious, ethical, and cultural be-
liefs” (AAP, 2012, pp. 585–586). Thus, AAP endorses
parental proxy consent for circumcision.

Nonmedical factors of religion, ethics, and culture are
highly infl uential in parents’ decisions for or against neo-
natal circumcision. Previous studies have shown that par-
ents tend to make decisions regarding circumcision based
on personal, cultural, or religious reasons in addition to or
in lieu of medical information (Adler, Ottaway, & Gould,
2001; Binner, Mastrobattista, Day, Swaim, & Monga,
2002; Tiemstra, 1999; Wang, Macklin, Tracy, Nadel, &
Catlin, 2010). More recent research by Bisono et al. (2012)
and Rediger and Muller (2013) also suggest that although
there are a number of health-based reasons that underlie
parental decision making, the vast majority of parents re-
port that personal or cultural reasons are among the stron-
gest factors that infl uence their overall decision.

Nurses can play a role in the decision-making pro-
cess regarding circumcision based on their proximity to
the mother–baby couplet (Kaufman, Clark, & Castro,
2001). Thus, it is important to explore whether expecting
parents, who will potentially provide proxy consent for
their son’s circumcision or refuse the procedure outright,
have access to medical information about not only the

Table 1.
Characteristics of Parent Respondents
Gender

Female

Male

Other

90.0% (54)

6.7% (4)

3.3% (2)

Parental Relationship to Youngest Child

Mother

Father

Other (stepparent)

88.3% (53)

6.7% (4)
6.7% (4)

Parent Race/Ethnicity

Latino/Hispanic

African American/Black

White/Caucasian

Prefer not to answer

73.3% (44)

13.3% (8)

11.7% (7)

1.7% (1)

Parent Religion (n = 47)

Catholic

Protestant

Other

61.7% (29)

21.3% (10)

17.0% (8)

Parent Marital Status (n = 58)

Single

Engaged/married

Separated

In steady relationship

Not living together

In steady relationship

Living together

31.0% (18)

32.8% (19)

1.7% (1)

10.4% (6)

24.1% (14)

Note. n = 60 except where noted

Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

March/April 2015 MCN 11

3

In response to a question that asked parents to identify
which HCPs explicitly asked them about their decision
regarding circumcision, nurses were most likely to discuss
the actual decision with parents, as shown in Table 2.
Parental responses show that nurses (broadly identifi ed
as those in clinics, pediatrics, and obstetrics offi ces) fi rst
engaged parents in a discussion about circumcision. Par-
ents were then asked if they felt that their HCPs provided
them with enough information regarding circumcision.
Forty-four participants (73.3%) felt that they were given
enough information, 14 participants (23.3%) believed
they were not provided with enough information, and 2
participants (3.3%) were unsure.

To ascertain whether or not parents were likely to have
pro- or anticircumcision biases, they were also asked
whether or not they believed that the benefi ts of circumci-
sion outweighed the risks of the procedure, and responded
to a Likert-scale response: 17 parents (28.8%) disagreed
or completely disagreed, 12 parents (20.3%) were neutral,
and 30 parents (50.8%) agreed or completely agreed.

It is also critical to understand parents’ reasons for
their decision of whether or not to circumcise. Thus, a
number of additional close-ended questions measured
parents’ opinions regarding the actual procedure of cir-
cumcision as well as how they felt about a number of
common beliefs often cited as reasons for circumcising.
This scale, originally developed by Binner et al. (2002),
which has an overall Cronbach’s alpha reliability of .84,
made it possible to measure the extent to which respon-
dents felt that the overall benefi ts outweigh the risks of
circumcision. The scale was coded so that lower scores
indicate lower levels of “procircumcision” attitudes.

This scale measured attitudes about whether parents be-
lieve that: the benefi ts of circumcision are greater than the
risks; fathers who are circumcised should have boys who
are circumcised; circumcision will help keep a baby’s penis
clean; circumcision will decrease cancer of the penis; cir-
cumcision will decrease risk of infection of the penis; cir-
cumcision will decrease the risk of contracting HIV/AIDS;
circumcision is too painful for infants (a reverse-coded vari-
able); and circumcised penises look better than uncircum-
cised penises. All variables were measured on a fi ve-point
Likert scale, from “Completely Disagree” to “Complete-
ly Agree.” Although most, but not all, of the statements
include language that is biased toward circumcision, it
should be noted that parents who did not have a favor-
able opinion toward the procedure were likely to state that
they disagreed with these statements. Responses from each
question were included in a principal axis factor analysis,
with varimax rotation. As a result, the factor analysis pro-
duced two factors, and the eigenvalues for the two rotated
factors were 4.0 and 1.1, together explaining 64.0% of the
combined variance, as shown in Table 3. Because the anal-
ysis controlled for a relatively high percentage of variation,
the results remain internally valid despite a small sample
size and that such differences in patterns of responses still
exist when controlling for other sources of variance.

We labeled the fi rst factor as “cultural,” which con-
sisted of six items in which the majority of responses

demonstrate that personal or cultural expectations affect
one’s opinions regarding circumcision. Beliefs associated
with these “cultural” items include: (1) the benefi ts of cir-
cumcision outweigh the risks; (2) fathers who are circum-
cised should have boys who are circumcised; (3) circumci-
sion will help keep a baby’s penis clean; (4) circumcised
penises do look better than uncircumcised penises; (5)
circumcision is not too painful for infants (the recoded
variable); and (6) circumcision will decrease cancer of the
penis. The factor analysis demonstrates that if parents be-
lieved the benefi ts of circumcision outweighed the risks,
they were also more likely to report that (listed here in
rank order): fathers should look like their sons, circumci-
sion assists in cleanliness, circumcised penises look better
than uncircumcised ones, circumcision is not too painful
for infants, and that circumcision will decrease the risk of
penile cancer.

These statements are common arguments given by
HCPs and parents alike as to why they believe circumci-
sion to be the “correct” choice. These results also dem-
onstrate that parents tended to think of the (lack of) pain
associated with circumcision as well as the risk for penile
cancer as cultural information, rather than medical infor-
mation, although terms like “cancer” and “pain” would
seem to refer to medical issues. Thus, perceived medical
(e.g., cancer) risks and health promotion (e.g., hygiene)
issues are likely to be chosen along with culturally medi-
ated issues (e.g., bodily aesthetics; father/son matching).
It may be that a number of perceived health issues are
more likely to be shared via nonmedical sources of infor-
mation when cultural issues are considered by non-HCPs.

We labeled the second factor as “health,” which con-
sisted of two items that expressed opinions relevant to
the medical nature of circumcision. These opinions in-
clude: (1) circumcision will decrease the risk of contract-
ing HIV/AIDS; and (2) circumcision will decrease the risk
of infection of the penis. Both of these beliefs target spe-
cifi c medical discussions that are associated with circum-
cision and are both implicated as potential health benefi ts
of the procedure by AAP (2012).

We chose to label the two emerging categories with the
terms “cultural” and “health” for several reasons. Par-
ents who were more likely to believe that the benefi ts of
circumcision outweighed the risks also believed that aesthetic
reasons for circumcision were of primary importance. The

Table 2.
Which Healthcare Provider(s) Asked
Parents About Their Decision to
Circumcise or Not Circumcise Their Child
Nurse

Obstetrician

Pediatrician

Midwife

Childbirth instructor

Waiting room receptionist

29

16

10

3
1
1

Note. n = 60

Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

114 volume 40 | number 2 March/April 2015

“cultural” category of factors was labeled as such because
it provided a mixture of both aesthetic beliefs and popular
health beliefs regarding circumcision, including the notion
that circumcision prevents infection and cancer as well as
the outdated concept that infants do not feel pain (Simpson,
2006), whereas the “health” category only contained two
factors that were more strictly health-based. Overall, results
demonstrate that there are two main categories of beliefs that
parental responses fell into, and that parents tended to give
a mixture of personal/cultural beliefs as well as a few health
beliefs that supported their decision. The results of the factor
analysis performed on parental attitudes about circumcision
broke new ground in this area because the analysis revealed
emerging patterns of responses given by parents. Notably,
specifi c perceived health issues were likely to be chosen along
with culturally mediated issues, which may be the result of
how specifi c types of health information are passed from
friends and family members to expecting parents.

Clinical Nursing Implications
Our study demonstrated that nurses are most likely to ask
parents about circumcision, but nearly a quarter of the par-
ticipants (23.3%) stated that they did not receive enough
or any medical information about circumcision at the time
of survey completion and tended to rely on a mixture of
cultural and health-based information to inform their
decision. This fi nding is an important consideration for
nurses, in that they have the continuing ability to play an
important role in the proxy consent process surrounding
circumcision. However, true proxy consent cannot be given
to HCPs if a parent has not received enough information

about the risks and benefi ts of the procedure itself. Nurses
and other HCPs should also continue to take additional
steps to ensure that parents are given information regard-
ing the procedure—early in the pregnancy—even if parents
state that they already have information, or if HCPs believe
that parents are not interested in such information.

One of the limitations of this study is that the participants
were a self-selected group consisting mostly of procircum-
cision, racial/ethnic minority members. Because, nationally,
rates of neonatal circumcision are lower among persons of
color (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011),
it is possible that this study underrepresents racial/ethnic
minority members who are opposed to neonatal circumci-
sion. Research examining the underrepresentation of mi-
norities in clinical research shows that minorities have of-
ten been excluded by the scientifi c community, but also that
minority group members are more reluctant to participate
in medical research due to mistrust and fear of past abuses
(Noah, 2003). Notably, some parents refused to participate
because they stated that the principal researcher did not ap-
pear to be of a similar ethnicity. As well, the discussion sur-
rounding informed consent in the United States has tended
to exclude racial/ethnic and religious minorities (Matthew,
2008). Laws governing informed consent have evolved to
narrowly recognize only patient autonomy, and research
has shown that minority groups do not subscribe to the
patient autonomy model in the same way as majority mem-
bers do (Matthew, 2008). Thus, we should not assume, for
example, that all parents want all health-based information
possible before making the decision to circumcise.

Another limitation of this study involves the gen-
der composition of the sample, in that the majority of

Table 3.
Factor Analysis of Parental Attitudes Toward Circumcision
Variable Name Statement** Factor 1:

Cultural
Factor 2:
Health+

Cultural 1 I believe that the benefi ts of circumcision are
greater than the risks.

0.748 0.319

Cultural 2 Fathers who are circumcised should have boys
who are circumcised.

0.847 0.140

Cultural 3 I believe that circumcision will help keep my baby’s
penis clean.

0.770 0.414

Cultural 4 I believe that circumcised penises look better than
uncircumcised penises.

0.747 0.094

Cultural 5* I believe that circumcision is too painful for infants. 0.753 -0.048

Cultural 6 I believe that circumcision will decrease cancer of
the penis.

0.550 0.479

Health 1 I believe that circumcision will decrease the risk of
infection of the penis.

0.485 0.633

Health 2 I believe that circumcision will decrease the risk of
contracting AIDS.

-0.099 0.882

Eigenvalues
Variance Explained

4.0

50%

1.1

14%

*Reverse-coded variable

**All variables were measured on a fi ve-point Likert scale, from “Completely Disagree” to “Completely Agree.”

+The factor analysis was done with a varimax rotation using principal axis factor analysis.

Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

March/April 2015 MCN 115

respondents are female. Although some research on pa-
rental decision making regarding circumcision demon-
strates that mothers may defer to the fathers of their sons
to make this decision or that the father’s circumcision
status greatly infl uences a son’s circumcision status (Bin-
ner et al., 2002; Lee et al., 2003), other research fi ndings
have shown that either both parents will make the deci-
sion together or that previous studies have not separated
mother versus father parental decision making at all
(Adler et al., 2001; Tiemstra, 1999). Thus, although we
cannot necessarily extrapolate these specifi c conclusions
with the wider population as a whole, these results mir-
ror the fi ndings of many other major studies that mea-
sured parental attitudes regarding circumcision (Adler et
al., 2001; Binner et al., 2002; Tiemstra, 1999).

Although AAP’s (2012) newest stance on male neona-
tal circumcision states that parents must ultimately de-
cide for themselves based on what they feel is best for
their children, our data suggest that parents often do not
have the ability to give an informed decision but instead
rely on a combination of cultural and culturally informed
health information to make the decision. If parents lack
accurate, up-to-date information regarding the risks of
circumcision, this calls into question whether the proxy
consent they provide is truly informed. ✜

Lauren Sardi is an Assistant Professor of Sociology, Quin-
nipiac University, Hamden, CT. She can be reached via e-
mail at lauren.sardi@quinnipiac.edu

Kathy Livingston is a Professor of Sociology, Quin-
nipiac University, Hamden, CT.

The authors declare no confl icts of interest or external
sources of funding.

This is an open-access article distributed under
the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non
Commercial-NoDerivitives 3.0 License, where it is per-
missible to download and share the work provided it is
properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way
or used commercially.

DOI:10.1097/NMC.0000000000000112

References
Adler, R., Ottaway, M. S., & Gould, S. (2001). Circumcision: We have

heard from the experts; Now let’s hear from the parents. Pediatrics,
107(2), E20. doi:10.1542/peds.107.2.e20

American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Fetus and Newborn.
(1971). Standards and recommendation for hospital care of newborn
infants (5th ed., p. 110). Evanston, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics.

American Academy of Pediatrics. (1999). Circumcision policy statement.
Pediatrics, 103(3), 686–693. doi:10.1542/peds.103.3.686

American Academy of Pediatrics. (2012). Circumcision policy statement.
Pediatrics, 130(3), 585–586. doi:10.1542/peds.2012-1989

Binner, S. L., Mastrobattista, J. L., Day, M. C., Swaim, L. S., & Monga,
M. (2002). Effect of parental education on decision-making about
neonatal circumcision. Southern Medical Journal, 95(4), 457–461.
doi:10.1097/00007611-200204000-00016

Bisono, G M., Simmons, L., Volk, R. J., Meyer, D., Quinn, T. C., & Rosen-
thal, S. L. (2012). Attitudes and decision making about neonatal male
circumcision in a Hispanic population in New York City. Clinical Pedi-
atrics, 51(10), 956–963. doi:10.1177/0009922812441662

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2011). Trends in in-hospi-
tal newborn male circumcision—United States, 1999-2010. Morbid-
ity and Mortality Weekly Report, 60(34), 1167–1168.

Gollaher, D. L. (2000). Circumcision: A history of the world’s most con-
troversial surgery. New York: Basic Books.

Henerey, A. (2004). Evolution of male circumcision as normative con-
trol. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 12(3), 265–276. doi:10.3149/
jms.1203.265

Kaufman, M. W., Clark, J. Y., & Castro, C. L. (2001). Neonatal circumci-
sion. Benefi ts, risks, and family teaching. MCN. The American Jour-
nal of Maternal Child Nursing, 26(4), 197–201. doi:10.1097/00005721-
200107000-00009

Lang, D. P. (2013). Circumcision, sexual dysfunction and the child’s best
interests: Why the anatomical details matter. Journal of Medical
Ethics, 39(7), 429–431. doi:10.1136/medethics-2013-101520

Lee, S. D., Park, E., & Choe, B. M. (2003). Parental concerns on the
circumcision for elementary school boys: A questionnaire study.
Journal of Korean Medical Science, 18(1), 73–79.

Matthew, D. B. (2008). Race, religion, and informed consent—Lessons
from social science. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 36(1),
150–173. doi:10.1111/j.1748-720X.2008.00244.x

Mazor, J. (2013). The child’s interests and the case for the permissibility
of male infant circumcision. Journal of Medical Ethics, 39(7), 421–428.
doi:10.1136/medethics-2013-101318

Merkel, R., & Putzke, H. (2013). After Cologne: Male circumcision
and the law. Parental right, religious liberty or criminal assault?
Journal of Medical Ethics, 39(7), 444–449. doi:10.1136/medeth-
ics-2012-101284

Noah, B. A. (2003). The participation of underrepresented minorities in clin-
ical research. American Journal of Law & Medicine, 29(2–3), 221–245.

Pfuntner, A., Wier, L. M., & Stocks, C. (2013). Most frequent procedures
performed in U.S. hospitals, 2011 (HCUP Statistical Brief #165).
Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. www.
hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb165

Pinto, K. (2012). Circumcision controversies. Pediatric Clinics of North
America, 59(4), 977–986. doi:10.1016/j.pcl.2012.05.015

Rediger, C., & Muller, A. J. (2013). Parents’ rationale for male circumci-
sion. Canadian Family Physician, 59(2), e110–e115.

Sardi, L. M. (2011). The male neonatal circumcision debate: Social
movements, sexual citizenship, and human rights. Societies With-
out Borders, 6(3), 304–329.

Simpson, K. R. (2006). Circumcision pain management. MCN.
The American Journal of Maternal Child Nursing, 31(4), 276.
doi:10.1097/00005721-200607000-00017

Tiemstra, J. D. (1999). Factors affecting the circumcision decision. Jour-
nal of the American Board of Family Practitioners, 12(1), 16–20.
doi:10.3122/15572625-12-1-16

Wang, M. L., Macklin, E. A., Tracy, E., Nadel, H., & Catlin, E. A. (2010). Updated
parental viewpoints on male neonatal circumcision in the United States.
Clinical Pediatrics, 49(2), 130–136. doi:10.1177/0009922809346569

World Health Organization. (2007). Male circumcision: Global trends and
determinants of prevalence, safety, and acceptability. Retrieved from
www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/rtis/9789241596169/en/

Suggested Clinical Nursing Implications
• All nurses involved in pre- and postpartum care of moth-

ers and babies should have continuous access to accu-
rate, up-to-date information regarding male circumcision,
which should involve knowledge including circumcision
wound care, intact penis care, and ethics of both the con-
sent process and the procedure itself.

• Nurses should continue to be proactive in offering such
information regarding circumcision as early in the preg-
nancy as possible so that parents have ample time to
discuss and research the decision.

• Along with all maternal/infant healthcare providers,
nurses should support the parental decision-making pro-
cess and should offer access to health- and ethics-based
information even if parents may initially not be interested.
Nurses should not assume that parents already have
enough information or that they are not open to acquiring
new knowledge.

• Parents should be informed of all risks of the procedure
and have access to preoperative and postoperative
guidelines during the proxy consent process, which
should be carefully documented by nurses or other HCPs
obtaining written consent.

Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

Scanned by CamScanner

Scanned by CamScanner

Scanned by CamScanner

Scanned by CamScanner

Scanned by CamScanner