Search tips
Search criteria 


Logo of canfamphysLink to Publisher's site
Can Fam Physician. 1997 July; 43: 1241–1247.
PMCID: PMC2255121

Neonatal male circumcision after delisting in Ontario. Survey of new parents.


OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of neonatal circumcision immediately following delisting of the procedure in Ontario and to examine parents' knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours regarding circumcision. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Perinatal tertiary care centre in southwestern Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: Of the 151 mothers approached, three were excluded because they did not speak English and two declined participation; 112 of 146 mothers of healthy male newborns responded for a response rate of 77%. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Circumcision status of infant and parents' knowledge, attitudes, and behaviour. RESULTS: The circumcision rate before delisting had been 56.2%; in the months immediately after, the rate was 59.8% (95% confidence interval was 51%, 69%). Mothers of infants in the outcome groups did not differ significantly in any demographic feature other than education, where the group deciding against circumcision reported higher education levels (Wilcoxon nonparametic two-sample test: zeta = 2.29, P = 0.02). Mothers who chose circumcision listed medical (59%) and sociocultural considerations (40%) a most important to their decision. Father's circumcision status was strongly associated with the infant's (chi 2[df 1] = 25.13, P = 0.0001). Although 74% discussed circumcision with their family physicians, many parents were not well informed about risks or benefits. Anesthetic use during circumcision was reported by 29%, but 48% did not know whether any had been used. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of neonatal circumcision did not change after delisting. Informed consent was often lacking. Sociocultural issues are important to some parents and need to be addressed in the consultation process.

Full text

Full text is available as a scanned copy of the original print version. Get a printable copy (PDF file) of the complete article (1.1M), or click on a page image below to browse page by page. Links to PubMed are also available for Selected References.

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
  • Lynch ME. Male and female circumcision in Canada. CMAJ. 1993 Jul 1;149(1):16–16. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Alibhai SM. Male and female circumcision in Canada. CMAJ. 1993 Jul 1;149(1):16–17. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Jones M. Male circumcision in Canada. CMAJ. 1994 May 15;150(10):1541–1544. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • LeBourdais E. Circumcision no longer a "routine" surgical procedure. CMAJ. 1995 Jun 1;152(11):1873–1876. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Wallerstein E. Circumcision. The uniquely American medical enigma. Urol Clin North Am. 1985 Feb;12(1):123–132. [PubMed]
  • McKim JS. Neonatal circumcision. Can Med Assoc J. 1981 Nov 1;125(9):955–955. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Wiswell TE, Smith FR, Bass JW. Decreased incidence of urinary tract infections in circumcised male infants. Pediatrics. 1985 May;75(5):901–903. [PubMed]
  • Cook LS, Koutsky LA, Holmes KK. Circumcision and sexually transmitted diseases. Am J Public Health. 1994 Feb;84(2):197–201. [PubMed]
  • Poland RL. The question of routine neonatal circumcision. N Engl J Med. 1990 May 3;322(18):1312–1315. [PubMed]
  • A randomized, controlled trial of methylprednisolone or naloxone in the treatment of acute spinal-cord injury. N Engl J Med. 1990 Oct 25;323(17):1207–1209. [PubMed]
  • Milos MF, Macris D. Circumcision. A medical or a human rights issue? J Nurse Midwifery. 1992 Mar-Apr;37(2 Suppl):87S–96S. [PubMed]
  • Williams N, Chell J, Kapila L. Why are children referred for circumcision? BMJ. 1993 Jan 2;306(6869):28–28. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Winberg J, Bollgren I, Gothefors L, Herthelius M, Tullus K. The prepuce: a mistake of nature? Lancet. 1989 Mar 18;1(8638):598–599. [PubMed]
  • Morgan K. Male and female circumcision in Canada. CMAJ. 1993 Nov 15;149(10):1382–1383. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Ganiats TG, Humphrey JB, Taras HL, Kaplan RM. Routine neonatal circumcision: a cost-utility analysis. Med Decis Making. 1991 Oct-Dec;11(4):282–293. [PubMed]
  • Wellington N, Rieder MJ. Attitudes and practices regarding analgesia for newborn circumcision. Pediatrics. 1993 Oct;92(4):541–543. [PubMed]
  • Ryan CA, Finer NN. Changing attitudes and practices regarding local analgesia for newborn circumcision. Pediatrics. 1994 Aug;94(2 Pt 1):230–233. [PubMed]
  • Maxwell LG, Yaster M, Wetzel RC, Niebyl JR. Penile nerve block for newborn circumcision. Obstet Gynecol. 1987 Sep;70(3 Pt 1):415–419. [PubMed]
  • Sara CA, Lowry CJ. A complication of circumcision and dorsal nerve block of the penis. Anaesth Intensive Care. 1985 Feb;13(1):79–82. [PubMed]
  • Weatherstone KB, Rasmussen LB, Erenberg A, Jackson EM, Claflin KS, Leff RD. Safety and efficacy of a topical anesthetic for neonatal circumcision. Pediatrics. 1993 Nov;92(5):710–714. [PubMed]
  • Benini F, Johnston CC, Faucher D, Aranda JV. Topical anesthesia during circumcision in newborn infants. JAMA. 1993 Aug 18;270(7):850–853. [PubMed]
  • Brown MS, Brown CA. Circumcision decision: prominence of social concerns. Pediatrics. 1987 Aug;80(2):215–219. [PubMed]
  • Christensen-Szalanski JJ, Boyce WT, Harrell H, Gardner MM. Circumcision and informed consent. Is more information always better? Med Care. 1987 Sep;25(9):856–867. [PubMed]
  • Deber RB. Physicians in health care management: 8. The patient-physician partnership: decision making, problem solving and the desire to participate. CMAJ. 1994 Aug 15;151(4):423–427. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

Articles from Canadian Family Physician are provided here courtesy of College of Family Physicians of Canada