BlogHer - Babies' foreskin used to make cosmetics- Is this ethical? - Comments

HIS body HIS decision

TLCTugger — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 16:21:28 -0500

>> there needs to be full consent involved <<

And since not one national medical assoiciation on earth endorses routine circumcision, the only person with the moral standing to give that consent is the owner of the genitals in question.

>> Terms like "intact" or saying that the baby's foreskin is on his penis "where it belongs" sound judgemental to me. My boys are circumsized for religious reasons. I know the bloghers are not trying to sound intolerant. <<

I really don't like the word tolerance. For example if you say you tolerate gays let's be honest you're saying you disrespect what they're up to - in most people's definition of tolerance.

I have total non-judgemental tolerance of someone's religion when it comes to believing what they choose to about things which can't otherwise be known. But tolerance has nothing at all to do with ignoring human suffering. We don't "tolerate" female genital cutting when people try to do it in our society. It's SO illegal that you could choose to use a sterile pin to draw a single drop of blood from you daughter's genitals - for reilgious ceremonial reasons - and spend 10 years in jail as a result.

Yet we are supposed to tolerate the amputation of over half a male's sensual nerve endings and about 15 square inches (in the adult) of exquisite sexual interface? I'm so sorry, I can't tolerate. I must condemn it. I'm personally affected and offended by it.

Just a plug

Langer Loksh — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 12:19:54 -0500

for keeping an open mind. The big bucks/wrinkle cream idea strikes me as unethical (and sort of yucky). I wish I had been informed. However it would not have changed my mind about circumcizing my two boys. Terms like "intact" or saying that the baby's foreskin is on his penis "where it belongs" sound judgemental to me. My boys are circumsized for religious reasons. I know the bloghers are not trying to sound intolerant.

I do believe parents should know about this aspect of the decision and I am going to call my doctor to find out what happened to my little dudes' skins.

Jill at Langer Loksh

The Bottom Line

audreyh68 — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 17:22:20 -0500

I think, for me, the bottom line comes down to whether parent's are being "encouraged" to circumsize by physicians/hospitals looking to profit from the bio-engineering companies who purchase the foreskins. If parent's are FULLY and COMPLETELY informed and consent, then there isn't an issue. If not, well then that's another ball of wax altogether.

I have no qualms about foreskin being used to genetically engineer new skin, especially for burn victims and other other's who have need of grafts. But again, I think there needs to be full consent involved.

Auds at Barking Mad

I think about this

mysailorsmistress — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 12:17:25 -0500

I think about this actually... I guess it really gets me going.

My son is intact... That was my decision.

This makes me think though. Doctors charge between $200 and $300 for this to be done. If they infact turn around and sell this I am sure they make the same price.

If it was my decision to get my son "snipped" as I call it and I was told that it would be used to grow skin for burn victims I believe I would be all for it. For creams to prevent wrinkles I am not sure.

They are both for vanity purposes but one is to the extreme.

Also, if you opt out how can you be sure that the doctor is not going to sell the skin any way? What are you going to do ASK for it?! That is medical waste. You can't just toss it in the trash!!!!

Jennifer

www.mysailorsmistress.net

Not sure I agree with you Cat.

lousymom — Sun, 31 May 2009 22:09:17 -0500

Cat H, I'm not sure I agree with you that this should not be a part of the consent. I feel like if there is a financial reason for the doctor to do the circumcision, that should be revealed. You may not be getting all the information from the doctor on risks if there is a reward for the doctor. Also, I kinda feel like if there is money made in foreskins, it should go to the parents.

Honestly, the whole idea makes me a little ill. The circumcision is not a procedure that is medically necessary and when we trade in foreskins, we create the demand for people to have their babies circumcised, even if it is just because the doctor has the incentive. People should be able to make well-informed choices. I think this takes away from that.

www.lousymom.com

I had never heard of this

Cat H — Fri, 29 May 2009 08:13:22 -0500

I guess I have less of an issue with it being used for medical purposes like growing skin for burn victims, etc. But that's a personal belief. Certainly not a justification for circumcision by itself, no matter what the benefit. I do think it creates an incentive for the medical establishment to support circumcision.

I don't think it needs to be part of the consent process for the parents because it will not affect the baby boy (whether the foreskin is used afterward or whether it is discarded as medical waste). The consent process is for disclosing risks to the patient.

However, this issue should be publicized so parents can decide for themselves whether they believe that their may be other reasons why circumcision is encouraged.

WOW!!! i have actually

mysailorsmistress — Fri, 29 May 2009 00:02:07 -0500

WOW!!!

i have actually heard of these creams but would never purchase them due to the price and it freaks me out a bit.

I think I made the right decidion!

Jennifer

www.mysailorsmistress.net

Babies' foreskin used to make cosmetics- Is this ethical?

Amy Gates — Thu, 28 May 2009 23:44:01 -0500

The question of whether or not to circumcise their newborn baby boy is often the first of many life-altering decisions parents makes on behalf of their baby. Whether you find yourself for or against circumcision is not the subject of this article (though it could be a subset of it). The issue in question is whether or not it's ethical to use babies' foreskins in the making of cosmetics.

What happens to a baby boy's foreskin after it's removed in the hospital? Naturally, you might think that it is disposed of with other "medical waste," but as I recently learned, that's not always the case. There is, in fact, big money to be made in the foreskin business, not just the money gained from the removal, but from what becomes of the foreskin after the fact. Laura Hopper, a midwife who blogs at Alternative Birth Services recently wrote that wrinkle treatments are being made using American babies' foreskins. Hopper quotes two articles, both detailing the use of baby foreskin in the cosmetic industry. From Acroposthion:

The most disturbing and alarming [controversy] is in the unethical trafficking of neonate foreskins. Not only do parents of North American baby boys have to pay between $200 to $300 to obstetricians to circumcise their boys that no sooner are the circumcised foreskins cut off that they are sold on to bio-engineering and cosmetics companies by the hospitals.

The resale value of neonate foreskins is astronomically dizzying in that from one boy’s foreskin can be grown bio-engineered skin in a lab to the size of a football field. That’s 4 acres of new skin or around 200,000 units of manufactured skin, which is enough skin to cover about 250 people and sells at $3,000 a square foot. Considering that there are 1.25 million neonate foreskins circumcised each year in the U.S alone this translates to one of the most lucrative trades, if not THE most lucrative trade in human body parts ever in the history of humanity.

Hopper ends her post saying, "Wake up people, your children are being exploited for profit."

I have to believe that many parents wouldn't stand for such a thing if they knew it was going on. Although I chose to leave my son's penis intact, I would never think to ask my doctor, "What is going to happen with my son's foreskin after it's removed?" But surely parents have to consent to this sort of thing, don't they? Is it listed in the fine print somewhere on the parental surgical consent form? If it's not, is this ethical?

Jennifer Lance at Eco Child's Play seemed shocked herself at the news when she wrote WTF? Baby Boys’ Circumcised Foreskins Used for Wrinkle Treatments and said, "Glad my son’s foreskin is still where it belongs on his penis and not injected into some old woman’s face looking for the fountain of youth."

According to Summer Minor who blogs at Wired for Noise, the use of baby foreskin to make cosmetics isn't anything new. Back in 2007, she wrote Human Foreskins are Big Business for Cosmetics.

Foreskin fibroblasts are used to grow and cultivate new cells that are then used for a variety of purposes. From the fibroblasts new skin for burn victims can be grown, skin to cover diabetic ulcers, and controversially it is also used to make cosmetic creams and collagens. One foreskin can be used for decades to grow $100,000 worth of fibroblasts.

Minor reports that back in 2007 concern was growing over the ethics behind using human foreskin for cosmetic purposes. "One such cosmetic company, SkinMedica is raising a stir over their use of the growth hormone left over from growing artificial skin from foreskin fibroblasts."

SkinMedica, which sells for over $100 for a 63-oz. bottle, was made famous by Oprah Winfrey and Barbara Walters. Winfrey in fact has promoted SkinMedica several times on her show and website. Discussions about the ethics of using human foreskins for vanity have been circulating on the web but there has not been a response from Winfrey on this debate.

According to an article by Amanda Euringer on The Tyee, "in a discussion on Mothering.com, one querent asked, 'If the cream was made from the bi-product of baby afro-American clitoral skin, would Oprah still be promoting it?' There's no answer to that question on Mothering or Winfrey's site, and Winfrey declined The Tyee's request for an interview." Go figure.

There are uses for removed foreskin that may seem slightly less controversial like using it to create bio-engineered skin for burns, persistent leg ulcers, bed sores, reconstructive surgery and other skin problems. The Foreskin Mafia writes, "Now, circumcision really does have health benefits, only it’s not the baby boys who are losing parts of their penises who benefit."

In case you are wondering if your cosmetics were made from foreskins, it's not as easy as looking for the word "foreskin" in the ingredients. After all the foreskin is not actually an ingredient, but is used as a culture to grow other cells which are then used in the cosmetic. The ingredient you are looking for is likely called Tissue Nutrient Solution or TNS™, human collagen or human fibroblast.

What do you think? If you circumcised your son, do you care what happened to his foreskin after it was removed? Is it ethical to use babies' foreskins for cosmetic purposes? Is this money maker part of a conspiracy to encourage Americans to continue circumcising their sons?

Thanks to Heather Farley who blogs at It's All About the Hat for bringing this issue to my attention in the first place.

Contributing editor Amy Gates also blogs about natural living, attachment parenting and most recently, her life dealing with an anxiety disorder, at Crunchy Domestic Goddess.