The Foreskin Regeneration Is Fundamental Petition to U.S Congress and Regenerative medicine was created by and written by Tyler Vo.
To: U.S Congress & Regenerative Medicine
The act of circumcision has been proven time after time to be a senseless, barbaric act. Plenty of evidence exists to prove this. By removing the foreskin, more than half of the skin and mucosa of the penis is lost. If so much penile surface is lost, then this only leads one to suggest that much penile function is also lost in the act.
Yet many still try to support this act. Some suggest that it is necessary as it is required to treat phimosis. But it appears that phimosis is not common as previously thought and as few as "0.6% of boys are affected by the condition by their 15th birthday" according to a study described in the British Journal of Urology International. Even in the rare event of phimosis, a few stretching exercises can fix nearly all cases Others state that a foreskin is not hygienic and that time consuming to roll it back to clean it. This argument is erroneous as rolling back a foreskin takes merely a fraction of a second. There is no reason to continue circumcising innocent children.
Luckily there exists a technology called foreskin regeneration which can fully regrow a functioning foreskin and can fix the damage that has been done. This is different from foreskin restoration because it fully restores all of the specialized nerve endings, unique erogenous zones, muscle fibers, blood vessels, and anatomy of the foreskin.
An organization named Foregen is currently researching this technology. Unfortunately, the medical community refuses to recognize the importance and demand of foreskin regeneration. Thus, they do not want to help Foregen with their research. The purpose of this petition is to show that there is a demand for foreskin regeneration and that men are willing to pay to regenerate their foreskins. It is also requested that at least sufficient attention is devoted to foreskin regeneration research if it is not a main priority. Both the medical community and circumcised men will benefit from this. To regenerate the foreskin, scientists need to make great progress in biology and will need to understand more about skin cells. This suggests that money devoted to this project will also be used to enhance future technology as well.
1. Taylor, J. R., Lockwood, A. P., & Taylor, A. J. (1996). The prepuce: specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision. British Journal of Urology, 77(2), 291-294.
2. Shankar, K. R., & Rickwood, A. M. K. (1999). The incidence of phimosis in boys. BJU International, 84, 101-102.
3. Orsola, A., Caffaratti, J., & Garat, J. M. (2000). Conservative treatment of phimosis in children using a topical steroid. Urology, 56(2), 307-310.
4. Zoske, J. (1998). Male circumcision: a gender perspective. The Journal of Men's Studies, 6(2), 189-197.
Below is a video of routine infant circumcision. Anesthesia was used. Imagine if anesthesia was not used. It is so graphic that it may be difficult to watch through the whole video.