Benefits of male circumcision reconfirmed as rates decline
Source: USA Today
Evidence that male circumcision has health benefits is growing, even as the quick but often-controversial surgery becomes less common in the United States, say medical experts making new efforts to publicize the benefits.
In a study out Monday, researchers say falling infant circumcision rates could end up costing billions of U.S. health care dollars when men and their female partners develop AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections and cancers that could have been prevented.
Separately, the American Academy of Pediatrics is about to issue a new policy statement that says infant circumcision has "significant" health benefits, replacing a statement that takes a more neutral stance.
<cut>
The researchers say that if U.S. rates dropped to 10% — the level seen in European countries where insurers don't cover circumcision — the results would include:
•211% more urinary tract infections in baby boys.
•12% more HIV cases in men.
•29% more human papillomavirus (HPV) cases in men.
•18% more high-risk HPV infections in women.
Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/story/2012-08-20/male-circumcision-rates/57169976/1?loc=interstitialskip
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
valerief
(53,235 posts)
Dash87
(3,220 posts)
spooky3
(34,452 posts)villager
(26,001 posts)We could go one, I reckon...
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)Yes, I did go on ... 
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)Last edited Wed Aug 22, 2012, 03:03 PM - Edit history (1)
closeupready
(29,503 posts)to be made! 
Nine
(1,741 posts)And it does seem like it's getting into promoting some ethnic stereotypes.
However I have a lot of skepticism about the current "benefits" study as well.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)None. It beggars belief that a thinking person could actually buy into such tripe. Hormones are NOT generated in the foreskin.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Remember that?
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)back in the early 70's. Don't remember the menstrual cycle connection.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)Last edited Tue Aug 21, 2012, 06:43 PM - Edit history (1)
Confusious
(8,317 posts)The Romans didn't do circumsion and they were the most war like in history.
Pretty much no one but the Jews did circumsion up until MAYBE 150 years ago. Had plenty of wars up to, and past, that point also.
you were fed a line of bull.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)brain is in their dick.
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)No wonder men are so screwed up!
Codeine
(25,586 posts)Cutting skin breaks a hormonal link? That's perhaps the goofiest notion I've seen advanced on this site since the infamous Moon Bombing Threads. It is beyond ludicrous.
And as far as the boring thing goes -- after 42 years on this earth I've yet to find myself bored during sex. Men do not spend most of their waking moments thinking about something that we find boring or irritating.
unc70
(6,113 posts)Thid involves more than just a piece of "skin".
Last edited Tue Aug 21, 2012, 06:44 PM - Edit history (1)
MadrasT
(7,237 posts)Like, Creative-Speculation-grade woo.
I stopped reading right there.
I mean, it's interesting to know people are sitting around coming up with these"theories" but that sounds like pure insanity to me.
Wow. Just wow.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Last edited Tue Aug 21, 2012, 06:36 PM - Edit history (1)
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)are worth the same value as opinions on vaginas from male politicians.
Beyond that, it sounds like over-reaching woo. Are you saying that you "wear out" faster than cut guys? If not, you haven't proved your "theory", you can't perform one half of a comparison and then draw a conclusion.
I'm pretty sure if any study had ever found that the foreskin produces hormones, all circumsions performed by doctors would have stopped the next day.
NickB79
(19,236 posts)Why can't we wear cloth with two materials in it?
Why is it a sin to plant two crops in the same field?
Religions come up with a lot of stupid rules that have little reason or evidence behind them. To say that the Judeo-Christian requirement for circumcision somehow leads to a partriachal, war-like society has absolutely no evidence to back it up. Posting a link to a single website that parrots the same woo-woo, with no science behind it, does not support your case.
And answer me this: if circumcision was linked to patriarchial societies, why are many societies also largely partiarchal and warlike with no history of circumcision? Was Ghengis Khan circumcised? Were the Japanese soldiers that committed war crimes in China and Korea circumcized?
Or maybe circumcision has absolutely NOTHING to do with male behavior?
kiva
(4,373 posts)Not snarky here, but saying that something makes sense to you is not critical thinking. Looking up credible evidence is important, comparing sources is important, using your gut feeling to decide whether or not something seems true is neither credible or compelling.
There are many legitimate arguments, pro and con, about circumcision - we'll probably see most of them in this thread - but this is not one of them.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)who thinks he can predict the future.
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)This poster is not big on what constitutes a valid citation.
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)
I guess that is one step better than "I heard on the TV" but not much.
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)There is a lot of medical literature on circumcision so why not cite that instead of using your "common sense" reasoning? Natural selection is not perfect. Sometimes certain characters can cause problems. Some "customs and traditions" which predate modern medicine have sound health issues behind them. The custom of Jews and Muslims not eating pork, for example. We know today that improperly cooked pork can be a source of illness. This is true of all meats but more so with pork. Primitive people likely noticed that they got sick sometimes when they ate pork. Also they may have noticed that pigs were not very selective in what they ate and thus may have been thought to be less clean and unhealthy. Kosher slaughter of livestock likely had similar roots. Again today we know that slaughter practices can make a big difference in the quality of meat in terms of contamination. The practice of circumcision could have resulted from a similar process starting with observation. We will likely never know but the fact that circumcision was practiced by many unrelated groups around the world would be consistent with such a process. http://www.cirp.org/library/history/dunsmuir1/
cali
(114,904 posts)utter crap. unscientific, bigoted, idiotic, slimy shit.
Disgusting.
Response to cali (Reply #108)
Post removed
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)You made a rather extraordinary claim. It is natural for people to ask to see some kind of citation. That is not being close minded. It is how discussion and debate works. Provide some good documentation when you make a claim and maybe you won't "get slammed." By the way, linking to a video is not good documentation. Ferreting out the actual sources in the video might be - assuming they are good sources.
femrap
(13,418 posts)
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)...but expect flames aplenty.
"Truthiness" is never a big winner around here.
Last edited Tue Aug 21, 2012, 06:42 PM - Edit history (1)
Codeine
(25,586 posts) The site that purports to see into the future and that expounds upon a 2012 apocalypse theory based on pole flipping?!
I say again;
Your source is quite literally insane.jberryhill
(62,444 posts)
hlthe2b
(102,267 posts)Stepping waaaay out of the coming fray.
On the serious side, I can't say I am surprised by these public health findings. Beyond that, I'll offer no opinion.
Lasher
(27,592 posts)Bring it on! Neener.
hlthe2b
(102,267 posts) 
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)They're not necessarily a trivial thing.
I can go either way with this. Its not like I miss my foreskin because it was snipped before I was old enough to know i had it, however it probably would have been nice to wait until I was old enough to decide whether or not I wanted it taken.
I think men deserve that option. However, it would decimate the mohel industry.
[img]
[/img]
MADem
(135,425 posts)He had it done as an adult (if you get married in the mosque, they will check in many cultures). It was agonizing, according to him. Recovery was not a simple matter, either--he wished his mother had made the decision for him when he was young.
Panasonic
(2,921 posts)the foreskin has no nerve endings and could not feel pain.
Jewish baby boy cry - why? The instrument is very cold to them (it's made out of metal) with no effort to warm it up. It shocks the baby, actually, and that's why the mohel often gives them wine to keep them sleeping (that's your evidence of a drunk baby!), not because of the pain.
When my son was circumsized, Rabbi Jay Feder - the longtime Denver area mohel, explained the whole process to us, and suggested we use Neosporin around his circumsized penis for three days - and the foreskin healed right up very quickly, with very little blood, and he didn't even cry one bit.
Crunchy Frog
(26,582 posts)And no, a mohel is not a reliable source.
dkhbrit
(110 posts)If there are no nerve endings he won't feel the cold blade either.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)My boys are circumcised, but they also both had nerve blocks. Yes, babies do feel pain, but that pain can be removed just like any other medical procedure.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)When my son was circumsized, Rabbi Jay Feder - the longtime Denver area mohel
Ah. There's your medical source. A religious figure.
Ask the right one and they'll tell you women don't really mind having their clitori removed either.
GaYellowDawg
(4,447 posts)Signals for pain are generated by free nerve ending nociceptors, while heat/cold are perceived by thermoreceptors. It would be possible, if improbable, for an area of skin to have one type of receptor and not another. In fairness, I doubt it's the case here, but it's possible, and you should realize that touch is a gestalt sense that combines a number of different types of receptors. With respect to expertise/sources, I teach human anatomy and physiology at the collegiate level, and I can refer you to very reputable textbooks by Marieb, Tortora, or Saladin published by Pearson and McGraw/Hill that can back up what I've said.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)Please do.
GaYellowDawg
(4,447 posts)I didn't say I had a source to prove that babies don't feel pain. I said I had a source that proves that there are different receptors for temperature than pain. I'm sure you're passionate about this topic, but does that mean you have to argue in a completely dishonest fashion?
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)if you can provide evidence that babies only feel hot/cold in their genitals and not pain that would be relevant.
But just saying that the receptors for temperature are different than those for pain doesn't really address the initial point.
GaYellowDawg
(4,447 posts)That intentional misrepresentation is much more of an attempt at discrediting than it is a legitimate reply. It is dishonest and extremely ill-mannered. My reply to you did not justify that kind of response.
Because the two sensations are perceived by different types of receptors, there is a possibility, albeit improbable, that a tissue could contain one type of receptor and not the other. It very likely is not the case here, and I was careful to say that. You were implying rather strongly that the two sensations are perceived in the same fashion, when they are not. When you're constructing arguments, I would think that you'd want to be as close to accurate as possible.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)you were trying to muddy it by going in to irrelevant details.
Because the two sensations are perceived by different types of receptors, there is a possibility, albeit improbable, that a tissue could contain one type of receptor and not the other. It very likely is not the case here, and I was careful to say that. You were implying rather strongly that the two sensations are perceived in the same fashion, when they are not. When you're constructing arguments, I would think that you'd want to be as close to accurate as possible.
I was aware that temperature/pain were different pathways. HOWEVER, I am not aware of skin tissue that has only one receptor and not the other.
Hence if it has the ability to feel cold it also feels pain.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Sorry, but that sounds like the kind of thing someone tells parents to make them feel better about doing it to their baby.
He didn't have to convert to a religion that required them. He chose to. Was his mother supposed to know that he was going to join such a religion?
I think it is better not to do it at all.
Additionally the research seems kind of foggy to me. Are they straight up comparing rates of infection between the US and European nations? Might actually doing the necessary sex ed and what not be a better panacea for preventing the spread of STI's?
MADem
(135,425 posts)You can call that a "choice" but it wasn't one. She was not going to marry outside of Iran, and he skeedaddled to Europe to have the procedure done because he wasn't going to have it done in the mosque with the pearl handled curved knives.
He was the "one off" in his family. The rest of his brothers got the snip at birth. The mother was a free spirit when he was born (pre-hippie days) but when she settled down she became more conventional.
I can't speak to the study, just this wee anecdote from my past that came to memory as a consequence of this discussion.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)in no way comparable to a choice made for an infant.
If as an adult he wanted to chop the whole thing off I would cringe at the idea but it would be his choice. If a parent wanted to cut off the penis of an infant I would say they should be prevented from doing so because the infant cannot make this choice and no one should be able to make that decision for someone else.
When did consent become a four letter word around here?
MADem
(135,425 posts)He had no choice but to get the surgery, if he wanted to live happily ever after, and I am simply telling you what he reported to all of us--that he wished his mother had done it when he was young.
This has nothing to do with "consent"---I am relating to you an anecdote of which I have direct and personal knowledge, and nothing more. The guy with the Muslim bride would have preferred the snip had happened as an infant.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)sorry but that is still a choice.
A baby cannot give consent. Surely we can agree to that?
An adult can choose not to marry someone.
This has nothing to do with "consent"---I am relating to you an anecdote of which I have direct and personal knowledge, and nothing more. The guy with the Muslim bride would have preferred the snip had happened as an infant.
If on a FGM thread someone pointed out a woman that couldn't get married to a particular man without getting her clitoris removed and she said it would have been less painful to have it done as a child what would your interpretation of that anecdote be? For or against FGM?
/just because they're boys doesn't mean they lose the right to control what happens with their own bodies. Boys are in fact humans too and worthy of rights.
MADem
(135,425 posts)bread, but I think most people with an iota of humanity will not agree with you.
We aren't talking about chopping off women's clitorises, either, and for you to equate the two procedures tells me that your knowledge of anatomy and your sense of equivalence are just lacking. You have an agenda and damn, you're going to prosecute it.
We're done here. Have the last word, I'm supposing you'll need it.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)Where do you live that it is forced on you against your will?
We aren't talking about chopping off women's clitorises, either, and for you to equate the two procedures tells me that your knowledge of anatomy and your sense of equivalence are just lacking. You have an agenda and damn, you're going to prosecute it.
Of course not. Mutilating a person's genitals without their consent is wrong.
Of course boys must not be considered "people" for this axiom to hold true.
MADem
(135,425 posts)That's the opposite of a choice. Oh, just dump the fiancee...whatever.
Read.
Try to understand the written word. It's not all that difficult.
I told you what the guy said, and what the guy did. He made the "choice" you are whining about, and he said, if it were up to him, he would have preferred that his MOTHER made the "choice" when he was an infant, as she did with his brothers.
Do with that what you will.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)then you say it was.
Make up your mind.
Also as a woman I don't think you should comment on the mutilation of body parts you don't have. I wouldn't tell women what they should do with their genitals. Don't you feel that's appropriate?
MADem
(135,425 posts)for you.
You have one of those great days, now.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)marriage is not a choice.
Bizarre. And you use this to justify mutilating children. Even more bizarre.
Green_Lantern
(2,423 posts)Doctors perform circumcisions in most cases.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)mu·ti·late [myoot-l-eyt] Show IPA
verb (used with object), mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing.
1.
to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.
2.
to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.
And if it is so wonderful why must it be done to someone before they are able to consent?
Green_Lantern
(2,423 posts)There is no medical reason to do fgm. The 2 procedures are nothing alike.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)bad science formulated by putting the conclusion first then seeking data to support it.
More and more they've had to fall back on "culture" or "religion" to justify it.
What major public health horror are you saving us from by denying young boys the right to choose?
Green_Lantern
(2,423 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)nt
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)even if they could expecting people to take care their own personal hygiene (like scrubbing behind their ears) is ludicrous.
Literally no human male is capable of washing himself.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)maybe I need my weekend more than I thought.
Green_Lantern
(2,423 posts)For instance yeast infections from a baby's wet diapers.
Having foreskin creates more places for moisture to sit.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) stated: "Circumcision has been suggested as an effective method of maintaining penile hygiene since the time of the Egyptian dynasties, but there is little evidence to affirm the association between circumcision status and optimal penile hygiene."
Oops.
But what do they know? I don't take medical advice from doctors. I take it from religious figures practicing a tradition they picked up as stone age desert wanderers.
Circumcision is associated with a reduced risk of urinary tract infections (UTIs) however the magnitude of this benefit is likely to outweigh the risk only in those at high risk of UTIs.[20]
Some UTI studies have been criticized for not taking into account a high rate of UTI's among premature infants, who are usually not circumcised because of their fragile health status.[7] The AMA stated that "depending on the model employed, approximately 100 to 200 circumcisions would need to be performed to prevent 1 UTI," and noted one decision analysis model that concluded that circumcision was not justified as a preventative measure against UTI
. . .
A meta-analysis by Van Howe in 2006 found no significant association between circumcision status and HPV infection and that "the medical literature does not support the claim that circumcision reduces the risk for genital HPV infection".
. . .
Two studies have shown that circumcised men report, or were found to have, a higher prevalence of genital warts than uncircumcised men.[121][122]
. . .
The role of male circumcision in female infection with HPV remains controversial. As Castellsagué (2002) said, "…it would not make sense to promote circumcision as a way to control cervical cancer in the United States, where Pap smears usually detect it at a treatable stage."[131]
. . .
Cadman et al.'s (1984) study said that using routine infant circumcision to prevent penile cancer would not be cost-effective; the costs of circumcising everyone would be over a hundred times the savings achieved.[153]
. . .
The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) stated that studies suggest that neonatal circumcision confers some protection from penile cancer, but circumcision at a later age does not seem to confer the same level of protection. They stated further that penile cancer is a rare disease in developed countries and that the risk of penile cancer developing in an uncircumcised man, although increased compared with a circumcised man, remains low.[18] Similarly, the American Medical Association states that although neonatal circumcision seems to lower the risk of contracting penile cancer, because it is rare and occurs later in life, the use of circumcision as a preventive practice is not justified.[15]
The Royal Australasian College of Physicians stated that the use of infant circumcision to prevent penile cancer alone in adulthood is not justified.[155][dead link]
The American Cancer Society stated:
Circumcision seems to protect against penile cancer when it is done shortly after birth. Men who were circumcised as babies have less than half the chance of getting penile cancer than those who were not. The reasons for this are not entirely clear, but may be related to other known risk factors. For example, men who are circumcised cannot develop a condition called phimosis. Men with phimosis have an increased risk of penile cancer (see below). Also, circumcised men seem to be less likely to be infected with HPV, even after adjusting for differences in sexual behavior.
In weighing the risks and benefits of circumcision, doctors consider the fact that penile cancer is one of the least common forms of cancer in the United States. Neither the American Academy of Pediatrics nor the Canadian Academy of Pediatrics recommends routine circumcision of newborns (for medical reasons). In the end, decisions about circumcision are highly personal and depend more on social and religious factors than on medical evidence.[156]
. . .
Lerman and Liao (2001) state that apart from its effects on UTI rates, "Most of the other medical benefits of circumcision probably can be realized without circumcision as long as access to clean water and proper penile hygiene are achieved."[179] (where would we, in the United States possibly get access to clean water?)
And now for the complications:
Williams & Kapila state: "the literature abounds with reports of morbidity and even death as a result of circumcision."[39] Complications may be immediate or delayed, and complications from bleeding, infection and poorly carried out circumcisions can be catastrophic.[40] The immediate complications may be classified as surgical mishap, hemorrhage, infection and anesthetic risk.
The American Medical Association quotes a complication rate of 0.2%–0.6%,[15] based on the studies of Gee[41] and Harkavy.[42] These same studies are quoted by the American Academy of Pediatrics.[18] The American Academy of Family Physicians quotes a range of anywhere between 0.1% and 35%.[43] The Canadian Paediatric Society cites these results in addition to other figures ranging anywhere between 0.06% to 55%, and remark that Williams & Kapila[39] suggested that 2-10% is a realistic estimate.[44] A study quoted by the National Institute of Health reported that 1 complication occurs for every 476 circumcisions.[45] The RACP states that the penis is lost in 1 in 1,000,000 circumcisions.[46]
Deaths have been reported.[47][48] The American Academy of Family Physicians states that death is rare. It estimates a death rate from circumcision of 1 infant in 500,000.[43] Gairdner's 1949 study reported that an average of 16 children per year out of about 90,000 died following circumcision in the UK. He found that most deaths had occurred suddenly under anaesthesia and could not be explained further, but hemorrhage and infection had also proven fatal. Deaths attributed to phimosis and circumcision were grouped together, and Gairdner argued that such deaths were probably due to the circumcision operation.[49]
Green_Lantern
(2,423 posts)And there is no compelling reason to remove this decision from the parents.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)we should just keep removing body parts just in case?
And we remove decisions from parents all the time. The department of Child Protective Services says you don't have the right to neglect your child. Or abuse them. Or hack off body parts for religious reasons (with one exception currently).
You hold the parents right to mutilate to be sacrosanct. Does the child not have a right to bodily integrity?
Why is letting the individual affected do the choosing such an offensive notion to some? Is it because they are emotionally invested in keeping this tradition for whatever reason and they fear if left to their own choices many young men would not choose to mutilate themselves in this way?
Really what's your argument for denying young boys the right to choose how their bodies are permanently altered?
Labiaplasty can reduce hygiene issues for some women as well.
Would you support the parents right to choose this surgery for their neonatal daughters?
Green_Lantern
(2,423 posts)That is my position.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)labioplasty has been shown to have hygiene benefits for some women.
Should that be left up to the parents and doctors?
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Unlike you and I, an infant is incapable of considering the pros and cons.
Green_Lantern
(2,423 posts)They can't weigh pros and cons.
So it is up to the parents to decide.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)That logic applies to EVERYONE.
Green_Lantern
(2,423 posts)For hygiene purposes.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Fact.
Green_Lantern
(2,423 posts)nt
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)does that prove doctors oppose vaccinations?
Crunchy Frog
(26,582 posts)in the sexual anatomy of adult women, and not infant boys.
I expect it has more to do with money than anything else. That's how medicine mostly works in this country.
Crunchy Frog
(26,582 posts)They are doctors, and the patients are children who can't consent on their own behalf, so that makes it okay, right? Especially since it's being done in hygeinic medical facilities under anesthesia.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)a mohel who made a wallet that when rubbed became a briefcase..
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)
Warpy
(111,256 posts)becomes quite a drastic one when males get older.
Again, it's the parents' decision. Just let 'em know the facts and butt out.
WooWooWoo
(454 posts)or the childs?
What if, for instance, you have really ultra conservative parents who think sex is only for procreation and they want to do a female circumcision, should that be allowed?
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)Crunchy Frog
(26,582 posts)
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)I do see the point. There are few operations that are performed that provide so little actual medical benefit and have been scrutinized so thoroughly to justify a medical benefit as male circumcision.
It is almost literally a surgery in search of a problem.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)There we go. +1,000,000
Warpy
(111,256 posts)did you not understand?
Infancy is pretty much when it needs to be done. Healing is very rapid, in about a week. Older kids and adults can take a month or more.
Infants can't decide anything. Their parents are the adults who are entitled to make those decisions for them.
It's your job (and mine) to butt out of that decision.
WooWooWoo
(454 posts)only applies in adulthood then, huh?
Crunchy Frog
(26,582 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)nt
Warpy
(111,256 posts)You don't get to decide squat until you're an adult.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)You are talking about an unnecessary- as per the AMA - cosmetic medical procedure performed- on a baby.
To argue that "fuck em, too bad, it's not their call" is a horribly blase stance to take when you are considering modifying the body of another without their consent.
Crunchy Frog
(26,582 posts)Well, we do know that in this country it is currently legal to perform fellatio on them.
Nine
(1,741 posts)It's a low-risk procedure even in adulthood from what I understand. My son is not circumcised because I felt it should be his choice as an adult. I did factor in the likelihood that it might be more painful and take longer to heal as an adult but for me it did not outweigh the importance of making it his choice. Besides, I reasoned no one could know what an adult circumcision would be like 18 years later. There might be medical advancements in the procedure itself or in the drugs and treatments used during the healing period that make it relatively painless. There also may be more science about the pros and cons of circumcision to guide his decision. Anyway, lots of things are painful - getting wisdom teeth out for example. People deal.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)You only think so because the infant has no voice to say what he thinks of this damage by removal of half the penile skin.
And "let'em know the facts" is a big joke given the scientific frauds perpetrated by the mutilation advocates, and the willingness of the media to repeat these as though they were news. How come they don't cover it when a study comes out refuting and completely rendering moot the pro-"circumcision" studies?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021171713
GaYellowDawg
(4,447 posts)The foreskin is not half of anyone's penile skin, unless he's pretty seriously lacking in that department. If you want to make a point about this, you're going to be a lot more credible without the hysteria/exaggeration. And infants don't "think" about anything. They can perceive sensation, but do not yet have the capacity to think about it or remember it. Informed consent is impossible for infants. In the absence of that consent, parents have the right and the obligation to seek medical advice and follow it.
ilikeitthatway
(143 posts)and infants cannot be be put under for the procedure. It's barbaric! It's religious hocus pocus.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)sure there's no real reason to do it. But maybe your culture values that sort of thing.
Either way it's best left to the parent.
Response to Warpy (Reply #30)
4th law of robotics This message was self-deleted by its author.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)So yes, in that sense when you are treating a medical complication (with circumcision) its going to be tougher because the surgery is addressing a medical issue as well.
But in general, the normal circumcision procedure for infants and adults is the same (except for the pubic shave - heh, shout out to the pubic thread!)
Recovery looks to be about the same as well - a week for a normal procedure. It appears that both infants and adults also have to abstain from sex and masturbation for 6 - 8 weeks.
The list of potential complications also looks extremely similar for both infants and adults.
I firmly disagree that parents should have the right to genitally mutilate a child. If the child wants to have that kind of tribal ritual performed, they can do it when they are old enough to make the decision themselves.
ilikeitthatway
(143 posts)n/t
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Wish I could have a do-over on that decision.
calsawals
(2 posts)Nail technician?
Enrique
(27,461 posts) 2on2u
(1,843 posts)time.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-10-10/scientists-discover-true-function-of-appendix-organ/693946
It has long been regarded as a potentially troublesome, redundant organ, but American researchers say they have discovered the true function of the appendix.
The researchers say it acts as a safe house for good bacteria, which can be used to effectively reboot the gut following a bout of dysentery or cholera.
The conventional wisdom is that the small pouch protruding from the first part of the large intestine is redundant and many people have their appendix removed and appear none the worse for it.
Scientists from the Duke University Medical Centre in North Carolina say following a severe bout of cholera or dysentery, which can purge the gut of bacteria essential for digestion, the reserve good bacteria emerge from the appendix to take up the role.
wordpix
(18,652 posts)Mine were taken out when I was 7 and I'll never forget the pain or thirst following the operation. Supposedly this was to prevent me from getting bad sore throats but afterward, I got sore throats from time to time, anyway. So it didn't work.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)Something to do with the immune system or somesuch. I'm not a doctor.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Obviously so it can be removed....
Whales have back leg bones for a reason too.
Psephos
(8,032 posts)You could throw living in cities into that pot, too.
I'm speculating, nothing more.
calsawals
(2 posts)One of those purposes during infancy and childhood is that there is an actual SPHINCTER on the end that keeps it closed up tight when not peeing. It's pretty amazing. And that's how it keeps poop and other germies out. However, when it is removed, the raw and tender glans is then completely exposed and SITTING in crap in a diaper. That's disgusting ...and it's even worse that it's done for the sake of cleanliness. Completely oxymoronic.
As for adulthood.. I would venture a guess to say that 20k plus sexual, erogenous nerve endings are very purposeful and useful in their own way. And I sure wouldn't want part of MY body removed that contained so much potential. I can't even imagine what circumcised men are missing. It's pretty sad actually.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I mean, shaving, right?
Did that thread ever get down to a survey of what manner of tats, brands, piercings and fully immersive art installations people have going on down there these days?
Or are we really going to pretend that shaving and circumcision are on DU's top ten list of genital body modification?
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Johns Hopkins is one of the finest medical schools on the planet. That's my only observation.
antigone382
(3,682 posts)That certainly doesn't render it totally invalid, but I do wonder what mitigating effect the profound differences in culture, resources, and education might have on circumcision's risks in the United States.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)that controlled for condom use, education, and other factors.
My Pet Goat
(413 posts)Impossibility of placebo, additional counseling about safe sex, and time-out effects to recover from surgery.
http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/05/when-bad-science-kills-or-how-to-spread-aids/
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)and the same access to condoms. They purposely designed the studies to account for those variables.
It is true that they couldn't compare a placebo vs. circumcision, but the diagnosis of HIV isn't something that would be influenced by a participant's or his doctor's expectations. It's done with blood tests.
And the 60% difference in HIV cases is over a 2 year period. It could hardly have been accounted for by several weeks of abstinence after the surgery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_HIV
The NIAID, part of the NIH, supported two further trials, conducted in Kenya and in Uganda. The primary objectives of these studies were to determine whether adult male circumcision can be administered safely, and whether it would reduce the risk of acquiring HIV infection through heterosexual contact. After an initial HIV screening and a medical exam, eligible men were randomly assigned either to receive circumcision immediately or to wait two years before circumcision. All participants were closely followed for two years to collect information about their health, sexual activity, and their and their partners’ attitudes about circumcision; to counsel participants in HIV prevention and safe sex practices; and to check the HIV status of the volunteer. Participants in the Kenyan study were scheduled for six visits over the two-year follow-up, compared with four visits for the Ugandan trial participants. In addition to the study visits, men enrolled in the Kenyan trial were encouraged to receive all of their outpatient health care at the study clinics, which enabled researchers to collect information on the safety of the procedure and the number of other sexually transmitted diseases the men had during follow-up.
Response to My Pet Goat (Reply #59)
Post removed
Crunchy Frog
(26,582 posts)“The same measures are not applicable to the Northern countries. The recommendations of the WHO state that this strategy is aimed at countries with high prevalence, and not at countries with low prevalence or in countries where it relates specifically to one part of the population such as in France or the United States.”
Crunchy Frog
(26,582 posts)
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)When bad science kills, or how to spread AIDS
http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/05/when-bad-science-kills-or-how-to-spread-aids/
unc70
(6,113 posts)The science associated with this topic is really poor. It is in there with really poor diet and nutrition research, and almost as bad as most economics.
Almost everyone all for circumcision having such great benefits and no downside are unaware of what is missing. This not about just a piece of "skin". It changes the characteristics of the sheath as it "unwraps" during intercourse.
The sensations are different for the man and also for the woman.
I will critique the research itself in a longer post in a day or so. I want to have my post reviewed by a colleague or two first.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)Thank you in advance.
2on2u
(1,843 posts)
LeftofObama
(4,243 posts) 
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)have bigger wangers and hundreds more sexual encounters than those who aren't. It's just fact. I thought everyone knew it. 
Grassy Knoll
(10,118 posts)Mass
(27,315 posts)Otherwise, it is purely a question of choice and I am for choice.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the United Kingdom have generally seen a decline in male circumcision while there are indications of increasing demand in Southern Africa. The Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported in 2011 that rates decreased in the United States in the period 1999 to 2010. Citing three different data sources, most recent rates were 56.9% in 2008 (NHDS) 56.3% in 2008 (NIS), and 54.7% in 2010 (CDM).
Prevalence of circumcision
You're not doing this right! Scientists cherry pick evidence, call it firm, and you're supposed put out the money to do it. This "choice" thing is irrelevant in the face of insurmountable evidence!
Oh, and BOOGA!
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)He claims the same scientific theory there as well.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)And in fact, while I totally support climate change theory, the fact that their climate models are not keeping up with the actual warming and are having to be continually revised based on ice color as it melts, snow levels and other things they somehow "forgot" to compute suggests that they either thought putting the whole truth out there would make them sound like chicken littles, or in fact the proper data was not collected and added to the models before this.
Half science is like a half truth- it's useless for figuring the real truth out and it makes the person who spouted it look bad.
In this case, if circumcision is such is clear cut issue, why not use neutral evidence? After all, we can just be like Akin and say that science tells us that women NEVER conceive from rape because some of them don't.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)like Japan, where daily bathing is a ritual, circumcision is almost non-existent, and the people have the highest life expectancy rate on the planet.
Mass
(27,315 posts)
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,327 posts)True story.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)then I've got a bridge in El Aziziyah, Libya to sell you
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,327 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)that it's a VERY nice bridge. And I will take a check, as long as it's not drawn on a Nigerian bank
Crunchy Frog
(26,582 posts)No wee wee makes for super easy cleaning.
wordpix
(18,652 posts)If you are desert nomads like the Hebrews were, and you don't have ready access to water, circumcision is the thing to do. But if you're living in the modern world with regular baths and showers, I'd like to see those comparisons.
Crunchy Frog
(26,582 posts)Last edited Tue Aug 21, 2012, 02:08 AM - Edit history (1)
effete.
Couldn't we just send a team out there from John's Hopkins to liberate them from their foreskins and turn them into real men?
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)Last edited Wed Aug 22, 2012, 11:45 AM - Edit history (1)
doesn't support the conclusion so it must be excluded.
Just like most of Europe.
And really anywhere that reality is giving the wrong answer.
iamthebandfanman
(8,127 posts)can we please drop this stupid stuff?
all this does is start arguments, and then for some reason half of us have to defend the way our penis looks.
its disgusting, and if it was a WOMANS body part i doubt it would be so openly talked about and ridiculed by so many people on this forum.
i cant change the way i am, stop telling me im deformed (which has happened in previous threads about this topic)!!
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Just sayin'
Crunchy Frog
(26,582 posts)In case you haven't noticed, there is a massive circumcision PR blitz going on, with articles similar to the above in running in all sorts of corporate news outlets. And it's going to get worse, because the new AAP statement is due out in a few days.
And yes, I agree with you that it's disgusting that we live in a society in which it's considered acceptable to discuss male bodies as if they were pieces of meat; even on allegedly progressive message boards where it is anathema to talk about women in that fashion.
aquart
(69,014 posts)It's a gift God gave.
You know, like the hymen.
wordpix
(18,652 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Codeine
(25,586 posts)You're mean! 
Crunchy Frog
(26,582 posts)BTW, I find the degrading and derogatory way you talk about other people's sexual anatomy to be really kind of cute.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)He's an expert on these things.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,327 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)The studies are in Africa, but then they use that (totally reliable! controlled!) data to make a claim about what would happen if US rates dropped to European levels. In circumcised Europe, the rates of HIV infection are much lower than in the United States. (Too lazy to look up the other data.)
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)
flying_wahini
(6,594 posts)the topic of circumcision came up a lot.
The medical opinion was that circumcision was preferred and necessary because sexual partners of
uncircumcised men had a MUCH higher rate of cervical cancer (not mentioned above).
plus all of the other reasons already listed.
I am always kind of tickled about how squeamish men are about discussing it...
It's a pretty minor event, people have been doing it for thousands of years.
The foreskin, IMHO, was designed to desensitize the shaft to prolong the woman's pleasure.
Sgent
(5,857 posts)albeit in a round-a-bout manner.
Since most cervical cancer is related to HPV infection, the 18% increase in the rate of HPV infection for partners is an issue.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)And women were "designed to" have a birth canal smack dab at the base of the bone that brings the legs and spine together, just to make sure it is as unpleasurable as possible?
Human reproduction is among the most ridiculous and farcically ill-designed arrangements on the planet.
A lot of compromises were involved in getting large brains and walking upright, and ease of reproduction was one area that took a hit.
HankyDub
(246 posts)that in humans the genitalia are located in the waste disposal area, which is more evidence of "intelligent design."
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)A lot of women have to have a c-section b/c the baby's head is too big to go thru the hole in the woman's pelvis. And yes, I assume that vaginal childbirth is extremely painful. When I was in labor before my c-section, and then it stopped because the baby was not going anywhere, it was very painful.
I had to have a c-section when I had my only child back in 1985, or both of us would have died. No question about it. Which is why I get really annoyed with natural childbirth nuts, that insist that ALL babies can be delivered vaginally. WRONG.
They scream about how "childbirth is a natural function!". Yes, but in the old days before c-sections and antibiotics, and nowadays in undeveloped countries, ONE-THIRD of women died in childbirth from lack of a c-section, or shortly thereafter from childbed fever, due to a massive infection caused by doctors or midwives inserting their germ-laden hands in the vagina.
Oh and don't forget the blood vessels in FRONT of the retina. Blood vessel leaks--ya got blindness.
wordpix
(18,652 posts)it does NOT prolong a woman's pleasure ---it feels just like a circumcized one in every way.
Other things can prolong but not this!
My Pet Goat
(413 posts)"Each skipped male circumcision would end up costing $313 in direct medical bills...."
? Not persausive.
Emillereid
(3,332 posts)and Europe if it had been conducted in those countries. And as far as I can tell a lot of the fears haven't materialized in Europe or other places where men are largely un-circumcized.
Other points of view:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2231534/
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/105/Supplement_2/246.full.html
http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/clinical/clinicalrecs/children/circumcision.html
is changing their stance based on the USA Today article, and I would assume AAFP and NIH will change it fairly rapidly as well.
The WHO's stance is already pro circumcision as part of HIV prevention:
from http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/
There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Three randomized controlled trials have shown that male circumcision provided by well trained health professionals in properly equipped settings is safe. WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence.
Male circumcision provides only partial protection, and therefore should be only one element of a comprehensive HIV prevention package which includes: the provision of HIV testing and counseling services; treatment for sexually transmitted infections; the promotion of safer sex practices; the provision of male and female condoms and promotion of their correct and consistent use.
Emillereid
(3,332 posts)Also does not seem to be very relevant to countries that have goog hygeine.
Response to Sgent (Original post)
Post removed
Crunchy Frog
(26,582 posts)if it were someone talking about female sexual anatomy?
AlphaCentauri
(6,460 posts)Crunchy Frog
(26,582 posts)AlphaCentauri
(6,460 posts)Crunchy Frog
(26,582 posts)Kind of interesting that the rest of the developed world, enlightened as they are with universal health coverage, would still rather suffer the scourges of intact genitalia than fork out the money for routine baby penis cutting. And we all know how unhealthy the poor Europeans are compared with their American counterparts. Even though the rates of those diseases are generally lower there than here.
I dunno, maybe they've discovered some strange new health technologies...like indoor plumbing, or condoms, or something.
Crunchy Frog
(26,582 posts)Conclusions
Although most respondents stated that they based their decisions on medical evidence, the circumcision status of, especially, the male respondents played a huge role in whether they were in support of circumcisions or not.
I wonder what the circumcision status is of the medical experts in question. It apparently represents a rather powerful source of potential bias, and hence would be legitimate question to ask.
Crunchy Frog
(26,582 posts)Sample of Men in Puerto Rico (abstract). The Journal of Sexual Medicine
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02871.x/abstract
According to this study, among Puerto Rican men, circumcision is correlated with higher rates of STD's and HIV.
I wonder when the American medical establishment is going to figure out that the entire world is not Sub-Saharan Africa.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)I strongly recommend everyone reads this article:
http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/05/when-bad-science-kills-or-how-to-spread-aids/
unc70
(6,113 posts)I have posted here and elsewhere about the horrible quality of the underlying. "research" behind the so-called justification for circumcision.
Ian David
(69,059 posts)
Brainstormy
(2,380 posts)If religion and its arrogance were not involved, no healthy society would permit this primitive amputation, or allow any surgery to be practiced on the genitalia without the full and informed consent of the person concerned.
Brainstormy
(2,380 posts)Karen Nurse (08:46:11) :
I am looking for someone to do an expose’ on a custom. I am a nurse in newborn nursery. The pain that sweet tiny baby boys go through during a circumcision horrifies me. It is surgery without anesthesia. It is 10 minutes of pure hell. The pain is so horrendous that many babies go into shock immediately. They just stare and make gurgly noises. They are the lucky ones. The others remain perfectly aware of the pain that goes on and on. Their piercing screams haunt me.
In history, the earliest surgery was done without anesthesia. Just tie them down and do it quick. Some people were willing to have surgery once. But I’ve read that people refused to endure surgery a second time – even if it meant death. They knew how severe the pain was, and decided they would rather die than endure that pain a second time.
How can intelligent, educated people not realize that a scalpel causes a horrendous, sharp, excruciating pain that no human being should ever have to endure. Tell me how a custom can be so strong that it overpowers intelligence and common sense.
For example, the Chinese custom of “binding” young girls’ feet. The toes were forced down under the foot [ breaking bones, I believe ] and tightly bound forever. So the feet couldn’t grow. Forever small. Big feet were considered UGLY. No one would marry a girl with big feet. Can you imagine the pain? Americans are not under the influence of Chinese customs and from a distance, we are apalled! But in China, even after a law was passed against foot-binding, some parents would still do it – knowing that they were going to prison. That is how strong a custom can be. It can cloud judgement.
The pain of circumcision wouldn’t be quite as bad if the foreskin was fully developed at birth. But it is still adhered to the glans [ head of the penis ] and does not separate naturally for several years. Mother Nature may be slow, but it produces an exquisitely sensitive sexual organ.
The first step of a circumcision is to rip the adhered foreskin off the glans using a metal probe. But the two skins are still fused as one. And patches of skin are ripped off the glans in the process. I see the glans of these tiny penises with skin missing and the tissue exposed every day. The pain is supposed to be comparable to having a metal probe forced under your fingernail and ripping it back and forth until the fingernail comes off. Imagine the pain! It is now recommended that a pain block be used. But it is not a law. So only a few babies get it.
So why do we do it? Because it is what we are used to. A custom. Explain that to a baby that is enduring a pain that no human being should ever have to endure!
There are many other reasons not to circumcise. It is removing the best skin of the penis. The foreskin contains approx. 20,000 specialized nerves that enhance sexual pleasure. The skin remaining is crude and has only a fraction of the sensation. The foreskin is NOT extra skin. It is there so that the penis can get longer during an erection. It is designed to unfold and stretch out, allowing the penis to grow. In the process, the foreskin is pulled off the glans. The glans is then uncovered and now the intact penis looks the same as a circumcised penis. They end up looking the same during an erection. But the intact penis is larger and has more sensation.
Over the years, doctors have invented excuses for circumcision and the public latches onto them. These excuses are false and misleading. There is no reason good enough to inflict such sharp, excruciating pain on someone you love. To forever decrease his sexual pleasure. To amputate the best, most sensitive part of his penis. To violate his human rights.
As I watch parents hug and kiss their new babies. Then insist that their babies endure a pain that is comparable to a fingernail being ripped off with a metal probe. And then a scalpel cuts – with no anesthesia. I want to scream, “Do you love your baby, or hate him?”
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)This is child abuse of the worst kind - it's torture.
Circumcision destroys much of the ability to enjoy sex. The poor kid has much of his future sex life taken away - permanently.
Nikia
(11,411 posts)My first son cried when he was unwrapped for the procedure but quited down when it was done. My other son slept through it. Maybe you think that they were in shock. Their vitals weren't crashing like mine did when I was in shock during my first miscarriage with heavy bleeding though. A couple of hours later, they seemed perfectly fine.
They were both given local anethesia. This is in a small rural hospital where they only had demerol for child birth pain, aside from epidural too. I don't think that it is an especially progressive place.
GaYellowDawg
(4,447 posts)The part claiming that a foreskin makes the penis longer/larger. It has nothing to do with that. The remaining skin has plenty of sensation, thanks -having nearly blacked out from the sensation of the occasional extraordinary blowjob - and it's ludicrous for a woman to talk about relative crudeness of a sensation that she can never actually gauge. It'd be like men commenting on the pain of childbirth. Ridiculous.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)You may not survive sex otherwise.
Some circumcised men complain that their organisms are underwhelming. Perhaps some scientist could research how much circumcisions reduce orgasms.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Remmah2
(3,291 posts)Now that's funny.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)
And yes, I take mine with the movie-buttergrease.
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)...you mind starting one of those too?
Alduin
(501 posts)Um, yeah they do. There is never any need to slice off part of a man's dick. Condoms can prevent most of those issues.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)...and based on that, I'm quite happy to have been circumsized. I don't feel in the least mutilated or like I'm missing something. And I don't seem to have any trauma based on the act itself.
I find this whole argument kind of bizarre. And not my highest priority. That's my final word on it.
xchrom
(108,903 posts)not to say if you have drapes -- i won't pull them.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)nt
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)When it comes to my penis, it is all about me. But thanks for your weird thought.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)It is about the practice of circumcising infant males unilaterally.
You can post whatever you want, as far as I'm concerned.
But that tired talking point "well I've been circumcised, and I still get erections" has never had anything to do with arguments made in favor of making the practice illegal without the consent of the boy.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)I disagree with your position on circumcision. There, are you happy now?
closeupready
(29,503 posts)fanaticism. At least, not in my universe.
Which universe are you talking about? A religious one? Yes? I thought so. 
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Get back to me when there is a mass movement of aggrieved circumsized men.
If you think I base my support of circumcision on religious beliefs, you thought wrong. A bit presumptuous of you, no?
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)For complicated reasons, often deeply psychological, there is a tiny movement that insists that they know better than parents and Doctors what is best for a male infant, just like the fanatics who insist it's a "child's choice" whether he or she wants to be vaccinated or not.
This obsession with other people's foreskin is creepy, and that's exactly what the anti-circumcision crowd has: an obsession with other people's foreskin.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)nt
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)And while I'm at it: thanks for confirming precisely what I posted above with your witless personal attack.
pansypoo53219
(20,976 posts)WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)should be able to make the decision for themselves when they reach an appropriate age. His body, his choice.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)Semen could still be extracted surgically from the testicles for breeding purposes.
And if it must be done it'll be less painful if done to a child than an adult.
/just carrying this non-consensual genital mutilation for public health to its logical conclusion. Why half-ass it?
Green_Lantern
(2,423 posts)Removing the whole penis would have an adverse effect on a man's reproductive function.
There is no compelling reason to stop male circumcision.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)as I said it is entirely possible to remove semen from the testicles medically without a penis. And then once you have extracted semen you can use it to impregnate women.
It would reduce STDs to virtually nothing within a generation. It would make teen pregnancy, rape, and sexual assault a thing of the past.
There is no compelling reason to stop male circumcision.
True, unless we count all the compelling reasons to stop male circumcision:
Australasia
The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP; 2009) state that "after extensive review of the literature" they "[do] not recommend that routine circumcision in infancy be performed". They also state that "if the operation is to be performed, the medical attendant should ensure this is done by a competent surgeon, using appropriate anaesthesia and in a safe child-friendly environment." Additionally, the RACP state that there is an obligation to provide parents who request a circumcision for their child with accurate, up-to-date and unbiased information about the risks and benefits of circumcision, adding that "in the absence of evidence of substantial harm, parental choice should be respected."[9]
[edit]Canada
The Fetus and Newborn Committee of the Canadian Paediatric Society posted "Circumcision: Information for Parents" in November 2004,[10] and "Neonatal circumcision revisited" in 1996. The 1996 position statement says that "circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed", and the 2004 advice to parents says it "does not recommend circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions."[11]
Regarding the practice of routine infant circumcision, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia states in its 'Professional Standards and Guidelines' (version September 2009) that "Infant male circumcision was once considered a preventive health measure and was therefore adopted extensively in Western countries. Current understanding of the benefits, risks and potential harm of this procedure, however, no longer supports this practice for prophylactic health benefit. Routine infant male circumcision performed on a healthy infant is now considered a non-therapeutic and medically unnecessary intervention."[12]
[edit]Netherlands
The Royal Dutch Medical Association issued a new policy in May 2010: "The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organisations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children’s rights to autonomy and physical integrity. Contrary to popular belief, circumcision can cause complications – bleeding, infection, urethral stricture and panic attacks are particularly common. KNMG is therefore urging a strong policy of deterrence. KNMG is calling upon doctors to actively and insistently inform parents who are considering the procedure of the absence of medical benefits and the danger of complications."[6]
[edit]United Kingdom
The British Medical Association's position (June 2006) was that male circumcision for medical purposes should only be used where less invasive procedures are either unavailable or not as effective. The BMA specifically refrained from issuing a policy regarding “non-therapeutic circumcision,” stating that as a general rule, it “believes that parents should be entitled to make choices about how best to promote their children’s interests, and it is for society to decide what limits should be imposed on parental choices.”[13]
[edit]United States
The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) found both potential benefits and risks in infant circumcision, however, there was insufficient data to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In situations involving potential benefits and risks, and no immediate urgency, they state that "parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child". They continue, "To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision." They said, "In the pluralistic society of the United States in which parents are afforded wide authority for determining what constitutes appropriate child-rearing and child welfare, it is legitimate for the parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to medical factors, when making this choice." If a decision to circumcise is made, the AAP recommend using analgesia to reduce pain, and also said that circumcision on newborns should be performed only if they are stable and healthy.[14]
The American Medical Association (1999) noted that medical associations in the US, Australia, and Canada did not recommend routine circumcision of newborns. It supported the general principles of the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics.[15]
The American Academy of Family Physicians (January 2007) acknowledges the controversy surrounding circumcision and recommends that physicians discuss the potential harms and benefits of circumcision with all parents or legal guardians considering circumcision for newborn boys.[16]
The American Urological Association (May 2007) states there are benefits and risks to circumcision, recommending that circumcision "should be presented as an option for health benefits" while acknowledging that "[e]vidence associating neonatal circumcision with reduced incidence of sexually transmitted diseases is conflicting." It feels that parents should consider medical benefits and risks, and ethnic, cultural, etc. factors when making this decision.
But what do all them sciency types really know?
I get my facts from religious figures going by handmedown hallucinations from thousands of years ago.
Green_Lantern
(2,423 posts)This issue matters very little to me.
I'm glad my parents got me circumcized...it is far more convenient and looks better.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)to prevent all the problems people have claimed it solves.
But those are just ignorant doctors.
Like with vaccines. Who are you going to trust? Stupid doctors and their silly degrees and years of experience backed by empirical evidence.
Or a mothers intuition?
/all I'm asking is that we respect a boy's right to choose what to do with their bodies the same as we on here respect a girls right to choose. That seems fair.
Green_Lantern
(2,423 posts)You want to second guess the child's own doctor?
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)based on superstition (and directly contradicted by fact).
Also don't think I didn't notice the subtle shift. It went from "leave it up to the parents" to "you want to second guess the child's own doctor?"
I can't think of any hospital that routinely practices circumcision on boys against the wishes of their parents.
Green_Lantern
(2,423 posts)The final decision is up to parents based on consulting their doctor.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)or no one.
Doctors in general don't support this.
I doubt you'll answer but I have posed this question before: labiaplasty prevents hygiene issues for some women. Would you support parents choosing to have a doctor perform this on their 1 day old daughter?
/religious rights trump the right to choose to do as you please with your body. Huh. I've heard that before somewhere.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)I'll take your word for it, even if it doesn't conform with my experience.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)There we go. +1,000,000.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)A: . . . obvious isn't it?
closeupready
(29,503 posts)+1000.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)the potential amputee's decision, in my opinion.
I am also against piercings and tattoos for infants.
Butterbean
(1,014 posts)NC (where I practice nursing) is one of them. Just a random trivia fact I thought I'd toss out there.
I have 2 boys. One is cut, the other is intact. I left the second one intact because I regretted circumcising the first one about 2 seconds after it was done. Can't take it back, though.
Crunchy Frog
(26,582 posts)This new piece of "research" by John's Hopkins appears to boil down to a desire to reverse this trend and to force Medicaid and other insurance to guarantee payment for all newborn circumcisions. "So that parents will be free to choose without financial constraint". Very altruistic of them.
Essentially the same article/press release as that in the OP has now been published in about a gazillion different corporate media outlets, and the bottom line in all of them basically boils down to "Give us money for cutting baby genitals!"
Butterbean
(1,014 posts)
gollygee
(22,336 posts)However, I had decided to NOT have a baby boy circumcised if I'd had one. For a few reasons. I don't believe some of the negatives from the anti-circ crowd, because some seem silly, however, there are still plenty of good reasons IMO to skip the procedure.
1. It's painful and babies have been through enough. My instinct after birth has always been to hold onto the baby and try to avoid any thin that will create more pain unless it is absolutely needed.
2. I question how great the benefits are when Europe has a very very low circumcision rate and men seem to do OK there.
3. It isn't a flap of skin - it's a fold - and it seems like you wouldn't know how much of that fold would be needed until the kid reached sexual maturity. There is a potential for problems and the problems wouldn't necessarily be seen until sexual maturity, when it might be too late to do much if anything.
4. It seems like he should be allowed to decide and he can't do so at that age.
EllkayRN
(1 post)I am a NICU nurse and my clinical experiences in this specialty have made me very anti-routine infant circumcision. I have seen some horrific complications from this procedure, the most common of which is the nicked frenular artery. Several months ago, a baby at our facility suffered a partial amputation.
Though these complications may not be the norm, they happen often enough that I question how any potential health benefits could be worth putting your days old son at risk for bleeding, infection (open wound in a diaper, yum) and possible disfigurement. It's a really important part of a guy you're messing with!
You have to teach your child hygeineband to practice safe sex regardless of ICRC status. It is those things that will keep your son healthy, not surgical removal of healthy tissue.
There is absolutely no reason why we can't let our sons decide for themselves.
Crunchy Frog
(26,582 posts)And welcome to DU. I know that it's not easy to make that first post, but this one was very informative, and I hope that we will be hearing more from you. 
annabanana
(52,791 posts)Welcome to DU
ilikeitthatway
(143 posts)Next.
ilikeitthatway
(143 posts)who convinced parents that by cutting off the foreskin, little boys would keep their hands off their no-no areas.
Crunchy Frog
(26,582 posts)behind the original push for medicalized circumcision in this country.
http://books.google.com/books/about/Plain_facts_for_old_and_young.html?id=pubVzCbD_DMC
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)The foreskin has a purpose and circumcision is not giving the child a choice. I think it's horrible.
I don't plan to speak to my step daughter in law in the future. I gave her a speech about WHY circumcision is unnecessary and harmful. It also cost her $300 that she and her hubby (my stepson who is 30) could ill afford (He works at walmart).
I found out later that they circumcised the kid even though I told her not to, and told her WHY not to.
If she is not going to listen to anything I tell her, I just won't talk to her any more.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)It is their child, not your. They are the parents, they make the choices they think are best for them.
She may have listened to you, and then made up her own mind.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)kwassa
(23,340 posts)Or she wouldn't do it, would she?
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)The reality and what she thinks are not the same.
Foreskins are there for a purpose. She later said she needed $150 to buy her hubby a pennywhistle. I did not respond to her request for money, since she already spent $300 to mutilate her child after I TOLD her NOT to, and told her WHY it was unnecessary.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)So I guess I should stop listening to you, too.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)FGM: their child, not yours.
Ritualistic castration: their child, not yours.
In civilized countries parents actually don't have total autonomy do with their children what they please.
For instance they are still required by law to feed the kid. And provide some education. And not beat or otherwise abuse the child.
/it's amazing that spanking a child for discipline purposes (and leaving no permanent disfigurements) will elicit cries of outrage on here even if you cite religion or culture or history as a reason. But permanently mutilating the genitals of a child (males only) will elicit "meh, it's their religion or culture or history or whatever".
kwassa
(23,340 posts)Civilized countries don't see it as mutilation.
Nor do I.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)Is it permanent?
Does it involve the removal of healthy tissue for non-medical reasons?
Does it depend on the informed consent of those involved?
cabot
(724 posts)I am against male circumcision. As a woman, I don't have the right to tell a man to lop off the tip of his penis. Nor do I have the right to make that decision for my son, unless there are serious medical reasons. The reasons mentioned in the story are easily remedied through proper hygiene and the cunning use of condoms.
Nine
(1,741 posts)No one's mind is going to be changed on circumcision by mocking their religion. Nor by referring to their fathers, brothers, husbands, or already-born sons as "mutilated." I think circumcision is wrong and my husband and I chose to leave my son intact, but if he were born 5 or 10 years sooner I might have made a different choice. Parents don't choose circumcision because they're bad people, and it's neither easy nor natural to decide to have your son look different from your husband (or yourself if you're the father). What made the choice easier for me was knowing that circumcision was not common in countries like the UK, that it was not common in America until recently, and that it's becoming less and less common every year. And I had to remind myself that I couldn't be making the wrong choice because I actually wasn't choosing at all - I was leaving it up to my son when he became an adult.
E_A_
(9 posts)Are not about health, they are the same as female genital mutilation, part of religious practice and an abusive harmful thing to do to a baby.
I sometimes wonder if some of male violence has at it's root the experience of having a part of you which involves your very sense of being taken off. They don't use anesthesia or anything, do they?
They used to think that little babies are too young to be effected by traumas, or to be effected by pain, and so wouldn't give anesthesia,but now we know better.
I shuttered when I saw a Seinfeld episode where everyone joined together, a party atmosphere, and then this poor little defenseless baby has part of his body chopped off, no anesthesia or anything. Isn't this cute???? How wonderful...
And the little baby lays there, traumatized, crying....oh what a great party we are having......
I thought it was appalling....not that anyone there was trying to be cruel...I knew that, to them, it was a religious occasion.......but look at it from the baby's point of view and long term effects....
I doubt this info about preventing disease is reliable......wonder how I'd feel if I found out that part of my female anatomy had been cut off, so I would never be able to experience some things others could feel. I wonder if I wouldn't feel like a complete woman, and if I wouldn't be feeling an underlying rage and sadness, which might be acted out in aggression....such as...oh, I don't know, wars, crime etc......maybe the world would be a little less violent without genital mutilation.....
Nine
(1,741 posts)Most male Americans my age are circumcised even though the majority were not required to for religious reasons. As posted upthread, circumcision of non-Jews and non-Muslims in this country started as an attempt to curb masturbation. I don't think anyone believes in that anymore, but circumcision continues because it's just what people are used to. And because of bad medical advice.
That ceremony you referred to is called a Bris, by the way, and that's also the name of the Seinfeld episode.
I don't believe there is any evidence that circumcision leads to long term psychological effects but anything is possible, I suppose. I think a stronger argument against infant circumcision is that there is simply no compelling reason for parents to perform a cosmetic procedure on their child before he can express an opinion about it.
Yes you're right. It was to stop masturbation.
The claims of it being for the sake of health are ridiculous.....you might get an infection so chop off part of your body?
They used to say that a woman who had sex with a non circumcised man was more likely to get cervical cancer, turned out that was not true either.
Also just read that performing C. is INCREDIBLY painful for the baby (or anyone), and especially a dangerous thing to do to a newborn, who isn't really very strong at all...also it's damaging neurological, emotionally, may involve PTSD, and the imputous to continue the practice often comes from circumcised doctors or fathers, who may well be recreating the trauma.....the Dad may, unknowingly, also not want to be reminded of what he has lost, by his child being intact...
There is evidence for all these things....just do a google search...