Decline in circumcision rate could cost billions

[angelatc]

Chart says girth, and the measurement is taken flaccid. Just for you, I measured myself flaccid. I fit in the chart.

Erect, you may have a point.

Youtube or it didn't happen.

 

[brandon]

Man, I've had an appendectomy, tonsillectomy, and foreskinectomy. I'm 3 for 3. What organ should I have removed next? I've been working pretty diligently on my liver.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Wow @ your so-called "argument." Tonsils are removed because they get inflamed, the person is having difficulty breathing/swallowing, it is a factor is sleep apnea, etc etc. Even "preventative tonsillectomies" as you describe them are usually offered by doctors after repeated infections (sinus, strep throat, mostly).



That still makes it an organ. Scientifically, an organ is a collection of different tissues. Skin is the largest organ of the human body.



Good God, nice argument by generalization.

Appendectomy: The removal of the appendix, usually done in an emergency situation to treat appendicitis. See the difference?

There's not an intactivist on this earth that argues that all organs, especially dysfunctional ones, should remain inside the human body. The key here is that foreskin is not dysfunctional, but normal and healthy.



An an ad-hominem now? Good grief.

---------------------------------------

My boys will be whole; future hubby will have to understand that and be ok with it. That's on the "'must' list of potential mates" for me. When I am a doctor, I don't think he'll be able to argue with me, either.

Oh, HB34, I don't know how you stuck around this thread for so long.

"Obtuse" is not an ad hominem. It's an observation.

 

[angelatc]

My boys will be whole; future hubby will have to understand that and be ok with it. That's on the "'must' list of potential mates" for me. When I am a doctor, I don't think he'll be able to argue with me, either.

Oh, HB34, I don't know how you stuck around this thread for so long.

Just curious - with all data pointing to the fact that circumcision is healthier, why, as a doctor, would you be so deadset against it?

 

[Nirvikalpa]

I would first like to know what you are referring to when you state "all data" points that circumcision is healthier, when HB34 has been posting studies showing the complete opposite of that (including posting data from studies you have posted to support his claim). I would also like to make sure you are aware that you are labeling ~60% of the world's men as "unhealthy," or at least "less healthy than circumcised men." If you are making that statement due to the AAP, AMA and other medical "associations" statements regarding male infant circumcision, or believing the faulty studies on circumcision and AIDs/HIV/STI transmission, then I have a few comments to make.

The "Task Force on Circumcision," who were behind the newly released AAP statement, consisted of four doctors. Out of the four doctors, two (Dr. Blank and Dr. Freeman) have religio-cultural biases towards circumcision. A third doctor (Dr. Diekema) has received scrutiny for being on the "Committee of Bioethics" which released a statement, Ritual Genital Cutting of Female Minors calling for a "ritual nick" of the female clitoris, stating:

. . . These physicians emphasize the significance of a ceremonial ritual in the initiation of the girl or adolescent as a community member and advocate only pricking or incising the clitoral skin as sufficient to satisfy cultural requirements. This is no more of an alteration than ear piercing.

This "pricking or incising," was further described:

Most forms of FGC are decidedly harmful, and pediatricians should decline to perform them, even in the absence of any legal constraints. However, the ritual nick suggested by some pediatricians is not physically harmful and is much less extensive than routine newborn male genital cutting. There is reason to believe that offering such a compromise may build trust between hospitals and immigrant communities . . .

The fourth doctor on this "Task Force on Circumcision," Dr. Wegner, is a doctor-lawyer who sits on the AAP's financial board, which has recently admitted that the loss of male infant circumcision would cost the AAP ~$1 billion/year.

On STI's/AIDs/HIV...

Does circumcision influence sexually transmitted diseases?:
A literature review:

What began as speculation has resulted a century later in 60–95% of American boys being circumcised with no clearly confirmed medical benefit. In the interim, no solid epidemiological evidence has been found to support the theory that circumcision prevents STDs or to justify a policy of involuntary mass circumcision as a public health measure. While the number of confounding factors and the inability to perform a random, double-blind, prospective trial make assessing the role of circumcision in STD acquisition diBcult, there is no clear evidence that circumcision prevents STDs. The only consistent trend is that uncircumcised males may be more susceptible to GUD, while circumcised men are more prone to urethritis. Currently, in developed nations, urethritis is more common than GUD [34]. In summary, the medical literature does not support the theory that circumcision prevents STDs.

Circumcision and Risk of Sexually Transmitted Infections in a Birth Cohort

Of the 499 men studied, 201 (40.3%) had been circumcised by age 3 years. The circumcised and uncircumcised groups differed little in socioeconomic characteristics and sexual behavior. Overall, up to age 32 years, the incidence rates for all STIs were not statistically significantly different—23.4 and 24.4 per 1000 person-years for the uncircumcised and circumcised men, respectively. This was not affected by adjusting for any of the socioeconomic or sexual behavior characteristics.

These findings are consistent with recent population-based cross-sectional studies in developed countries, which found that early childhood circumcision does not markedly reduce the risk of the common STIs in the general population in such countries.

Neonatal circumcision does not reduce HIV/AIDS infection rates

Male non-therapeutic infant circumcision is neither medically nor ethically justified as an HIV prevention tool. Circumcision is not equivalent to successful immunisation, is being practised with decreasing frequency in English-speaking countries, and is becoming illegal in South Africa under the new Children’s Act.32 There are far more effective prevention tools costing considerably less and offering better HIV reduction outcomes than circumcision.

How the circumcision solution in Africa will increase HIV infections

In Africa, there are several countries where circumcised men are more likely to be HIV infected than intact men, including Malawi, Rwanda, Cameroon, Ghana, Zimbabwe, Lesotho, Swaziland, and Tanzania. Even in South Africa, where one RCT was undertaken, 12.3% of circumcised men were HIV-positive, while 12.0% of intact men were HIV-positive. If the national survey data that are available from 19 countries are combined in a meta-analysis (Table 1) the random-effects model summary effect for the risk of a genitally intact man having HIV is an odds ratio of 1.10 (95%CI=0.83- 1.46), indicating that on a general population level, circumcision has no association with risk of HIV infection. Among developed nations, the United States has the highest rate of circumcision and the highest rate of heterosexually transmitted HIV. Within the United States, blacks have the highest rate of circumcision and the highest rate of heterosexually transmitted HIV.

On the subject of health...

I am very aware most men (and women) who are pro-circumcision have no idea of the biological functions of the human foreskin, or how much foreskin is removed during infant circumcision which, by adulthood, leaves a circumcised man with 15 square inches of removed tissue. During circumcision, 5 main areas of the male genitals are usually removed: outer foreskin, inner foreskin, the sulcus (partially removed), the frenulum, and the frenar band.

The mucosal surface of the glans of the penis, usually protected by the foreskin, become dried. Circumcised men do not create the lubricant (emollient oils) most intact men are able to create, as a mucosal surface glides against a mucosal surface.

intact vs. circumcised, erect

Amount of tissue removed as an infant means this much is removed as an adult:

male and female sexual satisfaction, intact vs. circumcised:

Sources: 1, 2​

Doctor's take an oath to "primum non nocere," or first, do no harm. Circumcision is harming a natural, whole, healthy baby boy.

I advocate that those in favor of infant male circumcision at least watch a video of it being performed: http://www.medicalvideos.us/play.php?vid=253. Or, if you can not stand to see the blood (boo on you), here is a 3D graphic: http://www.medicalvideos.us/play.php?vid=1296.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Just curious - with all data pointing to the fact that circumcision is healthier, why, as a doctor, would you be so deadset against it?

Except that's not true. A doctor would and should be against it for a number of reasons, including ethics. The Doctors Opposing Circumcision page has lots of info if you're really curious. http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/

 

[ShaneEnochs]

I, for one, am glad that I was circumcised when I was an infant. That shit would hurt like hell, and I'm glad I don't remember it. I got my son circumcised as well. It's a hundred times easier to clean.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I, for one, am glad that I was circumcised when I was an infant. That shit would hurt like hell, and I'm glad I don't remember it. I got my son circumcised as well. It's a hundred times easier to clean.

How would you know? It only takes a few seconds for me to clean down there. You don't even need soap to get rid of smegma.

 

[ShaneEnochs]

How would you know? It only takes a few seconds for me to clean down there. You don't even need soap to get rid of smegma.

I meant it's easier for my wife and I to clean my son's.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I meant it's easier for my wife and I to clean my son's.

Still, you said your son is circumcised, so your claim makes no sense. Why is it so hard for you to teach your son how to clean down there? Mentally handicapped? I learned at the same time I was old enough to clean myself. Even if you didn't clean down there, it wouldn't do any harm. BTW, if your son is an infant, you shouldn't be forcefully retracting the foreskin anyway. This can cause permanent damage, especially if the skin hasn't yet naturally separated from the glans. Somehow, gentiles have been able to survive and thrive uncircumcised for thousands of years, but you can't? Strikes me as strange.

 

[ShaneEnochs]

Still, you said your son is circumcised, so your claim makes no sense. Why is it so hard for you to teach your son how to clean down there? Mentally handicapped? I learned at the same time I was old enough to clean myself. Even if you didn't clean down there, it wouldn't do any harm. BTW, if your son is an infant, you shouldn't be forcefully retracting the foreskin anyway. This can cause permanent damage, especially if the skin hasn't yet naturally separated from the glans. Somehow, gentiles have been able to survive and thrive uncircumcised for thousands of years, but you can't? Strikes me as strange.

Hey! Thanks for telling me what to do with my child. I appreciate it.

 

[angelatc]

Man, I've had an appendectomy, tonsillectomy, and foreskinectomy. I'm 3 for 3. What organ should I have removed next? I've been working pretty diligently on my liver.

I highly recommend the gall bladder.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Hey! Thanks for telling me what to do with my child. I appreciate it.

Actually, I didn't (I deal with shoulds not imperatives), but so what if I did? There are numerous restrictions on what you can/can't do with your kid in society. Kids aren't toys for you to do whatever you like to them. (unless you're a nihlist or sadist or something)

 

[angelatc]

Still, you said your son is circumcised, so your claim makes no sense. Why is it so hard for you to teach your son how to clean down there? Mentally handicapped? I learned at the same time I was old enough to clean myself. Even if you didn't clean down there, it wouldn't do any harm. BTW, if your son is an infant, you shouldn't be forcefully retracting the foreskin anyway. This can cause permanent damage, especially if the skin hasn't yet naturally separated from the glans. Somehow, gentiles have been able to survive and thrive uncircumcised for thousands of years, but you can't? Strikes me as strange.

Thriving? We've only reached an average lifespan of over 50 in the past 100 or so years. (Obviously I'm not implying that's because of circumcision, but it's certainly partially the result of improved hygiene.)

 

[angelatc]

Actually, I didn't (I deal with shoulds not imperatives), but so what if I did? There are numerous restrictions on what you can/can't do with your kid in society. Kids aren't toys for you to do whatever you like to them. (unless you're a nihlist or sadist or something)

And there it is. I believe that The Public has no legitimate interest in your child.

 

[tod evans]

Come on ya'll this is a medical procedure that is socially acceptable.

It's not my business whether or not you want to circumcise your son any more than it's your business what I do.

Aren't we all well versed on the "It's for the kids." arguments predicating social engineering?

 

[Nirvikalpa]

I meant it's easier for my wife and I to clean my son's.

Except you wouldn't have to do anything different with a intact child's penis, because the foreskin is fused to the glans until childhood, usually, and sometimes until age 10-13. Forcibly retracting the foreskin can lead to complications.

The "cleanliness argument" is usually used by 1) those who have no idea of childhood male anatomy or the penis in general 2) parents trying to make themselves feel better about the choices they made about their child or 3) haven't really researched the proper "cleaning" technique of an intact male: to leave it alone!

"100 times easier to clean..." can you at least admit, ignorant statement is ignorant?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Come on ya'll this is a medical procedure that is socially acceptable.

It's not my business whether or not you want to circumcise you son any more than it's your business what I do.

Aren't we all well versed on the "It's for the kids." arguments predicating social engineering?

And clitoridectomy is socially acceptable in some cultures. Therefore, it's okay to you?

 

[ShaneEnochs]

Except you wouldn't have to do anything different with a intact child's penis, because the foreskin is fused to the glans until childhood, usually, and sometimes until age 10-13. Forcibly retracting the foreskin can lead to complications.

The "cleanliness argument" is usually used by 1) those who have no idea of childhood male anatomy or the penis in general 2) parents trying to make themselves feel better about the choices they made about their child or 3) haven't really researched the proper "cleaning" technique of an intact male: to leave it alone!

"100 times easier to clean..." can you at least admit, ignorant statement is ignorant?

The doctors told me to keep it clean, so I keep it clean.

 

[tod evans]

And clitoridectomy is socially acceptable in some cultures. Therefore, it's okay to you?

It's not my place to dictate other cultures behavior.

And your analogy is not synonymous with circumcision.