Doctors Group: AAP conflict of interest hampers honest circumcision policy

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by GenitalIntegrityNow, Jun 4, 2008.

  1. lepustimidus Banned Banned

    Messages:
    979
    What does that matter? Doctors recommend a lot of interventions without any actual conclusive scientific evidence to support the efficacy of treatment.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    That was me.

    Such images should be posted as links, with appropriate warnings about the graphic nature of the image.

    Bells' image of circumcision is borderline, too, but nowhere near as confronting as the abortion image you posted.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    I have removed my image as well, just to make sure there is no feeling or belief of bias in this matter. It is only fair that if Sam's image gets deleted, mine should as well.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
  8. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Hmm circumcision prevents pregnancy?

    Are you saying that the WHO is less reliable than the AMA?
     
  9. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    There is no comparison between female "circumcision" and male circumcision. For male circumcision to be "the same" as female circumcision, you'd need to chop of the head of the penis, not just the foreskin.
    I'm sorry. That argument just doesn't hold water. Parents are responsible for the upbringing of their children and make an endless series of choices for their children that have a much greater impact on the child's life than whether or not there's an extra flap of skin on the tip of their penis.

    They choose whether or not to vacinate their children. They choose what school to send their children to. They choose their child's religion. They choose whether to teach their children tolerance or hate.

    As the Jesuit's said,
    "Give me a child for for his first seven years and I'll give you the man​
    "
    Indeed. I believe this is the root of your discomfort with circumcision. You find the uncircumcised penis to look normal and are as disgusted by a circumcised one as I am by an uncircumcised one.

    Customs differ. Deal with it. The procedure is harmless. I've never heard of any male child suffering a significant complication from circumcision, and almost all men are circumcised in the US.
    Given that the medical authorities (in the US) are all circumcised themselves and most likely have male children who are also circumcised, I doubt you'll get your wish.
    They're the only one's I've ever heard of.
     
  10. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Not exactly, it just makes it less likely apparently.
     
  11. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    That explains the difficulties that Muslims have in conception.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    It means if you are in a long term relationship and try often, pregnancy is still likely to occur, but if she does it with the plumber, it likely won't.
     
  13. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Yeah, the difficulties in getting pregnant are also evident. Probably why they have four wives, that must increase the odds of hitting at least one egg occasionally. :d
     
  14. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    The object is to ensure male lines of descent, your own lines. This is typical of a patriarchal culture.
     
  15. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    With each of them having four wives I presume?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    I don't think it has anything to do with polygamy troll.
     
  17. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Horse puckee. It may make an almost statistically insignificant negative difference in the infection rate of children, but it has an enormous positive impact on adults. Circumcision cuts the risk of a promiscuous man contracting HIV from more than 90% down to around 5%. It will probably be the salvation of Africa. Every boy child on earth should be circumcised for the next two or three generations as a matter of public health.

    Because once he becomes an adult he may cop the same attitude you've copped, and refuse to do it.
     
  18. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    How are conditions in Africa for such a medical procedure? What about the cost? Wouldn't a comprehensive education program be much more effective? Did 90% of those men that died in the AIDS epidemic have foreskins? Salvation my ass.
     
  19. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    From more than 90% down to 5%? Wow! Impressive figure. Your estimate blows all the medical organisation's estimates out of the water. Tell me Fraggle, do you happen to have a link to support that claim?

    No, everyboy on earth should not be circumcised because of people's laziness. Circumcision is not the be all and end all in the prevention of the spread of AIDS. On the contrary, if a male is promiscuous and never wears a condom, whether he is circumcised or not, he will end up with either an STD or HIV. You'll excuse me if I call your assertion to be, to quote you, "horse puckey".

    As for the claim about UTI's you are disputing, I'd suggest you read through this thread, do some research. UTI's is quite rare in baby boys. It is, however, more prevalent in baby girls, but that is another thread, as this thread is about male circumcision and not female circumcision. Anywho, better prevention of newborn baby boys, proper hygiene, not pushing back the foreskin and most importantly, breastfeeding, would have a greater chance of reducing the chances of the child contracting a UTI than any surgical procedure such as circumcision would.

    A baby boy's penis is his own. It should be his decision as it is his penis.
     
  20. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    So you're saying, regardless of the possible benefits, you'd never support circumcision because it promotes lazyness?? Let's just say, hypothetically, that circumcision provided a 100% protection against HIV, would you still oppose it to prevent lazyness?

    It seems that you are revealing that your opinion is not based on anything more than your own prejudice and personal preference.
     
  21. GenitalIntegrityNow Registered Member

    Messages:
    39
    You should read this paper from futuremedicine.

    Aside from the scientific question of whether (or to what degree) lacking a foreskin reduces female to male HIV transmission during intercourse, you are making a very ethically troubling argument. Since this potential benefit only accrues after sexual maturity, it can wait for the individual to decide for himself. If a person decides not to do it, that is his right, and a perfectly reasonable choice since condoms (or abstinence) are far more effective. I presume you would agree that it's unethical to force an adult to have a circumcision against his will. Implying that an adult who would not want the surgery should have it forced on him before he is capable of objecting isn't much better.

    I hope you were engaging in some hyperbole, and didn't really mean that.
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2008
  22. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    What about vaccinations? Should we wait until children reach maturity so they can decide for themselves about that too? How about giving growth hormone to a child that would otherwise be a midget? Should we with hold that treatment until they can decide for themselves?

    Parents make medical decisions for their children every day. It's normal and necessary. If circumcision does protect against HIV, then we should definitely advocate it for all male children. How many deaths is genetal integrity worth?

    We are talking about a harmless procedure that I and all male members (um, pun not intended) of my family have had with no ill effects that can potentially save your life.
     
  23. GenitalIntegrityNow Registered Member

    Messages:
    39
    No. The differences are:
    1) Unambiguous and highly significant health benefit
    2) Protection from disease prior to sexual maturity
    3) No erogenous tissue is removed

    I don't know.

    Yes.

    Not so fast. Even if circumcision did provide some protection in an African adults in a population with high HIV infection rate, that does not apply in other circumstances. One can achieve a far greater benefit just by wearing condoms. Or carefully choosing a single partner. If you wear condoms, then you lost erogenous areas of your sex organ for nothing.

    Circumcision causes harm, without question. The parts removed are sexually sensitive and have other functions, too. Read the Chapter 2 of the Genital Integrity Policy Statement if you are not familiar with those functions.

    Your suggestion that foreskins are deadly is absurd.
     

Share This Page