Tide turning on Circumcision, Push to circumcise all male infants

[John99]

Really?

Which ones?

By the way, ever seen one done?

Only one word to describe it, BARBARIC

Arthur

Because the same exact thing has to happen only much later in life if you get an infection. I know someone who had to have it done around 30 years old and believe me he wished he had it done as an infant because it is much less painful and he wouldnt have had that infection. This is what i heard about what happened to him and have no reason to not believe it.

[ElectricFetus]

adoucette,

I think over 30 pages you can find links to many studies equating benefits of circumcision. Also appeals to emotion don't count as arguments: you might have found the sight of it barbaric but that not a valid argument.

[adoucette]

adoucette,

I think over 30 pages you can find links to many studies equating benefits of circumcision. Also appeals to emotion don't count as arguments: you might have found the sight of it barbaric but that not a valid argument.

Sure, but they are not compelling, which is probably why the AAP still says:

these benefits are not sufficient for the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) to recommend that all infant boys be circumcised. Parents may want their sons circumcised for religious, social, or cultural reasons.

And it's not the SIGHT Of it that is barbaric, it's the ACT of it. They strap the baby down, usually give no anesthetic and cut one of the most sensitive parts of the baby's body off of him for no good reason.
It is very painful. They used to think that it wasn't so bad, because a lot of babies didn't cry. They have since figured out that that's because those babies go into shock. They DO NOT forget it.

If you are SO convinced it's got POSITIVE benefits for men living in developed countries, simply show the statistics that show that Scandinavian men for instance (very low rates) suffer worse outcomes as adults than say US men (very high rates).

What?

No confirming data even when the rates of circumcision are so dramatically different?

Wonder why?

Arthur

[adoucette]

Because the same exact thing has to happen only much later in life if you get an infection. I know someone who had to have it done around 30 years old and believe me he wished he had it done as an infant because it is much less painful and he wouldnt have had that infection. This is what i heard about what happened to him and have no reason to not believe it.

Wanna show some statistics that confirm this presumption?

Should be easy to find.

How many Adult (say after 20 to remove religious practices) circumcisions are there in the population?

But Urinary and Penile Infections are NOT routinely treated by circumcision, the most common reason is very rare and is called phimosis, a tightness of the prepuce that prevents its retraction over the glans.

Arthur

[Idle Mind]

They have since figured out that that's because those babies go into shock. They DO NOT forget it.

What makes you say that babies don't forget it? How can you possibly know that?

I was circumcised, and I certainly don't remember. Do memories even form at that age?

[Asguard]

What makes you say that babies don't forget it? How can you possibly know that?

I was circumcised, and I certainly don't remember. Do memories even form at that age?

interesting argument. Let me answer that with a question, if i drug a women with medazalam (a related drug to valium) which also causes amnesia and rape her should she be alowed to press rape charges even though she cant rember the rape?

[adoucette]

What makes you say that babies don't forget it? How can you possibly know that?

I was circumcised, and I certainly don't remember. Do memories even form at that age?

Well because it's been studied and documented.

See: www dot cirp.org/library/birth/marshall1/ (among many others)

And no, you don't have to remember the actual procedure today for the searing pain you experienced to have affected your mental development, which by the way, doesn't have to result in a specific memory, but can still impact how you relate to the world.

Arthur

[John99]

Wanna show some statistics that confirm this presumption?

Should be easy to find.

How many Adult (say after 20 to remove religious practices) circumcisions are there in the population?

But Urinary and Penile Infections are NOT routinely treated by circumcision, the most common reason is very rare and is called phimosis, a tightness of the prepuce that prevents its retraction over the glans.

Arthur

Well i am not a doctore but it sounds like you are just guessing. I just wanted to make it clear that i know someone who this actually happened to and it was excruciatingly painful as an adult and takes a long time to heal but these factors in infants are not nearly severe. Other than some links i really dont know much about it except for someone ACTUALLY telling me it effected him.

http://www.medicinenet.com/circumcis...cons/page2.htm

[adoucette]

Well i am not a doctore but it sounds like you are just guessing. I just wanted to make it clear that i know someone who this actually happened to and it was excruciatingly painful as an adult and takes a long time to heal but these factors in infants are not nearly severe. Other than some links i really dont know much about it except for someone ACTUALLY telling me it effected him.

www dot medicinenet.com/circumcision_the_medical_pros_and_cons/page2.htm

Anecdotes are fine, but not indicative.
For instance I know of no adult males who have needed a circumcison, but I do know of two infants that had problems from their circumcisons, one serious enough to require several surgeries to correct.

The literature also suggests that there are serious risks.

www dot icgi.org/2010/04/infant-circumcision-causes-100-deaths-each-year-in-us/
www dot circumstitions.com/death.html
www dot cirp.org/library/death/

Certainly not common, but then we are talking about a procedure that has no established medical need. You can argue with me based on your anecdotal evidence but my POV is supported by the American Academy of Pediatricians.

Which, thankfully, is why as the world gets smarter the rate continues to go down, with places like England, Sweden and Australia leading the way.

Eventually Male Genital Mutilation will fade away as just a bad memory and eventually those who follow us will marvel at how barbaric we were all the way into the 21st century.

Arthur

[John99]

I think the medical need was explained in my previous post. I have no reason to be for it or against i personally just showing that there are very real problems that can occur if not circumcised...other than that i dont know what to tell you.

I think the number of circumcised males is very high and that accounts for not seeing more of the plroblems in the link i posted, which you probably didnt read.

I really dont think the procedure is very difficult and if your links state a certain amount of deaths in infants due to the procedure but i suspect we are not getting the complete stories. To me it seems like clipping a fingernail.

[adoucette]

I think the medical need was explained in my previous post. I have no reason to be for it or against i personally just showing that there are very real problems that can occur if not circumcised...other than that i dont know what to tell you.

I think the number of circumcised males is very high and that accounts for not seeing more of the plroblems in the link i posted, which you probably didnt read.

I really dont think the procedure is very difficult and if your links state a certain amount of deaths in infants due to the procedure but i suspect we are not getting the complete stories. To me it seems like clipping a fingernail.

Suspect what you want, but I did read your link.

Did you?

From your link:

What has been the medical view of circumcision?
In 1975, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) stated in no uncertain terms that "there is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn." In 1983, the AAP and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) restated this position. In 1999 and again in 2005, the AAP again restated this position of equivocation.

Actully, in the world, less than 1/3 of the males are circumcised, so it's a minority deal, because it really has as its basis very old religious rituals.

Luckily, more civilized societies are moving away from this male genital mutilation.

Arthur

[John99]

The link shows the pro and cons. You said, pretty much, that no problems existed.

I dont know what the number is for adult males needing to be circumcised and probably hard to find statistics but i guess you look at things differently when you actually know someone who had to have it done.

He said it was pretty bad and the healing process was very uncomfortable. This is what he told me cant ask him now 'cause he is dead (not from the circumcision though). Does not seem like the type of thing someone would make up.

[TLCTugger]

know someone who had to have it done around 30 years old and believe me he wished he had it done as an infant because it is much less painful and he wouldnt have had that infection.

On balance NOT ONE national medical association endorses routine circumcision because the things it might reduce the risk for don't justify the risks and drawbacks of the procedure and loss of sensual and functional tissue.

Foreskin feels REALLY good. But if I was going to be circumcised I'd much rather have it done as an adult when I can tolerate real effective pain meds, and manage my own recovery, and have a say in teh style of cut, and have a better chance of seeing the intended outcome realized because the scale of things is just larger, and have the chance to heal NOT in a foul diaper, and

have someone NOT long dead to sue if the result is crappy.

About 40% of affluent adults choose vasectomy by age 60. But only 2 in 1000 adults chooses circumcision, because foreskin feels REALLY good.

[John99]

On balance NOT ONE national medical association endorses routine circumcision because the things it might reduce the risk for don't justify the risks and drawbacks of the procedure and loss of sensual and functional tissue.

Where are you getting this information from? May be true but my position is not to state that it should be or needs to be done.

Can you say there are no medical benefits for it being done? The thing that has me wondering is the fact that i DO know someone who had to have it done as an adult. I may have mentioned that i dont endorse it being done but how many adult males need to have it done? Since i know someone i am sure there are others. I can tell you this person had an unstable lifestyle due to drinking and drugs sometimes may have been without a place to sleep and may not have washed too often.

Foreskin feels REALLY good. But if I was going to be circumcised I'd much rather have it done as an adult when I can tolerate real effective pain meds, and manage my own recovery, and have a say in teh style of cut, and have a better chance of seeing the intended outcome realized because the scale of things is just larger, and have the chance to heal NOT in a foul diaper, and

My point was that infants heal remarkably well. Feels really good but i suppose without must too because circumsides men have LOTS of se too.

About 40% of affluent adults choose vasectomy by age 60. But only 2 in 1000 adults chooses circumcision, because foreskin feels REALLY good.

Who would actually choose to have this done? STRAWMAN.

[adoucette]

Can you say there are no medical benefits for it being done?

Yes.

There are risks, but no known benefits to the newborn to whom the procedure is being performed on.

Which is why they no longer recommend routine circumcisions.

Arthur

[ElectricFetus]

Sure, but they are not compelling, which is probably why the AAP still says:

Not compelling for what?

And it's not the SIGHT Of it that is barbaric, it's the ACT of it. They strap the baby down, usually give no anesthetic and cut one of the most sensitive parts of the baby's body off of him for no good reason.

They strap babies down for ear piercings too, what your point? People do a lot of strange things for no good reason.

It is very painful. They used to think that it wasn't so bad, because a lot of babies didn't cry. They have since figured out that that's because those babies go into shock. They DO NOT forget it.

So I can go to any many who was circumcised as a infant and he will be able to recall to me his circumcision?

If you are SO convinced it's got POSITIVE benefits for men living in developed countries, simply show the statistics that show that Scandinavian men for instance (very low rates) suffer worse outcomes as adults than say US men (very high rates).

Outcomes for what?

[adoucette]

What part of this do you not understand?

In 1975, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) stated in no uncertain terms that "there is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn." In 1983, the AAP and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) restated this position. In 1999 and again in 2005, the AAP again restated this position

As to remembering, of course they don't remember it in a way they can VERBALIZE. That doesn't mean they don't remember it in a more fundamental way.

studies suggested that pain experienced by infants in the neonatal period may have long-lasting effects on future infant behaviour.

http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/taddio2/

As to "outcomes?", that has to do with the fact that we now have quite a few relatively equal developed societies (Scandinavia and the US for instance) that have had vastly different levels of rates of circumcision for a long time, yet (as far as I am aware (and I've looked)) there is no study showing that adult males in developed countries with low rates of circumcision suffer from not having been routinely circumcised as infants.

Since proponents of routine circumcision keep saying there are POTENTIAL benefits to adults to have the procedure done as infants I'm simply asking them why these benefits are not rather easily demonstrated in these quite different populations.

Arthur

[ElectricFetus]

Yes.

There are risks, but no known benefits to the newborn to whom the procedure is being performed on.

Which is why they no longer recommend routine circumcisions.

Arthur

I'm not for circumcision being routine, but the argument that its not routine because of your claim of a lack of known benefits is fallacious: heart surgery is not routine either, therefor it does not have benefits?

There have been multiple posts on this thread that link to research that shows reduced rate of UI, HIV infection, penile problems. But if you really want me to re-cite them:
http://ijsa.rsmjournals.com/cgi/cont...tract/16/8/556
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...tool=pmcentrez
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publication...596169_eng.pdf

so there for you are wrong to state there are no known benefits, rather if you read the AAP statements they claim not a lack of benefits only that the benefits are not significant enough to recommend routine circumcisions. This does not forbid circumcisions rather they ask for it to be purely elective surgery (not routine) which is an argument I support.

http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/taddio2/

A study, singular, has it been repeated?

[adoucette]

Your heart surgery analogy does not hold water.
Heart surgery is not performed unless there is a known problem, and then only if the impact of the surgery will improve it. Minor defects are routinely ignored.

I've only ever argued that the best current medical opinion remains that ROUTINE circumcision is not justified.

I've never argued that it be forbidden (though I do think the practice will die a natural death as its religous roots wither).

I said there are no known benefits to the INFANT.

I've never argued that there are no POTENTIAL eventual health benefits to anyone in the world for circumcison, only that in developed countries like the US, the prevailing Medical opinion, considering all you have posted, is that the slight benefit does not justify the certain risks of the procedure.

Which is what well informed doctors now routinely tell their patients.

Arthur

[ElectricFetus]

Your heart surgery analogy does not hold water.
Heart surgery is not performed unless there is a known problem, and then only if the impact of the surgery will improve it. Minor defects are routinely ignored.

but that is exactly my point: its not routine yet it still provides benefit.

I've only ever argued that the best current medical opinion remains that ROUTINE circumcision is not justified.

and I'm not against this argument.

I've never argued that it be forbidden (though I do think the practice will die a natural death as its religous roots wither).

I'm sure it will become uncommon, but it won't go extinct as a procedure as there will be specific male children whom of which circumcision will alleviate their specific urinary track or penile problems, just as there are children were heart surgery alleviates there heart related problems. Nor do I think religion will be wiped out any time soon so there will remain those that do it for purely religious reasons.

I said there are no known benefits to the INFANT.

several of the studies cited include preventing problems to infants, including Urinary Track infections and preventing balanitis.

I've never argued that there are no POTENTIAL eventual health benefits to anyone in the world for circumcison, only that in developed countries like the US, the prevailing Medical opinion, considering all you have posted, is that the slight benefit does not justify the certain risks of the procedure.

You said: "no known benefits to the newborn to whom the procedure is being performed on."

Which I countered and provided evidence exist for benefit in infants, nor did you ask for "net benefit" next time choose your wording more carefully.

Which is what well informed doctors now routinely tell their patients.

Well informed doctors usually tell parents of children that suffer from recurrent UTI, severe phimosis or balanitis that circumcision should help their child.