Doctors Group: AAP conflict of interest hampers honest circumcision policy

S.A.M. · Jun 6, 2008

Bells said: ↑

Actually, local anesthesia is rarely used due to the fact that it can and does cause local swelling and could cause further complications. It is being encouraged now because studies have found that newborns do feel pain, regardless of the complications it might cause. And no, that image is not pure propaganda. That is actually indicative of the type of pain newborns suffer during "routine" circumcisions. There is a move now to give pain relief, but that only lasts for a little while. Newborn babies cannot be given pain relief medication after the procedure, because they are so small. Not even paracetamol.
Click to expand...

I can attest to the fact that local anesthesis is used. It is an outpatient procedure and was frequently conducted in the hospital I worked at in KSA. I've seen how circumcisions are done.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Different debate, but that picture actually looks like the birth of a fully developed fetus that has either gone wrong, or has severe defects. Twelve week old or even 22 week old fetuses do not actually look like that.
Click to expand...

Different debate alright. Its a fetus, I've seen those too, post abortion. The forceps are a good indicator. They are used to pull out the kid.
http://images.google.com/images?q=2...US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Bells · Jun 6, 2008

S.A.M. said: ↑

Aesthetics are subjective, I'm not asking anyone to clip their penises to please me. Like I have said, the overwhelming medical evidence is in favor of circumcision. I'd like to see research about reduced sexual pleasure in men with circumcised penises.
Click to expand...

http://www.urotoday.com/42/browse_categories/erectile_dysfunction_ed/finetouch_pressure_thresholds_in_the_adult_penis.html

A new study in the British Journal of Urology International shows that men with normal, intact penises enjoy more sexual sensitivity — as much as four times more — than those who have been circumcised. Circumcising slices off more of a male's sensitivity than is normally present in all ten fingertips.

(Source)

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

S.A.M. · Jun 6, 2008

Bells said: ↑

http://www.urotoday.com/42/browse_categories/erectile_dysfunction_ed/finetouch_pressure_thresholds_in_the_adult_penis.html

A new study in the British Journal of Urology International shows that men with normal, intact penises enjoy more sexual sensitivity — as much as four times more — than those who have been circumcised. Circumcising slices off more of a male's sensitivity than is normally present in all ten fingertips.

(Source)

Click to expand...

I'll read the study later, but my ex was circumcised and he wasn't missing out on anything.

Analysis of results showed the glans of the uncircumcised men had significantly lower thresholds than that of circumcised men (P = 0.040). There were also significant differences in pressure thresholds by location on the penis (p < 0.0001). The most sensitive location on the circumcised penis was the circumcision scar on the ventral surface. It was remarkable that five locations on the uncircumcised penis that are routinely removed at circumcision had lower pressure thresholds that the ventral scar of the circumcised penis.
Click to expand...

Hmm a lower threshold implies more pleasure? Sounds more like delayed gratification. It would certainly explain his tendency for all nighters.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

S.A.M. · Jun 6, 2008

Asguard said: ↑

SAM you know we could cut breast cancer to zero but routinly removing ALL breast material from babies?

Of course the next generation would probably all die from infections because they arnt reciving there mothers imune system but thats unimportant (as is the boys right to chose acording to your aguments).

And sexual pleasure (for both sexes) would be lessoned but again acording to you thats unimportant so lets start a pertition that ALL babies have there breast cells removed
Click to expand...

Again you are being emotive and irrational. Removal of a breast is not comparable to removing a foreskin.

Bells · Jun 6, 2008

S.A.M. said: ↑

Now you're being emotive and irrational. Sewing up the vagina is hardly comparable to removing the foreskin. OTOH, if I found out that removing the labia would significantly reduce my chances of getting uterine cancer, STDs and UTIs, I would not hesitate to have the procedure. It would be safer than a botox injection or a breast implant or a liposuction or nose job.
Click to expand...

That's the thing though, they do not significantly or greatly reduce the chances of contracting cancer, STD's or UTI's. Girls have a higher incidence of UTI's than boys, be they circumcised or not.

AS for STD's, this report gives even more countering evidence against it's level of protection.

As for penile cancer, the cancer council have basically denounced the claims by stating that mortality from circumcisions and its related complications could actually be similar to that of penile cancer (again, one of the rarest forms of cancer).

Removing your breasts would reduce your chances of contracting breast cancer. Are you going to take such a drastic step? How would you feel if that decision was taken out of your hands completely? That you had no right to consent or refuse the procedure? Removing your cervix and having a full hysterectomy also reduces your chances of contracting cervical cancer. Now both breast and cervical cancer, as well as ovarian cancer are more prevalent. Yet we do not take such drastic measures. Prostate cancer is also more prevalent in society than penile cancer. Why don't we remove the male prostate as a preventative measure? The same applies to testicular cancer, which is actually more common than penile cancer. Should baby boys have their testicles removed as a preventative measure?

This is an emotive issue.

I could comprehend if there was a risk later on to the child. A valid risk. But none of the research is definitive enough to warrant taking such drastic steps with another person's body. And yes, a newborn baby boy is a separate individual with rights over his own body.

If the benefits were so great, circumcisions would be mandatory. But they are not. On the contrary, many doctors and hospitals in countries outside of the US are refusing to perform the procedure for non-medical grounds. Why do you think that is Sam?

S.A.M. · Jun 6, 2008

Bells said: ↑

If the benefits were so great, circumcisions would be mandatory. But they are not. On the contrary, many doctors and hospitals in countries outside of the US are refusing to perform the procedure for non-medical grounds. Why do you think that is Sam?
Click to expand...

Many doctors also recommend it. Why is that do you think? Many doctors who were anti-circumcision have also changed their minds over it. It has been recommended by international health organisations as an acceptable procedure for reducing incidence of disease. Why is that do you think?

I find most of your arguments to be emotive and you seem to be willing to ignore the numbers of children and men who are spared simply due to emotional reasons. Yet those emotional reasons are curiously absent when its a womans right to kill her child by vacuuming off his arms and legs from his body are concerned. Sounds rather hypocritical to me.

As I've stated before, I am not an advocate of infant circumcision myself. But unless I see clear evidence that the reduction in UTIs from 20,000 to 2000, STDs by 50% and penile cancer in 49, 990 of the 50,000 diagnosed cases are all incidental, I do not see a reason to impose my views in this matter. Regardless of how low you consider those numbers to be.

James R · Jun 6, 2008

As far as I can see, there is no convincing evidence that circumcision is beneficial. Certainly, it is not necessary.

Asguard · Jun 6, 2008

Australian Medical Association said:

Warning on unnecessary child circumcisionEmbargoed until 12.00 Noon Sunday 16 February 2003

A high rate of unnecessary circumcision surgery for phimosis – a pathological condition where the foreskin cannot be retracted – has been detected in boys aged under five, despite the rarity of the condition in children of this age, and a marked overall fall in the rate of circumcision in Australia.

New research published in the latest Medical Journal of Australia shows that in a review of all circumcisions of boys from infancy to 15 years and over in WA hospitals from 1981-1999, the rate of surgery for phimosis was consistently highest in boys aged 0–4 years, while those aged 10–14 years showed the greatest change with the rate increasing by 70% from 1981 to 1999.

Severe phimosis can cause pain, urinary tract infections and may be associated with sexual dysfunction and cancer later in life. But the research team, headed by Dr Katrina Spilsbury, at the University of Western Australia’s School of Population Health says young boys with a confirmed diagnosis do not necessarily need to be circumcised, pointing out that topical steroids have been shown to be a cost-effective approach to reversing the condition within four to six weeks.

The team adds that if the 1999 rate remains stable, about 4 per cent of all boys will be circumcised for phimosis by the time they reach 15 – a rate seven times higher than the estimated occurrence of pathological phimosis.

The WA Uni team also cite a UK report that shows only 4 per cent of newborns had a completely retractable foreskin, but that by two years, this had increased to 80 per cent.

The Medical Journal of Australia is a publication of the Australian Medical Association.

Viewed 6/6/08 at 15:10
Click to expand...

Circumcision Infomation Australia said:

Statements on circumcision from medical organisations
For comments on doctors' statements, see
What we say to doctors
Australian Pediatric Association, 24 April 1971

The Australian Pediatric Association recommends that newborn male infants should not, as a routine, be circumcised.

Medical Journal of Australia, 22 May 1971, p. 1148

Australian College of Paediatrics
Official statement, 1983

1. The ACP should continue to discourage the practice of circumcision in the newborn male infant.

2. Educational material on the topic of circumcision should be available to parents before the birth of their baby and also in maternity hospitals. This will facilitate informed discussion with their medical attendant.

3. Some parents after considering medical, social, religious and family factors will opt for circumcision of their infant. It is then the responsibility of the medical attendant to recommend that this circumcision be performed at an age and under medical circumstances that reduce the hazards to a minimum.

This statement was reviewed and reissued by the ACP on 28 May 1991.

Australian College of Paediatrics
Position Statement, 1996

The Australian College of Paediatrics has prepared the following statement on routine circumcision of infants and boys to assist parents who are considering having this procedure undertaken in their male children and for doctors who are asked to advise on or undertake it.

Routine circumcision of normal male infants and boys

Circumcision of males has been undertaken for religious and cultural reasons for many thousands of years. It probably originated as a hygiene measure in communities living in hot and dry environments. It remains a very important ritual in some religious/cultural groups.

During the last 50-100 years, neonatal male circumcision became widespread in English-speaking countries. Until the late 1960s or early 1970s, it was generally performed without any form of anaesthesia. In Australia, the circumcision rate has fallen very considerably in recent years and it is estimated that currently only 10 percent of male infants are routinely circumcised. It is now generally performed with some form of local or general anesthesia.

There have been increasing claims of health benefits from routine male circumcision. There are, however, also risks associated with the procedure from infection, bleeding and damage to the glans penis. The College has recently reviewed evidence in relation to risks and benefits and has concluded that it is not possible to be dogmatic on the exact risk/benefit ratio. There are suggestions of reductions in the risk of urinary tract infections, of local inflammatory conditions of the penis and later cancer of the penis. It has also been claimed that there is a reduction in the risk of sexually transmitted disease (especially HIV) and of cancer of the cervix in partners of circumcised males. However, studies claiming these benefits do have methodological problems which could influence findings and these problems will be difficult to overcome. Therefore, at the present time it would be wrong either to claim that there are definite health benefits or to deny that they exist.

The possibility that routine circumcision may contravene human rights has been raised because circumcision is performed on a minor and is without proven medical benefit. Whether these legal concerns are valid will probably only be known if the matter is determined in a court of law.

The Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons has informed the College that it is its view that routine male circumcision should not be performed prior to the age of 6 months. It considers that "Neonatal male circumcision has no medical indication. It is a traumatic procedure performed without anaesthesia to remove a normal and healthy prepuce."

The College believes informed discussion with parents regarding the possible health benefits of routine male circumcision and the risks associated with the operation are essential. Up-to-date, unbiased written material summarising the evidence in plain English should be widely available to parents.

If the operation is to be performed, the medical attendant should ensure this is done by a competent operator, using appropriate anaesthetic techniques and under medical conditions that minimise the hazards.

In the majority of cases, parents will decide for or against a routine male circumcision on family, social, aesthetic and religious grounds rather than on medical ones. In all cases the medical attendant should avoid exaggeration of either benefits or risks of this procedure.

Issued 27 May 1996

The Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons
Position statement, 1996

Guidelines for circumcision

Preamble

The Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons does not support the routine circumcision of male neonates, infants or children in Australia. It is considered to be inappropriate and unnecessary as a routine to remove the prepuce, based on the current evidence available.

Due to religious beliefs, Jewish children are circumcised by the seventh day of life, as a mark of dedication to God. Children born into the Muslim faith will likewise be circumcised for religious reasons, although the timing for the procedure is less clearly defined. There are Christian groups in other parts of the world, who insist on ritual religious circumcision, as well as tribal or cultural customs promoting male circumcision.

We do not support the removal of a normal part of the body, unless there are definite indications to justify the complications and risks which may arise. In particular, we are opposed to male children being subjected to a procedure, which had they been old enough to consider the advantages and disadvantages, may well have opted to reject the operation and retain their prepuce.

Indications for male circumcision

Balanitis Xerotica Obliterans
Recurrent Balanoposthitis
Phimosis resistant to steroid cream

Contraindications to male circumcision

Hypospadias and other congenital anomalies of the penis, e.g. epispadias, chordee
Sick and unstable infants
Family history of a bleeding disorder or an actual bleeding disorder

Timing of surgery

Neonatal male circumcision has no medical indication. It is a traumatic procedure performed without anaesthesia to remove a normal functional and protective prepuce. At birth, the prepuce has not separated from the underlying glans and must be forcibly torn apart to deliver the glans, prior to removal of the prepuce distal to the coronal groove.

Balanitis Xerotica Obliterans, when diagnosed, should be treated by circumcision.

Timing of circumcision for recurrent balanoposthitis is difficult to define. Many infants and children will have an episode of preputial inflammation. If successive occurrences of dysuria with associated redness and purulent discharge from beneath the prepuce have been treated and the previously fully or partially retractable prepuce is less readily retractable after the subsidence of the inflammation, circumcision should be considered.

The physiological phimosis will normally resolve by the age of 3-4 years. If it fails to respond to steroid cream/ointment applied several times daily for 4-6 weeks, there is a reasonable probability that these boys will have problems in the future.

Infants and children who have a proven urinary tract infection and, on investigation, are found to have a significant urinary tract anomaly, e.g. posterior urethral valves or significant vesico-ureteric reflux, may benefit from circumcision. This will reduce the normal bacterial flora resident under the prepuce, which in the presence of a urinary tract anomaly may be associated with an increased risk of further upper tract infections with possible local and systemic damage.

The risk of carcinoma of the penis developing in the uncircumcised is very low. Lifetime penile hygiene is the key to penile health and a reduction in the incidence of carcinoma of the penis.

Personal sexual behaviour patterns will determine whether sexually transmitted infections with human papilloma virus, herpes simplex virus and the human immune deficiency virus are contracted. Routine or infant male circumcision is not justified in Australia to protect males from contracting diseases that some may acquire through their ignoring the recognized precautions to be taken during their sexually active life.

Consent for surgery

Parents requesting circumcision of their male children should have the complications both general and local, explained to them. These complications are usually minor but can be severe and may result in the death of the child. Time should also be spent discussing the advantages and disadvantages of the operation, both in the short and long term, as is currently applicable in Australia. There are many adults in the community who hold a very strong opinion as to the place of circumcision. This may be for religious reasons or for family "custom" or a claim of "cleanliness" or other reasons. In this event the procedure should be performed electively after six months of age.

When performed, it should be carried out by a surgeon performing circumcisions on children on a regular basis with an anaesthetist using appropriate techniques. This would imply that the anaesthetist is fully trained in the art of paediatric anaesthesia, including the ability to perform caudal and penile regional or local anaesthesia. The operation should be carried out in a paediatrically orientated environment, designed to reduce the risk to the child and providing support to the parents or caregivers.

Points of interest

Marshall in 1960, reporting to the Society of Pediatric Urologists in Philadelphia and quoted by John Duckett, a distinguished pediatric urologist in Philadelphia, calculated that 140 boys a week for 24 weeks would need to be circumcised to prevent one case of carcinoma of the penis.

The Jewish Talmud stated that "the third child was excused from circumcision if the first two had died as a result of the circumcision".

Dr. Derek Llewellyn Jones in his book Everywoman (1971), stated: "Mothers
demand it, doctors profit by it and babies cannot complain about it".

The 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states:

"State parties should take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudical to the health of children."

Circumcision of male infants was addressed in a research paper published by the Queensland Law Reform Commission in December 1993. The preface addresses the problem when it states:

"From the Commission's research to date, it is apparent that there are two quite vocal sides of the debate on routine male circumcision. One side advocates the practice, primarily on a preventative health basis or on religious grounds. The other side opposes the practice, primarily on human rights and preservation of bodily integrity grounds. Both sides rely on medical evidence and opinion to support their respective views".

Having considered all the information the paper concludes with "The Commission has yet to decide what, if any reform of the law should be recommended in relation to infant male circumcision."

Australian Medical Association, 1997

The AMA will discourage circumcision of baby boys in line with the Australian College of Paediatrics "Position Statement on Routine Circumcision of Normal Male Infants and Boys".

The statement, released in June and supported by the AMA's November Federal Council meeting, includes:

The Australian College of Paediatrics should continue to discourage the practice of circumcision in newborns.
Educational material should be available to parents before the birth of their baby and in maternity hospitals.
Some parents after considering medical, social, religious and family factors will opt for circumcision. It is then the responsibility of the doctor to recommend this is performed at an age and under circumstances which reduce hazards to a minimum.
Australian Medicine, 6-20 January 1997, p. 5

Our comments on doctors' statements

Viewed 6/6/08 at 15:10
Click to expand...

ABC News said:

Doctors back call for circumcision ban
Posted Sun Dec 9, 2007 12:37pm AEDT

The Australian Medical Association has backed a call for laws banning the non-essential circumcision of infant boys.

The Tasmanian Children's Commissioner, Paul Mason, says non-medical circumcision is a breach of human rights.

The AMA's Tasmanian President, Haydn Walters, says they would support a ban on the practice, except where there are medical or religious reasons.

He says there is only rarely a medical need to carry out the procedure.

"There were quite a lot of folk myths around the advantages of circumcision. They've almost all been debunked," Prof Walters said.

"There are some minimal advantages in some circumstances, particularly in some infectious diseases, but they're overwhelmingly balanced by disadvantages in other areas," he said.

Viewed 6/6/08 at 15:10
Click to expand...

http://www.courtchallenge.com/international/WHO1.html

S.A.M. · Jun 6, 2008

Bells:

I noticed you deleted the image of the aborted fetus, I find it strange that you would introduce such bias, by deleting the image of a procedure you support, while retaining that of a procedure you do not support. There are plenty of websites with fetal abortion products that show the relative state of fetuses post abortion, which are much more horrific than any slicing and dicing for circumcision.

S.A.M. · Jun 6, 2008

James R said: ↑

As far as I can see, there is no convincing evidence that circumcision is beneficial. Certainly, it is not necessary.
Click to expand...

Do you disagree with the international health organisations that recommend it? Are they mistaken?

Asguard · Jun 6, 2008

SAM that could well be because this debate is not about abortion. If you want to debate that make a new thread and you can post your pic, im sure bells or james (whichever deleted it) wouldnt delete it if it wasnt so far off topic.

S.A.M. · Jun 6, 2008

Asguard said: ↑

SAM that could well be because this debate is not about abortion. If you want to debate that make a new thread and you can post your pic, im sure bells or james (whichever deleted it) wouldnt delete it if it wasnt so far off topic.
Click to expand...

It was a response to Bells picture, which she claims shows the horrors of circumcision. And yet, the horrors of abortion are worse. It was a comparison of horrors re: the acceptability level of a horror.

Asguard · Jun 6, 2008

SAM i could post a pic of the after math of the bali bombings which would show that islamic terriousm is worse than abortion. Still wouldnt make it an less of topic. Now if you would like to look up i posted a huge slab of doctors saying that the risks out weigh the benifits. So would you like to actually debate the topic or would you to concide you lost and this off topic chatter is simply because you cant surport your statement

CutsieMarie89 · Jun 6, 2008

The only real problem I actually have with circumcision is that it is done on a nonconsenting party for nonmedical reasons. I believe almost all doctors refuse to do female circumcisions for the same reasons. I think that if an adult or at least older child make an informed choice for themselves. My mom let me do it when I decided to pierce my ears and I'm very glad she did. Its just the respect of letting one live their own life and choose what they want for themselves wether it be political, mental, or physical, it really means a lot to me as an individual.

S.A.M. · Jun 6, 2008

Asguard said: ↑

SAM i could post a pic of the after math of the bali bombings which would show that islamic terriousm is worse than abortion. Still wouldnt make it an less of topic. Now if you would like to look up i posted a huge slab of doctors saying that the risks out weigh the benifits. So would you like to actually debate the topic or would you to concide you lost and this off topic chatter is simply because you cant surport your statement
Click to expand...

I've already supported all my statements.

There is an equal list of doctors who recommend it.

Dr. Robert Bailey, an epidemiology professor from the University of Illinois, is helping to roll out Kenya's first free circumcision project, which offers operations at public health facilities. Such projects are already running in Swaziland, Rwanda and Zambia, other countries where a large percentage of the population traditionally do not circumcise.

Bailey's study in Kisumu, western Kenya found infection rates were cut by 60 percent among men who were circumcised. The study, funded by the U.S. Institutes of Health and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, was one of several that led the World Health Organization to include circumcision in its prevention policies a year ago.
Click to expand...

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gDs4HffwNX3CjDJFL9wbQ2-kXMsgD90S4GRO0

The billions of dollars spent on Aids prevention programmes based on HIV vaccines, wide-scale testing and the promotion of condoms or sexual abstinence have turned out to be less effective than a simple surgical operation to remove the foreskin.

Some of the world's most distinguished scientists have warned that the "central pillars" of HIV prevention – from condom use to HIV vaccines – have crumbled in the worst-affected regions of sub-Saharan Africa.

On the 25th anniversary of discovery of the virus, the researchers warned that a quarter of a century of research into HIV vaccines and anti-viral creams, along with health programmes, have all failed to stem the Aids epidemic in Africa.

The scientists said there was an urgent need to reappraise existing strategies by looking at how to expand male circumcision in sub-Saharan Africa, where the heterosexual Aids epidemic has spilled into the general population, rather than being confined to high-risk groups, such as sex workers and their clients.
Click to expand...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...best-weapon-in-fight-against-aids-824587.html

Just to give two.

Policy analysts at two leading American Universities are urging that male circumcision and partner reduction should become the focus of prevention efforts in countries such as Uganda with generalised HIV epidemics.

Writing in the journal Science, the researchers argue that although condom use, testing, and treatment of sexually transmitted infections are of value, resource constraints mean that attention should be shifted to the promotion of initiatives which they say have been scientifically proven to work.

According to the researchers, from the University of California and Harvard University, some of the assumptions underlying such strategies - such as poverty or war being major causes of Aids in Africa- are unsupported by rigorous scientific evidence.

They argue that male circumcision and reducing multiple sexual partnerships, two interventions currently getting less attention and resources, would have a greater impact on the Aids pandemic.
Click to expand...

http://allafrica.com/stories/200805141130.html

Or three.

If you can show me where Islamic terrorism is an elective procedure undertaken by parents for their infants, I will be pleased to argue its relative merits versus circumcision.

Bells · Jun 6, 2008

S.A.M. said: ↑

As I've stated before, I am not an advocate of infant circumcision myself. But unless I see clear evidence that the reduction in UTIs from 20,000 to 2000, STDs by 50% and penile cancer in 49, 990 of the 50,000 diagnosed cases are all incidental, I do not see a reason to impose my views in this matter. Regardless of how low you consider those numbers to be.
Click to expand...

Clear evidence?

Have you failed to take notice of the problems and faults in the studies that brought about such figures?

UTI's would be reduced even more without circumcision if mothers breastfed and took care of their son's intact penis by never retracting the foreskin. But doctors in the past, during the time the study you sited which gave the drastic figure, were also found to be advising mothers to pull the foreskin back to clean underneath it. Baby girls have a higher incidence of UTI's. So why is female circumcision illegal?

As for STD's, study after study have found that while the reduction in possible transmission in some STD's may be a factor, STD's would spread a hell of a lot less if a condom was used instead. In fact, some studies have shown that circumcision could increase the risk of catching and transmitting some forms of STD's, such as chlamydia.

In South Africa, mean yearly HIV incidence and net reproduction rate of the epidemic were not lower in provinces with higher levels of male circumcision. For thirteen other countries where Demographic and Health Survey data were available, male HIV prevalence in circumcised and non-circumcised groups was compared. A meta-analysis of that data, contrasting male HIV seroprevalence according to circumcision status, showed no difference between the two groups (combined risk ratio [RR] = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.94–1.05). Individual case study analysis of eight of those countries showed no significant difference in seroprevalence in circumcised and uncircumcised groups, while two countries (Kenya and Uganda) showed lower HIV prevalence among circumcised groups, and three countries (Cameroon, Lesotho and Malawi) showed higher HIV prevalence among circumcised groups. In most countries with a complex ethnic fabric, the relationship between men's circumcision status and HIV seroprevalence was not straightforward, with the exception of the Luo in Kenya and a few groups in Uganda. These observations put into question the potential long-term effect of voluntary circumcision programmes in countries with generalised HIV epidemics.

(Source)

That is from a study in 2008.

As for your figure of 50,000 for penile cancer. Isn't that the number of all known and diagnosed cases of penile cancer since 1935? Seeing that less than 2,000 men were diagnosed with penile cancer in 2007 in the US, I am curious as to how exactly you came by that figure. I did read somewhere that since 1935, there have been 50,000 cases of penile cancer in the US. But the American Cancer Society have stated that the mortality rate from circumcision and complications surrounding the procedure could actually be very similar to the rate of deaths of penile cancer per year in the US. So gain, is it really valid to use circumcision as a preventative measure, when doing so is not only 100% successful as a preventative measure, but that the number of deaths from penile cancer could mirror that of babies who die of circumcisions every year?

As for imposing your views.. Kind of funny when one considers your views about how you view the uncircumcised male as being somehow "gross" as well as the plethora of links you have provided to support your side of the argument. If that is not an imposition of views, I don't know what is. Guess what Sam, we are all imposing our views in this thread.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Bells · Jun 6, 2008

S.A.M. said: ↑

Bells:

I noticed you deleted the image of the aborted fetus, I find it strange that you would introduce such bias, by deleting the image of a procedure you support, while retaining that of a procedure you do not support. There are plenty of websites with fetal abortion products that show the relative state of fetuses post abortion, which are much more horrific than any slicing and dicing for circumcision.
Click to expand...

Excuse me? I did not delete the image of the aborted fetus.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I didn't even realise it had been deleted until now.

So I'd suggest you actually make sure of who deleted what before you accuse me of "such bias".
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

S.A.M. · Jun 6, 2008

Again, you are assuming that mothers who circumcise do not breast feed. Do African and Middle Eastern women breastfeed less than European and Australian women? I do not think so. Your one study on STDs is refuted by several long tern studies, one just completed over 25 years, which shows a 50% reduction in incidence. All these points have already been discussed.

As for your figure of 50,000 for penile cancer. Isn't that the number of all known and diagnosed cases of penile cancer since 1935? Seeing that less than 2,000 men were diagnosed with penile cancer in 2007 in the US, I am curious as to how exactly you came by that figure. I did read somewhere that since 1935, there have been 50,000 cases of penile cancer in the US.
Click to expand...

Yes, its also from a post posted in this thread. Out of 50,000 diagnosed cases since the 1930s (which is important since diagnosis has now improved) only 10 were circumcised. Thats a massive significant difference for the 10,000 who died.

S.A.M. · Jun 6, 2008

Bells said: ↑

Excuse me? I did not delete the image of the aborted fetus.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I didn't even realise it had been deleted until now.

So I'd suggest you actually make sure of who deleted what before you accuse me of "such bias".
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Click to expand...

Sorry, I assumed it was you because we are discussing, I see now it must be James. meh.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Asguard · Jun 6, 2008

SAM i find it interetsing that you dismiss a cohrain review as speculative and then post links to news articals without the studies they are relying on. Yes i know i posted a news artical from the ABC but it was about a policy from the AMA (the doctors association of Australia) and the only reason i posted it was i was unable to find it on the AMA website

I suggest you read this (which came out of the above link and is from the austrolasion colloge of pediatritrisins)

"There have been increasing claims of health benefits from routine male circumcision. There are, however, also risks associated with the procedure from infection, bleeding and damage to the glans penis. The College has recently reviewed evidence in relation to risks and benefits and has concluded that it is not possible to be dogmatic on the exact risk/benefit ratio. There are suggestions of reductions in the risk of urinary tract infections, of local inflammatory conditions of the penis and later cancer of the penis. It has also been claimed that there is a reduction in the risk of sexually transmitted disease (especially HIV) and of cancer of the cervix in partners of circumcised males. However, studies claiming these benefits do have methodological problems which could influence findings and these problems will be difficult to overcome. Therefore, at the present time it would be wrong either to claim that there are definite health benefits or to deny that they exist.

The possibility that routine circumcision may contravene human rights has been raised because circumcision is performed on a minor and is without proven medical benefit. Whether these legal concerns are valid will probably only be known if the matter is determined in a court of law.

The Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons has informed the College that it is its view that routine male circumcision should not be performed prior to the age of 6 months. It considers that "Neonatal male circumcision has no medical indication. It is a traumatic procedure performed without anaesthesia to remove a normal and healthy prepuce.""

Now the state health departments have gone the step further and banned the pocidure in all public hospitals (for non medical reasons) but the state parliments are yet to amend the concent to medical treatment acts to ban it compleatly for non medical reasons on unconcenting children. That is the next logical step and i will be interested to see when the law reform counciles recomend it. Personally i feel that every child muitlated until that date should have the right to sue both the state and federal goverments and there parents and doctors for breaching there rights under the international convention on the rights of the child (something we are a signitry to)

I would LOVE to see where that class action went

Log in or Sign up

Doctors Group: AAP conflict of interest hampers honest circumcision policy

S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Bells Staff Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

Bells Staff Member

S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

CutsieMarie89 Zen Registered Senior Member

S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

Bells Staff Member

Bells Staff Member

S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Doctors Group: AAP conflict of interest hampers honest circumcision policy

S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Bells Staff Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

Bells Staff Member

S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

CutsieMarie89 Zen Registered Senior Member

S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

Bells Staff Member

Bells Staff Member

S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches