Doctors Group: AAP conflict of interest hampers honest circumcision policy

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

  1. Koalama Registered Senior Member

    Save the strawman arguments.
    Why would I hope this was true? What does it really matter to me? Did I ever say they were useless or harmful? Depending on the person they may be dirty. It was valuable at one time but not anymore. We aren't walking around naked now. If it was so valuable now they what are the negative affects?
    You believe that it is against human rights because it is a removal of a part of their body with out their consent. I find that view silly because as a parent you will me doing so much with out the consent of the parent. I don't think it is in anyway mutilation. Mutilation never has the child best interest in mind. You believe that it is unnecessary but provide nothing but option to support that. Why do you feel it harms the child quality of live? How many people do you think really care that they were cut? You tell me to grow up because my view of the topic differs from yours, thats mature

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Simon Anders Valued Senior Member

    This is naive and would also cover Female Genital Mutilation also. A very good case could be made in some cultures that a girl who does not go through this process will be punished later.

    Circumcision came about primarily for religious reasons and these religions all have severe judgements of sex. That an early ritual involves violence aimed at the genitals is not a coincidence.

    Further it assumes that the parent's intentions are complicated. Sometimes they are quite simple. Some authority figure said it was good to do. So they do it. The mass circumcision of the majority of male babies in the US was popular for a while in the medical community. Then it lost favor. Parents simply did what they were told.

    Tonsilectomies were also very, very common and this was, in fact, often mutilation. This does not mean that the parents and doctors were sinister. But in fact they removed an organ that they were ignorant about and those children were damaged. Just as were women who had their uteruses removed if they were 'too emotional' at certain periods of time. The doctors were not sitting around conspiring to come up with ways to mutilate women, however the procedure was a violation. The road to hell is paved and all that.....
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Koalama Registered Senior Member

    Male circumcision is not comparable to female. Female is about harming the child. It it so they will not receive pleasure. That is not what male circumcision is about.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. jd11 Registered Member

    Actually this is not true it is as much a cherished component of their culture as male circumcision is of others. Take, for example, the opinions expressed in this article about female circumcision in Egypt; we see some of the social underpinnings.


    The article continues with a typical Egyptian 16 year old who says:
    Or better yet you can watch one done on a neonate girl in Brunei over at youtube:


    According to the mother:




    And it goes on like this. These arguments sound exactly like the ones used to support male circumcision. And it seems to me these parents are only doing what they believe is best for their girls. Leave a message for the mother in Brunei, tell her she mutilated her daughter. She'll asure you that wasn't the case. Fortunately, a 2002 study found: Circumcised women experience sexual arousal and orgasm as frequently as uncircumcised women. So should we be outraged by that or just let them do whatever they'll do?


    Also I wanted to point out that although you are correct (WRT) the ACS letter, it was an old one, you are incorrect in believing that the ACS has no position on circumcision WRT cancer. The American Cancer Society issued a five part advisory statement on penile cancer in June 1999. Circumcision is not considered to be beneficial in preventing or reducing the risk of penile cancer. From the most recent statement:
  8. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Yeah fine. You asked for one and I gave you one. You know how to use Google.
    They don't all believe in vaccination either. Does that mean the rest of the world has to allow them to be a disease font? Whether we like it or not, and whether they like it or not, this is a global village and there are certain rules everyone has to follow.
    Actually they're having pretty good luck getting adult men to sign up for it so it may not come to that. Apparently African men are much braver than the Western men who are sitting here squrming and whining OHMIGOD GET THAT BLADE AWAY FROM MY DICK YOU'RE GONNA TAKE AWAY MY MANHOOD.
    I expect governments to be foolish because about all they're good for any more is laughs. But what planet do you live on that makes you so disconnected from the reality of this one? How can you possibly believe that you're going to get people in the Third World to use condoms regularly enough to have a substantive impact on the HIV epidemic? These men only have to be circumcised once and in some of their cultures social pressure is a much more powerful motivator than it is for us rebellious, iconoclastic Americans. But they have to use a condom EVERY SINGLE TIME THEY HAVE SEX. Regardless of how drunk they are, how impulsive they're being, or how much trouble they're having getting the woman to stop screaming and fighting long enough for them to get off. (Sorry for the comment but rape is a reality in some of these countries we're talking about and we have to deal with reality.)
    No. It's just quixotic, at least in the countries that need it most. It's not going to be successful enough, soon enough, to keep the AIDS epidemic from turning into an even greater crisis. According to a report I read from South Africa last year (and posted on SciForums), based on the early results of the circumcision campaign, some people in public health project that because of the multiplier effect (reduce the probability of transmitting HIV by a factor of ten in each encounter and you'll reduce the number of new cases by a much larger factor) it will reduce it from an epidemic to merely a really horrible nuisance in one generation. Changing an entire culture's attitudes about sex so the concept of "safe sex" is even translatable into their language is going to take a lot longer than one generation.
    Of course it's not. I'm talking about statistics, something 99.999% of Americans understand almost as well as they understand nuclear physics. It reduces the probability, so in aggregate you reduce the transmission rate in your population. That's one of the ways public health works.
    Like I said, you only have to get circumcised once. You have to muster the discipline to practice safe sex over and over again. In cultures where promiscuity and even (sadly) rape are common, it's irrational to expect that.

    We have a microcosm of that scenario to observe right here in the USA. Look at the demographics in which HIV is a major issue. One of them is our inner cities, where civilization is on the verge of collapsing. You can't talk to those kids about condoms!
    But circumcision will reduce their chance of contracting it in every sexual encounter for the rest of their life. Condoms will only reduce it when they actually use the condoms, which as I've already said is not going to be very often.
    No. People who opt out of civilization are no longer entitled to all of its protections. They become a problem that we have to solve in order to keep civilization running. If they don't like it they can clean up their act and opt back in.

    Children in some Third World countries start having sex the moment they reach puberty. These are not the mature, responsible people I'm going to trust to make decisions that affect public health.
    Well okay, I'll grant you that circumcision as the magic bullet for AIDS is not exactly a canonical scientific theory yet. What matters is that a lot of men in Africa seem to be willing to participate in the experiment to test the hypothesis. I assume you're a model parent and your son is a model child so he'll never fail to use those condoms you gave him and you don't have to worry about AIDS in your family.
  9. Koalama Registered Senior Member


    Most Americans call them selfs Christians and it is not required by Christianity to circumcise. Most Americans were cut because it is believed that its cleaner and the child's health will benefit.

    You are aware there are diffrent types of circumcision.

    Are you reading what you write?
    It is obvious it is not for the benefit of the Child. It is used to control their sexuality.

    A man that is not cut will not be regarded as sexually impure or be rejected socially. They family would not be dishonored either.

    It does not matter if the everyone is circumcised there or they cant get married with out it. Its based are a very messed up belief system.

    The quotes do not prove your point.

    I can "trash" their warped views when they are abusing children. You should not let people live their lives how they want wen they do sick stuff like that.

    How can girl say she has gone through the procedure yet her clitoris is still intact? In the video they cut the hood off. She also says that it is done under sterile conditions. I don't want to watch the video but there were comments about bowls of dirt and "divine sterilization"

    How can you even logically connect the too sides of arguments? They think it is right because they are brainwashed and uneducated. A mutilated child is hurt and that part of the body is destroyed.

    If most woman can't climax just through intercourse how are they orgasming with out a clit?

    I have read the opposite of what most of that artical says and those articals were cited.

    Of course the Brunei mother doesn't think its mutilation. She is brainwashed.

    I said they don't have a position of circumcision. Not relating it to the cancer.
  10. GenitalIntegrityNow Registered Member

    Many of your statements are factually false. This is one of them. Consider the Maasai:

    Without question, in some cultures, any male who does not get circumcised is rejected by the society.

    I do not know why you say things which you do not know to be true. It does not earn you any credibility.
  11. jd11 Registered Member

    And the mother from Brunei or the parents from Egypt think it is healthy, cleaner, and desirable to circumcise their daughters.

    Of course I do there are at least four.

    The quotes do prove a point; the same lame excuses she is using to defend circumcising her daughter are the same lame excuses that Americans use to justify circumcising their sons.

    And those who want to circumcise infant boys should be trashed equally.

    Who knows; but clearly neither the mother from Brunei nor the girls from Egypt felt they had been harmed. Why don't you go watch the video? It's just a little snip; I doubt the infant would remember it anyway.

    I am certainly not the first one. But if you really want to, let's turn to someone who might be considered more of an expert on the subject. Perhaps you know Hanny Lightfoot-Klein, she was one of the earliest whistle blowers regarding FGM, do you want to see what she had to say regarding the two?



    Well, it doesn't seem to be a problem for her. Who are we to disagree? And according to the paper referenced in the previous post, a study of circumcised women in Nigeria showed that circumcised women experience sexual arousal and orgasm as frequently as uncircumcised women.

    Just as many in the US, and some other places, have been brainwashed into thinking male circumcision is not mutilation. It's all the same dance it's just a different tune.

    No, actually I think you did. You previously posted information from medicirc implying that circumcision was a useful intervention WRT penile cancer. Then you told another poster that the ACS information they posted was an old personal correspondence and that the ACS had no position WRT using circumcision as an intervention to prevent penile cancer. You were right about the correspondence but the ACS does indeed explicitly state that being intact is not a risk factor for penile cancer.
  12. Koalama Registered Senior Member

    Then prove what I said wrong.
    Do you realize I am talking about America? In some cultures yes but in 1st world countries no.
    Practice what you preach.
  13. GenitalIntegrityNow Registered Member

    We should try to find common ground rather than disagreement. I posted the Genital Integrity Policy Statement for educational purposes. It reflects the latest medical data and includes the medical ethics considerations which some organizations have lost sight of. I hope we have learned some things we didn't know before during the course of this discussion.
  14. Koalama Registered Senior Member

    Response in bold.
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2008
  15. Koalama Registered Senior Member

    I want to make my position clear. I am fine with parents choosing not to have their sons circumcised. I don't think it is in anyway mutilation. I think parents should have the choice because there are medical advantages to it. Besides the discomfort of any medical procedure it does not harm the child.
  16. GenitalIntegrityNow Registered Member

    You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Circumcision has very real risks, including some that are unavoidable, such as a big scar and loss of sensation and function. Those risks and harms cannot medically justify any known potential benefit. Circumcision violates many established principles of medical ethics. Circumcision is a form of mutilation.

    A Genital Integrity Policy is necessary for the protection of children from bodily harm by doctors and parents whose subjective opinions on aesthetics, culture, and conformity have clouded their medical judgment.

    I, too, want to make my position clear. It is your right to have a circumcision, for any reason you want it. But you do now own your child, nor his penis, and it is not your right to alter his genitals for superficial reasons.
  17. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    So it falls to you to dictate what is done with other people's children? Screw that. Parents make more important decisions than what is done to the tip of their child's penis all the time. And it seems that the evidence showing benefits to circumcision is much stronger than that showing any harm.

    PS I asked a gay friend of mine (I figure he'd be a penis expert) how he felt about circumcised/uncircumcised penis's. He said that if he finds out some guy's not circumcised, he won't even go out with him as he's completely disgusted by the uncut look.
  18. Koalama Registered Senior Member

    I have not made up any facts. Since you claimed that I did why don't you quote it and prove that I did so?
    The risk is very low. Every medical procedure involves risks. Why should this one be viewed differently?
    Are you against all medical procedures on children?
    What principles of medical ethics is circumcision violating?
    Prove that it is mutilation. Prove that is not a fact you are making up.
    No parent in their right mind would circumcise their son if they thought it was not beneficial to their health. It has nothing to do with conformity.
    Yes you do "own" your child until they are a legal adult. You do have the right to consent to medical procedures that will happen to their body.
    Health is not superficial.
  19. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    I wasn't thinking about this thread at all while I was reading an article about how the risk of a worldwide HIV pandemic among heteros has pretty much receeded when I came across this nugget:
    and this:
    I think it's time for you anti-circumcision zealots to admit defeat and go get cut.
  20. jd11 Registered Member

    And I'll clarify my position. Infant circumcision is not ethically justifiable. It does not fall within the realm of parental proxy (though Drs seem shirk their responsibility WRT this procedure). There is no substantial benefit to infant circumcision (or circumcision in general for the vast majority of the population). However, if a consenting adult wishes to get circumcised for whatever reason they should be free to do so.

    Because circumcision clearly does not reach the burden of medically therapeutic and it is therefore unethical to perform a circumcision on an infant boy. Virtually no boys are born with a clinical indication for circumcision. The risk may be low but complications can be quite severe up to and including full amputation or death, may not show up for years, can occasionally be chronic, and sometimes require additional invasive surgical intervention.

    No, only those which are not medically therapeutic.

    The Canadian medical ethicists, Dr. Margaret Sommerville (peopleDOTmcgillDOTca/margaret.somerville/), perhaps said it best in her books The Ethical Canary: Science, Society and the Human Spirit:

    There is no compelling reason to circumcise an infant and circumcision fails the substitute judgment test. For all of the pro-ported benefits of circumcision there are less invasive, safer, and more effective option to treat or prevent a given problem (should they occur at all) all of which occur at very low baselines anyway.

    The AAP Committee on Bioethics report states that:
    • Proxy consent is only valid in situations of clear and immediate medical need such as disease, trauma, or deformity.
    • Non-Essential treatment that can be differed without loss of efficacy should wait until the consent of the child can be obtained.

    They go on to clearly point out that:
    You have it backwards. If there is equal doubt as to whether or not a given medical intervention (especially when consent is received by proxy) is actually medically necessary which is, at present, as good as it gets for circumcision, then the procedure must not be carried out. In other words, in this case, in situations of equal doubt, the person with the burden of proof is you.

    Parents do have the authority to authorize interventions on behalf of their child but within the constraints of actual medical need and some other cases such as to correct deformity. So what is the clinical indication for infant circumcision which falls within the constraints of medically therapeutic?

    [1] Sommerville, Margaret Dr. The Ethical Canary: Science, Society and the Human Spirit: Penguin Group, 2000.

    [2] American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Bioethics. “Informed Consent, Parental Permission, and Assent in Pediatric Practice.” Pediatrics 95 (1995): 314
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2008
  21. jd11 Registered Member

    See this is what happens when you don't dig deep enough; you make rash decisions. Had you dug deeper you would have found that the French National Council on AIDS (Conseil national du SIDA) in their September 2007 report concluded:
    (wwwDOTcircumcisionandhivDOTcom/files/07_05_24_rapport_circoncisions_eng.pdf )

    And according to a July 2007 statement released by the Australian Federation of AIDS Organizations:


    In fact, the US does have both the highest rate of heterosexually transmitted HIV in the developed world and the highest rate of circumcision in the west. In fact, within our population, African Americans have both the highest rate of circumcision and the highest rate of HIV in their communities.

    Do you know why the African problem is context specific or will you need it explained?
  22. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    When someone gets a needle stick from someone with HIV, they usually treat them with anti-HIV drugs even though the risk of infection is only 0.3%. Using prophylactic meds decreases this risk by 79%, yet has significant side effects. Nevertheless, most people exposed to HIV via a needle stick take the treatment.

    So, yes. Please tell me why reducing the risk of HIV transmission by 60% is worthless? Is it because the reletive risk of HIV is low? Well, it's also low from a needle stick, but most people opt for the treatment in that situation.
  23. GenitalIntegrityNow Registered Member

    The Genital Integrity Policy is for newborns in the United States. I challenge you to cite any evidence that newborn circumcision reduce HIV transmission. No such evidence exists.

Share This Page