Doctors Group: AAP conflict of interest hampers honest circumcision policy

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

  1. GenitalIntegrityNow Registered Member

    Messages:
    39
    UTIs are covered in Chapter Three:

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. GenitalIntegrityNow Registered Member

    Messages:
    39
    All of those topic are covered. The report is both evidence-based and comprehensive. Take a look and you'll see.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. GenitalIntegrityNow Registered Member

    Messages:
    39
    The AAP stance is discussed at length in the introduction to the policy statement. I highly recommend reading it to get an idea of what is going on with the AAP. It is accurate to say that they do not recommend infant circumcision.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    So tell me what their rebuttal is. You know it, right? How do they explain the significant differences in incidence of UTIs, STDs and penile cancer? How do they explain studies which show a greater incidence of HPV in uncircumcised men and the effect on women who get cervical cancer from sexual intercourse with such men?

    http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3421602b.html
     
  8. CutsieMarie89 Zen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,485
    Thats what I thought. Oh well, I won't be perpetuating the ancient tradition of circumcision without a valid medical reason for doing so. I have no cultural or religious reason for doing so.
     
  9. CutsieMarie89 Zen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,485
    The same study that was done in Africa also found that women with circumcised partners were more likely to contract HIV than those who did not, because the increased friction is more abrasive on the vaginal walls. It is easily fixed by using lubricant or even better a lubricated condom so no one gets HIV or any other STI
     
  10. GenitalIntegrityNow Registered Member

    Messages:
    39
    I quoted you the entire section on UTIs in a previous message. I don't want to quote the whole twelve chapter report, though.

    The bottom line (and even the AAP agrees with this) is that the potential benefits are insufficient for recommending the surgery after considering the risks.

    If you want to make a specific assertion and what conclusion that leads you to, I can try to address it.
     
  11. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    What about all the other studies? What did they find?
     
  12. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825

    So you're saying a 10-fold reduction in risk of UTI in infants (probably underestimated as 50% of pediatricians do not routinely do urine cultures), a signicifcant reduction in risk of STDs, UTIs and HIV in young adults and a highly significant reduction in risk of penile cancer and a significant reduction in the OR of getting cervical cancer is irrelevant as compared to having an inch of skin on the penis?
     
  13. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    It only applies where condoms aren't used, or are only used to a limited extent. I'm speaking from the point of view of a citizen of a western country who's personal rights to have all the parts they were born with shouldn't be violated, except in cases of medical emergency.
     
  14. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Of course, if men were getting cancer because of something women were not doing, it would be an entirely different matter. When women are using birth control most men will not use condoms. Its a fact. Women at least go for routine PAP smears, when was the last time a man went for a routine HPV check?
     
  15. GenitalIntegrityNow Registered Member

    Messages:
    39
    You quoted some large chunks from studies which you did not cite. You also did not state what conclusion you draw from what you cited. Can you be a little more specific?
     
  16. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    On most newborns, they were done without any form of pain control. And the child will forget it? What in the hell kind of warped attitude is that? So if someone rapes my 1 year old son, I can say 'it's no problem at all, he'll simply forget it ever happened'?

    They also fail to mention the fact that giving anesthetics to newborns can be dangerous in itself.

    In Australia, hospitals no longer perform circumcisions on infant boys, simply because they are completely unnecessary and painful.

    Infection is no problem? Ever seen an infected ear or any piercing that has become infected? Now imagine that around your son's still growing and developing penis? As a newborn, he can't even have baby paracetamol for the pain.

    Yes, it is a cosmetic procedure. And you have to wonder what kind of whack job has a doctor slice into their son's penis for cosmetic reasons.

    Then you are aware of the fact that the penis still develops after the child is born, and the foreskin is vital to that development. So why would you want to hinder that development by removing the foreskin without the child's consent?

    Parents can and sometimes do refuse to vaccinate their children because they either disagree with it or do not believe in it. Parents can and sometimes also refuse to allow their children to have a lifesaving blood transfusion because they do not believe in it.

    As I said before, in Australia, doctors in hospitals will not perform circumcisions on baby boys unless there is a medical reason to do so. If the parents want to circumcise their child, they actually need to find a doctor who is willing to do it in his or her own private practice. But hospitals have virtually a zero tolerance policy when it comes to doing it for cosmetic or religious practices.

    The advice to circumcise males for AIDS is usually in high risk areas, such as Africa, where AIDS is rampant. Then it is encouraged for adult males to become circumcised.

    My husband is uncircumcised and his penis looks nothing like that. So what exactly are you talking about?

    Oh, and I find an uncircumcised penis to be less gross, than doing either of the usual procedures on either of my sons.

    It is as much genital mutilation on boys, as it is on girls.

    Again, it is seen to be important for adult males in high risk zones and areas. So would you advise the State to perform circumcisions on adult males living in a high risk zone without the consent of the males? Because circumcisions performed on newborns is just that. They have no right or ability to consent to the procedure. And they can't get it back either.

    Why don't parents wait until the child is old enough to understand and consent to the procedure of their own accord? You think it looks gross because you consider hacking into some kid's penis without his consent while he howls in agony or goes into shock from the pain to have a more appealing cosmetic result.

    Some men think that an uncircumcised clitoris looks "gross". Yet that practice is being outlawed in most countries. Hopefully male circumcision will soon follow suit.
     
  17. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    I gave you the links. And my conclusions. And the figures. A lot more than you gave me. Feel free to rebut any of the points.
     
  18. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    The reduction in risk is highest in infancy, expecially for UTIs which are most common before 5 years of age.

    Here is an Australian study:

    http://www.med.umich.edu/pediatrics/ebm/cats/circ2.htm
     
  19. GenitalIntegrityNow Registered Member

    Messages:
    39
    Actually, it is the AAP and every other medical association which says that the potential benefits do not warrant recommending the surgery in light of the known risks.

    It is also disingenuous to discuss potential benefits without also considering the risks, as you have done.
     
  20. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Lets hear it.:shrug:
     
  21. GenitalIntegrityNow Registered Member

    Messages:
    39
    I see the links now. Those large chunks of text are fine as an attempt to back up a claim, but you need to make a specific, individual claim first.
     
  22. GenitalIntegrityNow Registered Member

    Messages:
    39
    Full discussion and citations in Chapter Four.
     
  23. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Pick any one. Penile cancer incidence. UTIs before 5 years of age. Incidence of HPV related cervical cancer. HIV reduction rate. STD reduction rate. Although, if you are honest, you will realise that they are not mutually exclusive and any correct analysis of reduced risk due to circumcision will involve a one way multifactorial regression analysis with interaction effects.

    So my claim: Are the risks of circumcision in infancy comparable to a reduced risk in all of the above? In terms of health care costs, what is the difference? In terms of quality of life, life expectancy, visits to the doctor, trauma from later, required circumcision, lost hours in labour due to illness and hospitalisation and percentage of national healthcare costs.

    What are the differences?
     

Share This Page