Tide turning on Circumcision, Push to circumcise all male infants

[adoucette]

Not to quibble, but by definition, ROUTINE circumcison is NOT being done to treat any existing disease or condition.

I have no problem with it being done to treat a condition which requires it, but in fact, in 90% of the cases, the condition for which it is done is phimosis, and recent advances in the treatment of that condition are significantly reducing the need for circumcision (data from the UK).

And according to your UN report, besides phimosis:

Other, less common, medical indications for circumcision are otherwise untreatable paraphimosis (in which the foreskin is trapped behind the corona and forms a tight band of constricting tissue, causing swelling of the glans and foreskin), balanposthitis (an acute or chronic inflammation of the mucosal surface of the foreskin) and balanitis xerotica obliterans (a chronic sclerosis and atrophic process of the glans penis and foreskin – a risk factor for penile cancer and the only absolute indication for circumcision).

NONE of which would be found in an infant, since they are chronic conditions.

UTIs are not even on the list.

Arthur

 

[WillNever]

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/content/abstract/16/8/556
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1720543/?tool=pmcentrez
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2007/9789241596169_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.



A study, singular, has it been repeated?

Hardly anyone who is medically educated calls a UTI a "UI." Do we actually know what we are talking about here, ignorant one..?

You are promoting a surgery that costs money and increases the risk of infection that all surgeries carry with them, when the procedure is only beneficial in 3rd world shitholes with high HIV prevalence, like South Africa, while showing ZERO benefit comparatively between the USA (where circumcision is regularly done for poor families) and modern European countries (where circumcision is not routine for anyone). Try breaking free from your own chains, if you can.

 

[WillNever]

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,

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

It's called a urinary tract, not a urinary track.

 

[ElectricFetus]

It's called a urinary tract, not a urinary track.

http://www.mitchamcouncil.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/images/nitpickercomb.jpg

No, I'm not a doctor they can call it what ever they call it.

Read the studies a posted circumcision is viable preventer of UTI or UI or what ever for first world children at high risk for those kinds of infections.

 

[WillNever]

Light: who cares? Most children do not get UTIs period. Those who get them are lacking in other forms of non-circumcisional hygiene and when they do get them, we give them a cheap antibiotic and it's over with. Woooooh.

I see 85 year olds with UTI in the hospital all the time as a registered nurse. They are usually women and typically have been using a urinary catheter. We give them levaquin and the case is closed, no surgery needed. Try moving on with life, if you can.

"Ack... because my penis is short, sucky, and sliced... I need to promote a surgery for a typically benign infection that even the oldest of the old fully recover from..and who most people never even get in their lives to begin with."

The above is basically what you are relaying to me here.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Not to quibble, but by definition, ROUTINE circumcison is NOT being done to treat any existing disease or condition.

but I'm not arguing for routine circumcision so I don't care.

I have no problem with it being done to treat a condition which requires it, but in fact, in 90% of the cases, the condition for which it is done is phimosis, and recent advances in the treatment of that condition are significantly reducing the need for circumcision (data from the UK).

Honestly if you have foreskin fuck up enough to cause phimosis a circumcision just makes sense, over having to treat and maintain it continuously.

Light: who cares? Most children do not get UTIs period. Those who get them are lacking in other forms of non-circumcisional hygiene and when they do get them, we give them a cheap antibiotic and it's over with. Woooooh.

UTIs are not laughing matter they can cause damage to the kidneys and bladder. And again the report specifies a subset of children exist that have conditions akin to urine backwash (not economics) that make them susceptible to repeated UTIs, circumcision was found to be net benefit to this group.

 

[WillNever]

UTIs are not laughing matter they can cause damage to the kidneys and bladder. And again the report specifies a subset of children exist that have conditions akin to urine backwash (not economics) that make them susceptible to repeated UTIs, circumcision was found to be net benefit to this group.

QUERY: have you ever cared for a patient with a UTI, as I have many times? No...? K. Do you believe you know more about UTIs than I, WillNever,? No...? K, Good. That settles that question. Probably you should pipe down about UTIs then, light. Your usage of terminology displays to me that you know very little about the actual disease process going on with such infections. That is where you're seeing the "nitpicking." If you were medically trained, you would find out very quickly that "nitpicking" is something healthcare professionals are trained to do. Try it out some time.

Next case: can you please describe whatever subset of children you are referring to who has "repeated UTIs"? And can you explain why this would suggest benefits of circumcisions to the non subset (AKA: all other children), if you believe that?

 

[ElectricFetus]

QUERY: have you ever cared for a patient with a UTI, as I have many times? No...? K. Do you believe you know more about UTIs than I, WillNever,? No...? K, Good. That settles that question. Probably you should pipe down about UTIs then, light. Your usage of terminology displays to me that you know very little about the actual disease process going on with such infections. That is where you're seeing the "nitpicking." If you were medically trained, you would find out very quickly that "nitpicking" is something healthcare professionals are trained to do. Try it out some time.

Fallacy alert: Appeal to Authority, learn critical reasoning K. By your implied logic if a child tells a mathematicians that 2+2=4 and the mathematicians disagrees the child should shut the fuck up.

Now if you could provide say actually evidence, say studies on UTI showing that there harmless, I would be inclined to believe, but I'm not going to take your word, even if you were the god of piss, and certainly being an ass and resorting to an appeal to authority fallacy won't help.

Next case: can you please describe whatever subset of children you are referring to who has "repeated UTIs"? And can you explain why this would suggest benefits of circumcisions to the non subset (AKA: all other children), if you believe that?

Why don't you click on the links I post just a few posts ago? I neither said nor implied that it would have benefit to the non subset.

I know its difficult for many to understand my argument because its so neutral: I'm not for routine circumcision, but from my reading of the evidence I see no reason why it can't be elective, and that its fine for parents to choose it for their child for what ever reason they want, be it intelligent or asinine. Its benefits and detriments are generally to minor to make it routine or to outlaw it. Though I do not agree with any surgery being done without anesthesia, that does not forbid circumcision merely demands changes in how it done.

 

[TLCTugger]

provide say actually evidence, say studies on UTI showing that there harmless

Looking at ALL the evidence, NOT one national medical association on earth endorses routine circumcison. Many say to wait several months if it is to be done. Several roundly condemn it, for example the policy most recently updated is Holland's: knmg.artsennet.nl/Diensten/knmgpublicaties/KNMGpublicatie/Nontherapeutic-circumcision-of-male-minors-2010.htm

They call for a BAN because it is a violation of the child's human rights. their policy is well-footnoted and sums up the case against circumcision pretty well.

its difficult for many to understand my argument because its so neutral: I'm not for routine circumcision

You say no, but you're for the right of SOMEONE ELSE to cut healthy normal perfectly-evolved body parts from your YOUR body. That right doesn't exist in a sane or humane world.

-Ron

 

[madanthonywayne]

You say no, but you're for the right of SOMEONE ELSE to cut healthy normal perfectly-evolved body parts from your YOUR body. That right doesn't exist in a sane or humane world.

-Ron

Always such melodramatic rhetoric from the anti-circumcision side. There are many known benefits to circumcision (decreases the risk of UTI's, STD'S, Penis Cancer, and possibly cervix cancer in the female partners of circumcised men) and few risks when done as an infant. On the other hand, I know a couple guys who had to have it done as an adult for medical reasons and they assure me that you're far better off having it done as an infant.

http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/clinical/clinicalrecs/circumcision.html
​

 

[Neverfly]

Always such melodramatic rhetoric from the anti-circumcision side. There are many known benefits to circumcision (decreases the risk of UTI's, STD'S, Penis Cancer, and possibly cervix cancer in the female partners of circumcised men) and few risks when done as an infant. On the other hand, I know a couple guys who had to have it done as an adult for medical reasons and they assure me that you're far better off having it done as an infant.

http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/clinical/clinicalrecs/circumcision.html
​

If the topic is Routine at an age when they don't have a choice...

Think about how many OTHER surgeries are not routine or done to infants that might have some benefits.
Your argument is completely one sided.

 

[madanthonywayne]

Think about how many OTHER surgeries are not routine or done to infants that might have some benefits.

Well, one of my children had his tonsils out, and he didn't really have any say in that. But what surgeries did you have in mind?

 

[adoucette]

Always such melodramatic rhetoric from the anti-circumcision side.

What's melodramatic about:

NOT one national medical association on earth endorses routine circumcison.

The point is they have evaluated the risk/benefits of the procedure and they ALL agree that given what we know, the small potential future benefits don't justify the known risk of performing the surgery.

Arthur

 

[madanthonywayne]

The point is they have evaluated the risk/benefits of the procedure and they ALL agree that given what we know, the small potential future benefits don't justify the known risk of performing the surgery.

Arthur

Indeed. It has clear benefits with a complication rate below 1%. Most doctors (and medical associations in the US) say the decision should be left up to the parents, not that the procedure should be banned or only performed when medically necessary.

The melodrama comes in describing it as male genital mutilation or describing its proponents as insane (see post 629).

 

[adoucette]

And again, you state it incorrectly.

The medical community has found that the potential benefits of circumcision are not sufficient to justify the known risks of doing the procedure when there is no existing medical indication for it, and doctors should inform their patients of that fact.

The issue that you raise, that parents should have the right to go against medical advice and have the surgery performed anyway is an entirely different issue.

In the US we seem to be fairly tolerant of parents going against medical advice when it comes to their children.

Arthur

 

[ElectricFetus]

Looking at ALL the evidence, NOT one national medical association on earth endorses routine circumcison.

Again not arguing for routine circumcision, so completely irrelevant.

Many say to wait several months if it is to be done. Several roundly condemn it, for example the policy most recently updated is Holland's: knmg.artsennet.nl/Diensten/knmgpublicaties/KNMGpublicatie/Nontherapeutic-circumcision-of-male-minors-2010.htm They call for a BAN because it is a violation of the child's human rights. their policy is well-footnoted and sums up the case against circumcision pretty well.

And many have not condemned it and have not called for it banishment, so what your point?

You say no, but you're for the right of SOMEONE ELSE

That someone being a parent. Parents should have some rights over their child, depend on child age, such as consent for minor surgery for minor or frivolous needed, and consent for major surgery for major needs. Face it a infant does not have full rights as an adult and it makes sense for this being so.

to cut healthy normal perfectly-evolved body parts from your YOUR body.

Perfectly evolved MY ASS! Evolution does not perfect, it merely makes things work well enough for you to have a good chance at reproduction. Our bodies are strewn with fuck-ups, ridiculous patch jobs and vestigial components, the latter may very well be what the foreskin is. Take the fully formed foreskins of a horse or a dog for example, in which the whole penis can be retracted and protected into, our forskins only manages to protect the head of the penis: useless as the whole dick is just swinging their to get caught on anything. Instead of providing adequate protection it merely traps dirt, enhancing the infection rate, and it removal provides no statistical sexual or functional detriment.

That right doesn't exist in a sane or humane world.

-Ron

Welcome Ron to our realist pragmatic world.

 

[madanthonywayne]

And again, you state it incorrectly.

The medical community has found that the potential benefits of circumcision are not sufficient to justify the known risks of doing the procedure when there is no existing medical indication for it, and doctors should inform their patients of that fact.

It is you who are misrepresenting the findings of American medical societies. They say that the benefits do not justify a recommendation for routine circumcision of all male infants, but that parents should be informed of the risks and benefits so that they can decide for themselves. To quote the American Academy of Family Physicians:

The American Academy of Family Physicians recommends physicians discuss the potential harms and benefits of circumcision with all parents or legal guardians considering this procedure for their newborn son. (2001)​

http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/clinical/clinicalrecs/circumcision.html​

And the American Acadamy of Pediatricians:

Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. It is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to the medical factors, when making this decision. Analgesia is safe and effective in reducing the procedural pain associated with circumcision; therefore, if a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided. If circumcision is performed in the newborn period, it should only be done on infants who are stable and healthy.
​

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;103/3/686
​

The issue that you raise, that parents should have the right to go against medical advice and have the surgery performed anyway is an entirely different issue.

No. You are wrong. The issue is that, although there are known benefits to circumcision, it's a close call so that American doctors mostly recommend the decision be left to the parents.

 

[TLCTugger]

Maybe we should be looking at a policy that's been revisited more recently, like Holland's which came out his year.

The KNMG calls on its member doctors to counsel parents against circumcising. It is medically unfounded, harmful, and a violation of the child's human rights.

Even with NO CONSIDERATION for the child's rights, the policies of US organizations can't endorse circumcision.

Why is the foreskin the only healthy normal body part you would let parents amputate for cosmetic reasons?

 

[Neverfly]

Well, one of my children had his tonsils out, and he didn't really have any say in that. But what surgeries did you have in mind?

This has been covered again and again as a poor example.

Because tonsils are not removed at birth no matter what shape they are in.
Wisdom teeth are not removed at age 12 no matter if they are impacted or not.

As with necessary circumcision, those procedures are performed when necessary.

Why is removal of the foreskin, aside that it was a religious practice... the only thing done that way? Well, it made a few extra bucks.
But it makes more sense to let the individual either have it performed if necessary or by their own choice- Same as everything else!
Not just whacking it off at birth to add to the hospital bill. Ok, maybe whacking off wasn't my best choice of words...

And someone said earlier that an adult said it was a very uncomfortable procedure that he wished had been done in his infancy.
Tell me- Who can't say that about Every Fricken Surgery there is?!

 

[ElectricFetus]

Maybe we should be looking at a policy that's been revisited more recently, like Holland's which came out his year.

The KNMG calls on its member doctors to counsel parents against circumcising. It is medically unfounded, harmful, and a violation of the child's human rights.

They also let heroine addicts shot up in public, whats your point?

Even with NO CONSIDERATION for the child's rights, the policies of US organizations can't endorse circumcision.

Non sequitur

Why is the foreskin the only healthy normal body part you would let parents amputate for cosmetic reasons?

because there no statistically significant medical determinant? Because its probably the most useless part on a healthy normal body? No wait maybe that flap of cartilage at the bottom of the ear is more useless, but then again that thing does not catch dirt and cause problems.