Circumcision - is it right? Should it be forced on men?

The Corinthian

Exon wrote: »

NO WAY! Your forskin is there for a purpose, if we didn't need it evolution would get rid of it.

Like the appendix?

Kooli

CDfm wrote: »

I always have mixed feelings about this too.

When I see something like male circumcision there is no doubt that its mutilation. Maybe there was a reason for jews in the desert in the same way as kosher food has a reason.

Then, I see the argument changing to female circumcision which ,of course, is not practiced in Ireland and which I personnally think is barbaric.

I don't see how it is even relevant in Ireland but I would be very interested in knowing if the law makes a distinction in any way and whether female circumcision or bringing someone abroad to be circumcised results in prosecution.Other than that female circumcision as a comparison is like saying women arent allowed drive in Saudi.

I'm confused - where are the 'mixed feelings'? You seem to be agreeing with those of us who believe both practices are barbaric.

r3nu4l

Exon wrote: »

NO WAY! Your forskin is there for a purpose, if we didn't need it evolution would get rid of it.

<EDIT>
OTT

FFS! Banned from tGC, 1 month.

Stark

The Corinthian wrote: »

Like the appendix?

The appendix's status as a vestigial organ isn't conclusive. It's speculated that it plays a role in helping the immune system and maintaining gut flora. It used to be the case that it was routinely removed during abdominal surgery as a safeguard against future appendicitis. These days, it's left in as surgeons believe it might still provide a useful function.

The Corinthian

Stark wrote: »

The appendix's status as a vestigial organ isn't conclusive. It's speculated that it plays a role in helping the immune system and maintaining gut flora. It used to be the case that it was routinely removed during abdominal surgery as a safeguard against future appendicitis. These days, it's left in as surgeons believe it might still provide a useful function.

Well, I didn't know that. Interesting.

CDfm

Kooli wrote: »

I'm confused - where are the 'mixed feelings'? You seem to be agreeing with those of us who believe both practices are barbaric.

What i mean is that - female circumcision is a different issue -and I do agree that both practices are barbaric. Sometimes the treatment of women worldwide gets raised on a Irish or western world question. Its becomes like a competition between a flogging or a birching on who has it the worst. Just an observation rather than a point.

gizmo555

While there are some medical conditions for which circumcision may be necessary, male circumcision is in general the mutilation of the penis for no therapeutic purpose in an otherwise healthy individual. Even when carried out under optimal conditions by trained medical staff it is not a risk-free procedure. Complications and even death, while extremely rare, do occur. When carried out by "traditional" circumcisers it can be downright lethal, as we saw tragically in 2003 in Waterford, when four week old Callis Osaghae died following a botched home circumcision.

Many doctors believe circumcising healthy infant boys is in breach of medical ethics. If men want to have it done as adults, that's entirely up to them, but it's telling how few choose to.

Trivarion

gizmo555 wrote: »

Many doctors believe circumcising healthy infant boys is in breach of medical ethics.

In case you missed the link in my longish post at the start there is a group of doctoring in th US who speak out against circumcision.

Doctors Opposing Circumcision
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/

Trivarion

CDfm wrote: »

I don't see how it is even relevant in Ireland but I would be very interested in knowing if the law makes a distinction in any way and whether female circumcision or bringing someone abroad to be circumcised results in prosecution.Other than that female circumcision as a comparison is like saying women arent allowed drive in Saudi.

In the US it may soon be illegal to transport girls out of the country for the purposes of FGM- http://www.americansforunfpa.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=955

There is a bill about FGM currently doing the rounds in Ireland. I don't know the current status of it, but the bill was only read a Second Time in April.

Proposed Female Genital Mutilation Bill 2010 in Ireland
The Bill
Discussion of the bill

The bill is opposed by MPAC, the infamous radical and far from mainstream muslim group. They, while trying their very very best to come across anti-FGM, still try and argue that female genital cutting is okay as male circumcision is accepted. Clearly the issue is a lot closer to home than people realise. Their site is down but there is a cache of one of their articles here.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recently changed their policy to allow for certain "limited" female genital cutting for "cultural and religious reasons" but rapidly changed their policy back after widespread condemnation.

News story on retraction of change: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/05/27/AAP.retracts.female.genital.cutting/
Comparison of policy change: http://www.circumstitions.com/AAP.html

Edit: Sorry I messed up the cached link

metrovelvet

I wonder why circumcision for no medical reason is not attached to that bill?

You'd think the HSC would want to cut down on unecessary pediatric surgery.

tallaght01

I don't want to get involved in all this, except to address 2 issues:

1) metrovelvet says the medical community in the US backs routine neonatal circumcision, which isn't true. The American Academy of Paediatrics recognise there are some potential benefits in terms of reduction of urinary tract infections (which are hugely problematic in babies), but still don't think the benefits outweigh the risks. That has been their policy statement for a long time. I don't know of any medical association in a developed country which recommends neonatal circumcision. I also doubt most paediatric docs are men, though I couldn't be sure of that.

2) Someone on page one claimed the link between circumcision and HIV prevention is marred by to many confounders. That is absolutely not the case now, and hasn't been for several years. 3 very good randomised controlled trials have shown that circumcision very significantly reduces HIV acquisition in high prevalence regions. That link is as well proven as you're realistically going to get. Anyone who knows anything about HIV will tel you that.

metrovelvet

tallaght01 wrote: »

I don't want to get involved in all this, except to address 2 issues:

1) metrovelvet says the medical community in the US backs routine neonatal circumcision, which isn't true. The American Academy of Paediatrics recognise there are some potential benefits in terms of reduction of urinary tract infections (which are hugely problematic in babies), but still don't think the benefits outweigh the risks. That has been their policy statement for a long time. I don't know of any medical association in a developed country which recommends neonatal circumcision. I also doubt most paediatric docs are men, though I couldn't be sure of that..

I didnt say "recommend." What I said was that it backs it, and I would call backing it giving parents the option of unnecessary neo natal surgery when it is not necessary.

I dont know what the ration is of male or female pediatric docs in the US and Im not even sure if a ped does the op or of a ped urologist does it.

2) Someone on page one claimed the link between circumcision and HIV prevention is marred by to many confounders. That is absolutely not the case now, and hasn't been for several years. 3 very good randomised controlled trials have shown that circumcision very significantly reduces HIV acquisition in high prevalence regions. That link is as well proven as you're realistically going to get. Anyone who knows anything about HIV will tel you that.[/QUOTE]

Well there is another preventative method which does not involve pediatric surgery, and that is using protection. I wouldnt plan on my newborn having sex would you?

metrovelvet

Its covered on public health insurance also in the US. ITs covered by the law in the US that anyone can get it done just because they feel like it.

We are not in AFRICA or INDIA. We are in the west. If men want to get circumsized when they come of age then fine. But to impose pediatric surgery on infant boys when it's not needed should not be ok.

Im sure castration also prevents aids but should we be doing that too?

tallaght01

metrovelvet wrote: »

Its covered on public health insurance also in the US. ITs covered by the law in the US that anyone can get it done just because they feel like it.

We are not in AFRICA or INDIA. We are in the west. If men want to get circumsized when they come of age then fine. But to impose pediatric surgery on infant boys when it's not needed should not be ok.

Im sure castration also prevents aids but should we be doing that too?

A) The fact that legislators allow you to get a circumcision does not mean the medical profession back it. Here's the american academy of paediatrics statement of neonatal circs

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

You're also wrong about it not being due to the privatisation of care. In the USA, the state authority pays the PRIVATE provider to do it. In the UK the govt will allow you to have a circ, but the surgeons often won't do it. That's because it's state system. If it was private, that would be very different.

B)As for your daft point about HIV and castration etc, I very specifically said that circumcision reduces HIV in high prevalence regions.I suspect your suburb isn't particularly high prevalence. Neonatal circ is also a safe procedure when done properly, certainly safer than castration :rolleyes:

r3nu4l

Let's get back on-topic please

EDIT: 15 posts deleted, let's try again. Last chance for this thread.

Trivarion

tallaght01 wrote: »

B)As for your daft point about HIV and castration etc, I very specifically said that circumcision reduces HIV in high prevalence regions.I suspect your suburb isn't particularly high prevalence. Neonatal circ is also a safe procedure when done properly, certainly safer than castration :rolleyes:

Circumcision complications are responsible for 1.3% of male neonatal deaths in the US each year, a first world country. One can imagine what wide spread circumcision in Africa would achieve in terms of needless deaths. In other news the death toll from the South African botched circumcisions has risen to 40, with 100s of injuries.

I really dislike people who promote male circumcision as a way of tackling HIV and Aids. The statistics link lower HIV rates with circumcision? So what? Does that justify violating the basic human rights of babies or pressuring men into surgery?

It is a scientific fact circumcision is detrimental and damaging. It removes the most sensitive skin on the penis, significantly decreases sensitivity and has many complications (see my previous posts for links to the articles in question). Why are people so eager to promote such a damaging dangerous surgery when there are far more effective means of tackling the issue like condoms and education? Is it because they are lucky enough not to experience the irreversible resulting damage themselves? Or is it that they are just ignorant of the facts? Most I would guess could not even name the different parts of the penis or what the foreskins function is.

Edit: Before someone asks, I'm not addressing tallaght01 directly, but rather asking in general (pessimistically).

Wibbs

Trivarion wrote: »

I really dislike people who promote male circumcision as a way of tackling HIV and Aids. The statistics link lower HIV rates with circumcision? So what? Does that justify violating the basic human rights of babies or pressuring men into surgery?

Well even a 10% reduction would make a huge impact on the death tolls in sub Saharan Africa. It's going to more practical in many ways. A one shot preventative. It seems even with condoms in the supply chain, usage is too low. Education only goes so far, there are some cultural hot potatoes that have to be addressed as well. Much higher promiscuity rates for a start. Circumcision is but one factor. I mean the US has the highest circumcision rate in the wester world, Sweden has one of the lowest. The HIV infection rates in the former are far higher. There have been other studies that show that circumcised males are more likely to engage in risky behaviours such as anal sex.

It is a scientific fact circumcision is detrimental and damaging.

I am anti neonatal circumcision. Indeed I'm anti the adult form when its usually the first port of call for doctors when faced with phimosis. When other less invasive therapies are available. Why the full removal of the foreskin anyway? Why not the opening where the phimosis is gonna be located. Its like leavig your pants in to be taken up for being too long and collecting a pair of hotpants on your return. Anyhoo..

It removes the most sensitive skin on the penis,

It removes a fair whack of errogenous tissue that's for sure, but having an intact foreskin I can say that the most sensitive part is the head and frenulum. Of course removal of the protective layer is gonna screw with that and the foreskin itself is very sensitive to certain pressures. And can a doctor answer me this? Why remove the frenulum? Cant see why that has any mechanical reason for it to go.

significantly decreases sensitivity

The jury is out on that one. Tests seem to show little enough difference. That depends on the tests involed of course. That said there is no way I could walk down the road in clothes with my foreskin retracted. Doubled over I would be. So if a cut man can then logically he has to be less sensitive.

Why are people so eager to promote such a damaging dangerous surgery when there are far more effective means of tackling the issue like condoms and education?

Like I said even if condoms are around, uptake seems to be low. Education needs to start early, be consistent and has to tackle cultural factors. In Africa and in the west, but majorly in the former.

Most I would guess could not even name the different parts of the penis or what the foreskins function is.

I would agree that an awful lot of men are woefully ignorant of their own bodies.

tallaght01

Trivarion wrote: »

Circumcision complications are responsible for 1.3% of male neonatal deaths in the US each year, a first world country. One can imagine what wide spread circumcision in Africa would achieve in terms of needless deaths. In other news the death toll from the South African botched circumcisions has risen to 40, with 100s of injuries.

I really dislike people who promote male circumcision as a way of tackling HIV and Aids. The statistics link lower HIV rates with circumcision? So what? Does that justify violating the basic human rights of babies or pressuring men into surgery?

It is a scientific fact circumcision is detrimental and damaging. It removes the most sensitive skin on the penis, significantly decreases sensitivity and has many complications (see my previous posts for links to the articles in question). Why are people so eager to promote such a damaging dangerous surgery when there are far more effective means of tackling the issue like condoms and education? Is it because they are lucky enough not to experience the irreversible resulting damage themselves? Or is it that they are just ignorant of the facts? Most I would guess could not even name the different parts of the penis or what the foreskins function is.

Edit: Before someone asks, I'm not addressing tallaght01 directly, but rather asking in general (pessimistically).

For reasons that are obvious in the multitude of deleted threads, I'm not getting involved in this argument. But I'm just curious as to what study has shown the 1.3% figure?

I know a lot of the anti-circ people make their own estimates, which bear no relation to what's in the literature. But my own specialty is HIV public health, so obviously a study like the one you talk about above would be something I'm very interested in knowing about.

The large studies in Africa, involving randomisation to circ or non-circ groups, had much lower rates than the mortality you're quoting from the U.S, so I'm very curious to know where that was published.

I'll leave others to deal with the actual issue at hand. Many thanks.

Trivarion

Wibbs wrote: »

Well even a 10% reduction would make a huge impact on the death tolls in sub Saharan Africa. It's going to more practical in many ways. A one shot preventative.

I'll redirect you to the paper I quoted at the start,
"Male circumcision is not the HIV ‘vaccine’ we have been waiting for", http://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/abs/10.2217/17469600.2.3.193

I don't believe it is a morally justifiable practice, and if it involves forced circumcision on infants then it is unacceptable.

Wibbs wrote: »

It removes a fair whack of errogenous tissue that's for sure, but having an intact foreskin I can say that the most sensitive part is the head and frenulum.

I am referring to skin, not the glans. I posted a study about this.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118508429/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Results
The glans of the uncircumcised men had significantly lower mean (sem) pressure thresholds than that of the circumcised men, at 0.161 (0.078) g (P = 0.040) when controlled for age, location of measurement, type of underwear worn, and ethnicity. There were significant differences in pressure thresholds by location on the penis (P < 0.001). The most sensitive location on the circumcised penis was the circumcision scar on the ventral surface. Five locations on the uncircumcised penis that are routinely removed at circumcision had lower pressure thresholds than the ventral scar of the circumcised penis.


Conclusion

The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis.

Wibbs wrote: »

Why remove the frenulum?

I don't know the exact reason. The procedure does not very standard outcomes, contrary to popular belief. Some men are cut tight, some very loose etc. I'm lucky to still have my frenulum.

Trivarion

tallaght01 wrote: »

For reasons that are obvious in the multitude of deleted threads, I'm not getting involved in this argument. But I'm just curious as to what study has shown the 1.3% figure?

Here is the one I posted earlier but there are others: http://www.mensstudies.com/content/b64n267w47m333x0/?p=15c8277b88414886a6227be9bb89b88c&pi=5. I obviously can't vouch for it's credibility.

There was wide spread coverage in the US recently as a study showed that more (edit: male) infants die as a result of circumcision complications that SIDS. Google should reveal the numerous news stories about it. Here's one.

tallaght01

Trivarion wrote: »

Here is the one I posted earlier but there are others: http://www.mensstudies.com/content/b64n267w47m333x0/?p=15c8277b88414886a6227be9bb89b88c&pi=5. I obviously can't vouch for it's credibility.

There was wide spread coverage in the US recently as a study showed that more (edit: male) infants die as a result of circumcision complications that SIDS. Google should reveal the numerous news stories about it. Here's one.

I've never even heard of that journal,. let alone read the paper. I don't have access to it. Can you summarise the methods, as the authors conclude that there are no good data available yet make these claims.

Many thanks.

By the way the SIDS comparison is a real red herring. Thousands of kids die of SIDS each year int he states. The lobby group you're quoting are comparing total neonatal circ deaths (by their estimation) with neonatal SIDS deaths. Neonatal SIDS deaths are not common. In many years of paediatric practice I've only seen a couple.

Neonatal period is up to 28 days. SIDS usually happens a few weeks later than that. That comparison makes me distrust these people.

Trivarion

tallaght01 wrote: »

The lobby group you're quoting are comparing total neonatal circ deaths (by their estimation) with neonatal SIDS deaths.

It was the first link (edit: discussing the paper I posted) that I found on google. I am well aware of what the group stands for. And they did not make the estimate as you falsely state. The SIDS comparison is also with neonatal boys, which is clear in the article.

If you want the papers content just look for it. You have already made thinly veiled insults, tried to misrepresent the facts and made broad claims with no references. I responded to you sincerely. I don't know what your agenda is but I have no intention of continuing to respond to you.

Stark

Maybe they're just a bunch of guys who wish they could have a piece of their dicks back and are hoping to provide that choice for future generations of men. I wouldn't consider their lobbying to be particularly sinister.

tallaght01

Trivarion wrote: »

I don't know what your agenda is but I have no intention of continuing to respond to you.

Figured that might be the case once the paper itself was under discussion.

Not to worry anyway.

Thank you

2Scoops

tallaght01 wrote: »

I've never even heard of that journal,. let alone read the paper. I don't have access to it. Can you summarise the methods, as the authors conclude that there are no good data available yet make these claims.

Apparently...

Step 1: get all-cause mortality for male and female neonates.
Step 2: assume any differences are related directly to circumcision.
Step 3: publish 'results' in obscure, inaccessible journal.
Step 4: alert special interest groups and journalists of provocative soundbites.

Step 5: add vague disclaimer in abstract and hope no one digs deeper.

:pac:

The Corinthian

tallaght01 wrote: »

For reasons that are obvious in the multitude of deleted threads, I'm not getting involved in this argument. But I'm just curious as to what study has shown the 1.3% figure?

We're yet to see many studies from you on your claims, so it's kind of rich that you want evidence from others.