Circumcision illegal in Ireland?

yawha

easychair wrote: »

Ask any woman, or gay man, what she or he thinks about being asked to fellate a guy who has a tight non retracting foreskin.

Erm, no one here is opposing elective circumcision in the case of a miniority of men with tight, non retracting foreskins...

Routine infant circumcision is what's being opposed, not medically necessary circumcision.

Solair

An adult can make any decisions they want - go wild - get tattoos, nose jobs, bits trimmed off, bits added on, whatever they like!

However, a child should be protected by law.

What happens if you are born into a Jewish or Muslim family and subsequently decide you're not religious, or that you want to change to a different religion ?

At least with Christianity you only have holy water splashing to deal with! Regrowing your foreskin's a lot more complex!

easychair

muppeteer wrote: »

Solair wrote: »

What should matter on this is medical science not personal preference
.....
Incidentally, medicine has had plenty of surgical fads over the centuries. There were plenty of totally unnecessary, highly questionable and even downright immoral and unethical procedures carried out on a routine basis without much science behind them at all.
...

I was quite shocked at some of the practices that were carried out up untill reletively recently. Here's a presentation given to a Symposium on Circumcision.
http://www.nocirc.org/symposia/second/chamberlain.html

In the last hundred years, scientific authorities robbed babies of their cries by calling them "random sound;" robbed them of their smiles by calling them "muscle spasms" or "gas;" robbed them of their memories by calling them "fantasies" and robbed them of their pain by calling it a "reflex."

Hospitalized newborns, from preemies to babies up to 18 months of age, have been routinely operated upon without benefit of pain-killing anesthesia. This has been the practice for decades but was unknown to the general public until 1985 when some parents discovered that their seriously ill premature babies had suffered major surgery without benefit of anesthesia.67,68,69,70,71,72 Up to this time, babies were typically given a form of curare to paralyze their muscles for surgery, making it impossible for them to lift a finger or make a sound of protest!

The abouve is one of the most shocking things I've come across, mostly because of how recently it was carried out.
So when doctors were preforming internal surgery on babies without anestesia, you can see how they would be dismissive of a comparatively minor procedure such as circumcision.

Is your argument that circumcision is a major surgical procedure?

muppeteer

easychair wrote: »

Is your argument that circumcision is a major surgical procedure?

Not exactly major, but as with all pediatric procedures carries risk.

I was more so making the point that it was not uncommon for doctors to believe babies experienced no pain whatsoever, and thus they would have no qualms about cutting into the skin of a baby.

I had found it hard to understand how a doctor would perform a circumcision when I thought it would be blatently obvious that it was an unnecessary procedure and that it caused pain. In light of the above I can now see how they would see it as a non issue back then.
How some can still see it as a non issue today I still find difficult to understand.

deconduo

I wonder how many people who are ok with circumcision would be fine with a religion that carried out mastectomies on all their children.

seamus

easychair wrote: »

Is your argument that circumcision is a major surgical procedure?

Where are you reading that? He even said that it's comparatively minor.

However in the scale of things it's closer to a small skin graft or an episiotomy than a piercing or a tattoo. The risk of long-term damage and short-term infection, as well as the recovery time is more in line with an actual surgical procedure than a simple minor "alteration".

As things go, it's no heart surgery or knee reconstruction, but it's not something that can be done and then you go on with life as normal 30 minutes later. As any adult who's had a circumcision and they'll tell you.

Dades

deconduo wrote: »

I wonder how many people who are ok with circumcision would be fine with a religion that carried out mastectomies on all their children.

Hmmm, even as advocate of banning medically-unnecessary circumcision, this comparison is well over the top.

deconduo

Dades wrote: »

Hmmm, even as advocate of banning medically-unnecessary circumcision, this comparison is well over the top.

I don't see why. Its taking what is already being done and scaling it up a small bit.

-Loss of sexually sensitive area
-Minor health benefit (less chance of cancer)
-Involves removing part of the body
-Irreversible

Dades

deconduo wrote: »

I don't see why. Its taking what is already being done and scaling it up a small bit.

Yes, it's the scaling up that's the problem.

A girl/woman growing up having had a mastectomy is far, far, worse than a boy/man growing up without a foreskin. The concept may have similarities but the effects are on a different scale.

Solair

As far as I am aware, other than in the Jewish and Muslim communities, male circumcision is pretty much non-existent in Ireland unless there is a medical reason for it and it is definitely not done at birth, but rather as treatment for some problem later on.

It's a major debate in the United States where it is still routine for some inexplicable reason.

From a human rights point of view, I am totally opposed to the idea of any religiously or culturally inspired surgical procedures carried out on someone without their direct and full consent as an adult.

It seems like it would be an extremely difficult issue to legislate on, but just because something's difficult does not mean it should not be done.

I don't really see why someone who wants to be Jewish or Muslim could not hold off on it until they were 18 and capable of making a decision.

Also, from a public health system perspective, carrying out unnecessary surgeries is extremely expensive. Any surgical procedure ties up resources and costs a lot of money, even quite simple things.

You've also got to factor in risks from hospital / community borne diseases like MRSA which can be a significant risk during any surgical procedure. Then you've risks from other normal infections, risks from surgical error, risks from anaesthetics etc etc.

kylith

Solair wrote: »

It's a major debate in the United States where it is still routine for some inexplicable reason.

Oh, that's quite easily explicable; money. The hospital can charge the parents' insurance company for the cost of the circumcision. No circumcisions = less money for the hospital which, imo, is the reason you hear all the BS about it being 'more hygenic' and that they'll get fewer UTIs, they want to scare the parents into beleiving that there's a reason for it so that they can get more money.

easychair

Worldwide approximately one-third of males are circumcised by adulthood [World Health Organization, 2008a], most of these having been done during childhood, either soon after birth or prior to puberty [Williams & Kapila, 1993].


Male infant or childhood circumcision is common in the USA, Canada, Asia, Australia, Africa, Middle East, India, Pakistan and in many countries. Generally Europe is not an area of the world where much routine circumcision takes place, although it is thought likely that the rates will increase in Europe, also, as Islam spreads and as mroe foreign nationals come to live in Europe who have a tradition of male infant or childhood circumcision.

MagicMarker

easychair wrote: »

Worldwide approximately one-third of males are circumcised by adulthood [World Health Organization, 2008a], most of these having been done during childhood, either soon after birth or prior to puberty [Williams & Kapila, 1993].


Male infant or childhood circumcision is common in the USA, Canada, Asia, Australia, Africa, Middle East, India, Pakistan and in many countries. Generally Europe is not an area of the world where much routine circumcision takes place, although it is thought likely that the rates will increase in Europe, also, as Islam spreads and as mroe foreign nationals come to live in Europe who have a tradition of male infant or childhood circumcision.

okay.......?

sonicthebadger*

The old hygiene excuse really gets me.

You ever notice how kids get dirt under their fingernails? You know what we should do...

easychair

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

The old hygiene excuse really gets me.

You ever notice how kids get dirt under their fingernails? You know what we should do...

Perhaps you misunderstand what is meant by the hygiene excuse. In Africa, fro example, studies have shown that circumcision is of help in stopping the spread of HIV.

Several types of research have documented that male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex.

Compared with the dry external skin surface, the inner mucosa of the foreskin has less keratinization (deposition of fibrous protein), a higher density of target cells for HIV infection (Langerhans cells), and is more susceptible to HIV infection than other penile tissue in laboratory studies

A systematic review and meta-analysis that focused on male circumcision and heterosexual transmission of HIV in Africa was published in 2000 URL="http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm#ref5"]5[/URL. It included 19 cross-sectional studies, 5 case-control studies, 3 cohort studies, and 1 partner study. A substantial protective effect of male circumcision on risk for HIV infection was noted, along with a reduced risk for genital ulcer disease. After adjustment for confounding factors in the population-based studies, the relative risk for HIV infection was 44% lower in circumcised men. The strongest association was seen in men at high risk, such as patients at sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinics, for whom the adjusted relative risk was 71% lower for circumcised men.

It should be also noted that cancer of the penis is virtually unknown except in uncircumcised males.

While it may be the individual opinion of some that there are no hygiene differences between being circumcised or not, the evidence suggests otherwise.

seamus

easychair wrote: »

Perhaps you misunderstand what is meant by the hygiene excuse. In Africa, fro example, studies have shown that circumcision is of help in stopping the spread of HIV.

There is no relationship between hygiene and HIV, I'm not sure what you mean by that. You can't wash HIV off your skin when you have it.

Several types of research have documented that male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex.

Would these be the same studies that were quoted here before (probably not by you) where the researchers stopped the study early and offered all of the participants circumcisions?

Though I actually don't doubt that it may provide some benefit, men contracting HIV through vaginal sex is actually quite a rare thing. My main concern would be what effects circumcision has on women in a vaginal sex scenario.

My main contention in regards to any studies is that if circumcision is so important to combat HIV, you would expect a big difference in HIV rates in countries where circumcision is widespread (like the US) when compared to places where circumcision is not widespread (like Europe). But there's not. In fact, the HIV rate among males is worse in the USA than in Europe. So either the conclusions of the studies are wrong, or (more likely) the effectiveness of circumcision in avoiding HIV is negligible.

It should be also noted that cancer of the penis is virtually unknown except in uncircumcised males with pre-existing disorders of the foreskin

FYP

While it may be the individual opinion of some that there are no hygiene differences between being circumcised or not, the evidence suggests otherwise.

There is little or no evidence to suggest that there are hygiene improvements since hygiene is an issue for the individual. So an unwashed dick is an unwashed disk, with or without a foreskin.

easychair

seamus wrote: »

There is no relationship between hygiene and HIV, I'm not sure what you mean by that. You can't wash HIV off your skin when you have it.

While your opinion is interesting, it seems to be at odds with the studies which have been done. Simply stating what youi believe is not really an agrument against evidence.

Perhaps you missed the bit about the Langerhans cells.

seamus wrote: »

Would these be the same studies that were quoted here before (probably not by you)

I have no idea what studies may have been quoted before, and the ones to which I was referring are listed below.

1. Alanis MC, Lucidi RS. Neonatal circumcision: a review of the world’s oldest and most controversial operation. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2004 May;59(5):379-95.
2. Patterson BK, Landay A, Siegel JN, et al. Susceptibility to human immunodeficiency virus-1 infection of human foreskin and cervical tissue grown in explant culture. Am J Pathol. 2002 Sep;161(3):867-73.
3. Szabo R, Short RV. How does male circumcision protect against HIV infection? BMJ. 2000 Jun 10;320(7249):1592-4.
4. Weiss HA, Thomas SL, Munabi SK, Hayes RJ. Male circumcision and risk of syphilis, chancroid, and genital herpes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sex Transm Infect. 2006 Apr;82(2):101-9; discussion 10.
5. Weiss HA, Quigley MA, Hayes RJ. Male circumcision and risk of HIV infection in sub- Saharan Africa: a systematic review and metaanalysis. AIDS. 2000 Oct 20;14(15):2361-70.
6. Siegfried N, Muller M, Volmink J, et al. Male circumcision for prevention of heterosexual acquisition of HIV in men. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(3):CD003362.
7. Gray RH, Kiwanuka N, Quinn TC, et al. Male circumcision and HIV acquisition and transmission: cohort studies in Rakai, Uganda. AIDS. 2000 Oct 20;14(15):2371-81.
8. Halperin DT, Bailey RC. Male circumcision and HIV infection: 10 years and counting. Lancet. 1999 Nov 20;354(9192):1813-5.
9. Auvert B, Taljaard D, Lagarde E, Sobngwi- Tambekou J, Sitta R, Puren A. Randomized, controlled intervention trial of male circumcision for reduction of HIV infection risk: the ANRS 1265 Trial. PLoS Med. 2005 Nov;2(11):e298. Erratum in: PLoS Med. 2006 May;3(5):e298.
10. Bailey RC, Moses S, Parker CB, et al. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in young men in Kisumu, Kenya: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2007 Feb 24;369(9562):643-56.
11. Gray RH, Kigozi G, Serwadda D, et al. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in men in Rakai, Uganda: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2007 Feb 24;369(9562):657-66.
12. Gray R, Wawer MJ, Thoma M, et al. Male circumcision and the risks of female HIV and sexually transmitted infections acquisition in Rakai, Uganda [Abstract 128]. Presented at: 13th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections. Feb 5-9, 2006; Denver, CO. Accessed Jan 24, 2008.
13. Wawer MJ. Trial of male circumcision: HIV, sexually transmitted disease (STD) and behavioral effects in men, women and the community. Accessed Jan 23, 2008.
14. Wiswell TE, Geschke DW. Risks from circumcision during the first month of life compared with those for uncircumcised boys. Pediatrics. 1989;83(6):1011-15.
15. Christakis DA, Harvey E, Zerr DM, Feudtner C, Wright JA, Connell FA. A trade-off analysis of routine newborn circumcision. Pediatrics. 2000 Jan;105(1 Pt 3):246-9.
16. Kigozi G, Watya S, Polis CB, et al. The effect of male circumcision on sexual satisfaction and function, results from a randomized trial of male circumcision for human immunodeficiency virus prevention, Rakai, Uganda. BJU Int. 2008 Jan;101(1):65-70.
17. Nguyen DM, Bancroft E, Mascola L, et al. Risk factors for neonatal methicillinresistant Staphylococcus aureus infection in a well-infant nursery. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2007;28:406-11.
18. Sorrells ML, Snyder JL, Reiss MD, et al. Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis. BJU Int. 2007 Apr;99(4):864-9. Erratum in: BJU Int. 2007 Aug;100(2):481.
19. Krieger JN, Bailey RC, Opeya JC, et al. Adult male circumcision outcomes: experience in a developing country setting. Urol Int. 2007;78(3):235-40.
20. Collins S, Upshaw J, Rutchik S, et al. Effects of circumcision on male sexual function: debunking a myth? J Urol. 2002;167:2111-2.
21. Senkul T, Iseri C, Sen B, et al. Circumcision in adults: effect on sexual function. Urology. 2004;63:155-8.
22. Masood S, Patel HRH, Himpson RC, et al. Penile sensitivity and sexual satisfaction after circumcision: are we informing men correctly? Urol Int. 2004;75:62-6.
23. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, 2005. Vol. 17. Rev. ed. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; June 2007:1-54.
24. Kreiss JK, Hopkins SG. The association between circumcision status and human immunodeficiency virus infection among homosexual men. J Infect Dis. 1993 Dec;168(6):1404-8.
25. Buchbinder SP, Vittinghoff E, Heagerty PJ, et al. Sexual risk, nitrite inhalant use, and lack of circumcision associated with HIV seroconversion in men who have sex with men in the United States. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2005 May 1;39(1):82-9.
26. Templeton DJ, Jin F, Prestage GP, et al. Circumcision status and risk of HIV seroconversion in the HIM cohort of homosexual men in Sydney [Abstract WEAC103]. Presented at: 4th IAS Conference on HIV Pathogenesis, Treatment, and Prevention; Jul 22-25, 2007; Sydney, Australia. Accessed Jan 23, 2008.
27. Millett GA, Ding H, Lauby J, et al. Circumcision status and HIV infection among black and Latino men who have sex with men in 3 US cities. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2007 Dec;46(5):643-50.
28. Telzak EE, Chiasson MA, Bevier PJ, Stoneburner RL, Castro KG, Jaffe HW. HIV-1 seroconversion in patients with and without genital ulcer disease: a prospective study. Ann Intern Med. 1993 Dec 15;119(12):1181-6.
29. Warner L, Ghanem KG, Newman D, et al. Male circumcision and risk of HIV infection among heterosexual men attending Baltimore STD clinics: an evaluation of clinic-based data [Abstract 326]. Presented at: National STD Prevention Conference; May 8-11, 2006; Jacksonville, FL. Accessed Jan 23, 2008.
30. Xu F, Markowitz LE, Sternberg MR, Aral SO. Prevalence of circumcision and herpes simplex virus type 2 infection in men in the United States: the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 1999–2004. Sex Transm Dis. 2007 July; 34(7):479-84.
31. Risser JM, Risser WL, Eissa MA, Cromwell PF, Barratt MS, Bortot A. Self-assessment of circumcision status by adolescents. Am J Epidemiol. 2004 Jun 1;159(11):1095-7.
32. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Trends in circumcisions among newborns. Accessed Jan 24, 2008.
33. Nelson CP, Dunn R, Wan J, Wei JT. The increasing incidence of newborn circumcision: data from the nationwide inpatient sample. J Urol. 2005 Mar;173(3):978-81.
34. American Academy of Pediatrics, Task Force on Circumcision. Circumcision policy statement. Pediatrics. 1999 Mar;103(3):686-93.
35. Mansfield CJ, Hueston WJ, Rudy M. Neonatal circumcision: associated factors and length of hospital stay. J Fam Pract. 1995 Oct;41(4):370-6.
36. National Conference of State Legislatures. State Health Notes: Circumcision and infection.
37. Schoen EJ, Oehrli M, Colby CJ, Machin G. The highly protective effect of newborn circumcision against invasive penile cancer.Pediatrics. 2000 Mar;105(3):e36. Accessed Jan 24, 2008.
38. Adler R, Ottaway S, Gould S. Circumcision: we have heard from the experts; now let’s hear from the parents.Pediatrics. 2001:107:e20. Accessed Jan 24, 2008.
39. Benatar M, Benatar D. Between prophylaxis and child abuse: the ethics of neonatal male circumcision. Am J Bioeth. 2003 Spring;3(2):35-48.
40. Koblin BA, Chesney MA, Husnik MJ, et al. High-risk behaviors among men who have sex with men in 6 US cities: baseline data from the EXPLORE study. Am J Public Health. 2003 Jun;93(6):926-32. Erratum in: Am J Public Health 2003 Aug;93(8):1203.
41. World Health Organization and UNAIDS. New data on male circumcision and HIV prevention: policy and programme implications. 2007 Mar. Accessed Jan 24, 2008.
42. Williams BG, Lloyd-Smith JO, Gouws E, et al. The potential impact of male circumcision on HIV in sub-Saharan Africa.PLoS Med. 2006;3(7):e262. Accessed Jan 24, 2008.

The point of my post was to show that good hygiene is relevant, and not of no consequence, as other posters seem to have suggested.

seamus

easychair wrote: »

While your opinion is interesting, it seems to be at odds with the studies which have been done. Simply stating what youi believe is not really an agrument against evidence.

Perhaps you missed the bit about the Langerhans cells.

I haven't missed anything. Though I'm not sure why you quoted what I stated about hygiene because you still haven't justified how a circumcised penis is naturally more hygienic then one without in the absence of washing. That's the hygiene excuse, It's nothing to do with HIV.

Also, copying and pasting a list of references from another web article isn't exactly successfully arguing your point. Just because a study has been done, it's only a valid reference if you've actually read the thing.

You'll also notice that I never stated that circumcision doesn't reduce the HIV risk. I'm simply disputing your interpretation of the results you've quoted above.
If circumcision is so critically necessary to reduce HIV transmission to hetero males, then why isn't HIV practically wiped out in hetero males in the United States?

robindch

easychair wrote: »

the ones to which I was referring are listed below.

easychair - while it's not explicitly mentioned in the forum charter, quotewalls like the above are discouraged here in A+A. Thanks.

easychair

seamus wrote: »

If circumcision is so critically necessary to reduce HIV transmission to hetero males, then why isn't HIV practically wiped out in hetero males in the United States?

I am assuming your question is a rhetorical one, but I'll answer it anyhow.

(i) HIV is transmitted by a number or different means, and not just sexually.

(ii) Circumcision does not give immunity to contracting HIV

MagicMarker

easychair wrote: »

I am assuming your question is a rhetorical one, but I'll answer it anyhow.

(i) HIV is transmitted by a number or different means, and not just sexually.

(ii) Circumcision does not give immunity to contracting HIV

The same means exist in all developed countries, so there should still be a noticeable difference in HIV rates between countries where circumcision is a standard practice and countries where it is not so, there isn’t.

seamus

easychair wrote: »

I am assuming your question is a rhetorical one, but I'll answer it anyhow.

(i) HIV is transmitted by a number or different means, and not just sexually.

(ii) Circumcision does not give immunity to contracting HIV

OK, I'm going to roll this one back a bit because I'm not sure I'm properly explaining what I'm getting at. You said

In Africa, fro example, studies have shown that circumcision is of help in stopping the spread of HIV.

Several types of research have documented that male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex.

Unfortunately the first statement is not a logical conclusion of the second.

Several types of research may have shown that for heterosexual men, there is a statistically significant difference in HIV contraction rates between uncircumcised and circumcised men. Let's take that as valid at face value.

That however, does not lead to either of the below conclusions:

1. Circumcision is effective in reducing overall HIV infection rates.
2. For the individual, the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks.

easychair

seamus wrote: »

OK, I'm going to roll this one back a bit because I'm not sure I'm properly explaining what I'm getting at. You said

Unfortunately the first statement is not a logical conclusion of the second.

Several types of research may have shown that for heterosexual men, there is a statistically significant difference in HIV contraction rates between uncircumcised and circumcised men. Let's take that as valid at face value.

That however, does not lead to either of the below conclusions:

1. Circumcision is effective in reducing overall HIV infection rates.
2. For the individual, the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks.

I agree that it is an individual decision. Personally, I am against routine circumcision of infants.

I introduced the distraction of the studies done which are interesting. I believe their conclusions are good conclusions, and you may well differ. The studies were done in an environment where most HIV infections are transmitted as a result of sexual activity, and could not be replicated in Europe of the USA as many, if not most, HIV infections are not sexually transmitted in Europe and the USA.

My understanding is that cancer of the penis is virtually 100% found only in uncircumcised men, and that might be seen as another good(ish) but small benefit of circumcision.

It's entirely possible to realise that there may be benefits to circumcision and still oppose non medically necessary circumcisions of those under the age of majority. That is my position, but I also respect the rights of parents to make that decision.

For me, I know it is impossible to make a law banning infant or childhood circumcision, as it will always be medically necessary in some cases.

Just as in Ireland contraception was banned in the past, but the contraceptive pill could and was proscribed for other conditions (nudge nudge wink wink) and the hysterectomy, (a procedure much more risky than a circumcision) was known as the Irish contraceptive, I know that some parents will still choose to circumcise their infants and will find ways around any law which seeks to ban infant or childhood circumcisions.

seamus

easychair wrote: »

I introduced the distraction of the studies done which are interesting. I believe their conclusions are good conclusions, and you may well differ.

I don't actually differ I just have question marks over the validity of the studies.
This was discussed on this forum before, and some African studies were cited. The problem was that in all of the studies, the study was ended early, "on safety grounds" so that a circumcision could be offered to the control group.
Any serious scienfitic study would simply never do this, it effectively destroys the validity of the whole experiment and causes one to ask whether there was an underlying agenda from the outset.

Even some of the references you pasted above have titles which are pretty much, "A study into how much protection circumcision gives against HIV". It could just be bad wording, but I would expect a proper study to have a title which didn't presume any connection at all between circumcision and HIV.

I'm not actually saying that it doesn't work, but flawed experiements are still flawed, even if they produce results that are consistent with valid experiments.

My understanding is that cancer of the penis is virtually 100% found only in uncircumcised men, and that might be seen as another good(ish) but small benefit of circumcision.

If you look into this a little more, you'll find that aside from penile cancer being very rare, it occurs in men who have otherwise had other problems with their foreskins (too tight, etc). This results in regular and constant damage to the underlying cells, which quite naturally causes an increase in cancer rates.
When the research controls for disorders of the foreskin, there is no statistical difference in cancer rates between uncircumcised men with "healthy" foreskins and circumcised men.
So it would appear that aside from having it lopped off to correct whatever disorder one has, it will also protect against cancer. But if your foreskin is fine, there is no protection against cancer by having it lopped off.

For me, I know it is impossible to make a law banning infant or childhood circumcision, as it will always be medically necessary in some cases.

It may sometimes be medically necessary to remove a child's finger, but it would not be legal to just do it for the sake of it. I know the scale is different, but there's no real reason why it couldn't be outlawed.

Of course the actual answer is proper research and education. But the anti-childhood circumcision lobby is small and quiet compared to very vocal and wealthy pro-childhood circumcision lobby so I don't expect that any clear data or unbiased education campaigns to appear anytime soon.

easychair

seamus wrote: »

I don't actually differ I just have question marks over the validity of the studies.
This was discussed on this forum before, and some African studies were cited. The problem was that in all of the studies, the study was ended early, "on safety grounds" so that a circumcision could be offered to the control group.
Any serious scienfitic study would simply never do this, it effectively destroys the validity of the whole experiment and causes one to ask whether there was an underlying agenda from the outset.

Sure, we all have to be vigilant against evidence which may be biased or set up to promote a specific agenda, and if you find all the studies are unreliable, then thats where we differ.

But even if we do differ, that's not necessarily a reason to agree with routine and medically unnecessary childhood circumcisions. I think we both agree that we are against routine medically unnecessary circumcisions.

seamus wrote: »

If you look into this a little more, you'll find that aside from penile cancer being very rare, it occurs in men who have otherwise had other problems with their foreskins (too tight, etc). This results in regular and constant damage to the underlying cells, which quite naturally causes an increase in cancer rates.
When the research controls for disorders of the foreskin, there is no statistical difference in cancer rates between uncircumcised men with "healthy" foreskins and circumcised men.

Yes, it is rare, thankfully. I've said earlier in this thread that I was surprised to have met many Irish men in the past who had tight, non retracting foreskins, and that it seems not to be a condition which is picked up in schools, as it is in so many other countries. What surprised me is how, often, they are resistant to discuss it, and resistant to realise it can be important to rectify that medically (not just by circumcision). I am not sure if there are rates for such conditions as Phimosis kept, but I suspect that Ireland is way up there.

seamus wrote: »

It may sometimes be medically necessary to remove a child's finger, but it would not be legal to just do it for the sake of it. I know the scale is different, but there's no real reason why it couldn't be outlawed.

There is a difference between unnecessarily lopping off a child's finger and a circumcision. Many parents choose circumcision for religious reasons, and for what they see as health reasons. I am prepared to let them make that choice, even if I disagree with it personally.

I would not be in favour of unnecessarily lopping off a child's finger, which I judge to be a more serious act. It's a matter of degree.

seamus wrote: »

Of course the actual answer is proper research and education. But the anti-childhood circumcision lobby is small and quiet compared to very vocal and wealthy pro-childhood circumcision lobby so I don't expect that any clear data or unbiased education campaigns to appear anytime soon.

I think the answer to a great many things is education and training. I'm not sure about lobbies, but think it unlikely any lobby is going to convince, for example, Jews and Muslims and many others to stop their practice of circumcising infants. Even if they are successful in changing the law on childhood circumcision, that is unlikely to stop the practice for reasons outlined earlier.

Pace2008

easychair wrote: »

1. Alanis MC, Lucidi RS. Neonatal circumcision: a review of the world’s oldest and most controversial operation. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2004 May;59(5):379-95.
2. Patterson BK, Landay A, Siegel JN, et al. Susceptibility to human immunodeficiency virus-1 infection of human foreskin and cervical tissue grown in explant culture. Am J Pathol. 2002 Sep;161(3):867-73.
3. Szabo R, Short RV. How does male circumcision protect against HIV infection? BMJ. 2000 Jun 10;320(7249):1592-4.
4. Weiss HA, Thomas SL, Munabi SK, Hayes RJ. Male circumcision and risk of syphilis, chancroid, and genital herpes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sex Transm Infect. 2006 Apr;82(2):101-9; discussion 10.
5. Weiss HA, Quigley MA, Hayes RJ. Male circumcision and risk of HIV infection in sub- Saharan Africa: a systematic review and metaanalysis. AIDS. 2000 Oct 20;14(15):2361-70.
6. Siegfried N, Muller M, Volmink J, et al. Male circumcision for prevention of heterosexual acquisition of HIV in men. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(3):CD003362.
7. Gray RH, Kiwanuka N, Quinn TC, et al. Male circumcision and HIV acquisition and transmission: cohort studies in Rakai, Uganda. AIDS. 2000 Oct 20;14(15):2371-81.
8. Halperin DT, Bailey RC. Male circumcision and HIV infection: 10 years and counting. Lancet. 1999 Nov 20;354(9192):1813-5.
9. Auvert B, Taljaard D, Lagarde E, Sobngwi- Tambekou J, Sitta R, Puren A. Randomized, controlled intervention trial of male circumcision for reduction of HIV infection risk: the ANRS 1265 Trial. PLoS Med. 2005 Nov;2(11):e298. Erratum in: PLoS Med. 2006 May;3(5):e298.
10. Bailey RC, Moses S, Parker CB, et al. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in young men in Kisumu, Kenya: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2007 Feb 24;369(9562):643-56.
11. Gray RH, Kigozi G, Serwadda D, et al. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in men in Rakai, Uganda: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2007 Feb 24;369(9562):657-66.
12. Gray R, Wawer MJ, Thoma M, et al. Male circumcision and the risks of female HIV and sexually transmitted infections acquisition in Rakai, Uganda [Abstract 128]. Presented at: 13th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections. Feb 5-9, 2006; Denver, CO. Accessed Jan 24, 2008.
13. Wawer MJ. Trial of male circumcision: HIV, sexually transmitted disease (STD) and behavioral effects in men, women and the community. Accessed Jan 23, 2008.
14. Wiswell TE, Geschke DW. Risks from circumcision during the first month of life compared with those for uncircumcised boys. Pediatrics. 1989;83(6):1011-15.
15. Christakis DA, Harvey E, Zerr DM, Feudtner C, Wright JA, Connell FA. A trade-off analysis of routine newborn circumcision. Pediatrics. 2000 Jan;105(1 Pt 3):246-9.
16. Kigozi G, Watya S, Polis CB, et al. The effect of male circumcision on sexual satisfaction and function, results from a randomized trial of male circumcision for human immunodeficiency virus prevention, Rakai, Uganda. BJU Int. 2008 Jan;101(1):65-70.
17. Nguyen DM, Bancroft E, Mascola L, et al. Risk factors for neonatal methicillinresistant Staphylococcus aureus infection in a well-infant nursery. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2007;28:406-11.
18. Sorrells ML, Snyder JL, Reiss MD, et al. Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis. BJU Int. 2007 Apr;99(4):864-9. Erratum in: BJU Int. 2007 Aug;100(2):481.
19. Krieger JN, Bailey RC, Opeya JC, et al. Adult male circumcision outcomes: experience in a developing country setting. Urol Int. 2007;78(3):235-40.
20. Collins S, Upshaw J, Rutchik S, et al. Effects of circumcision on male sexual function: debunking a myth? J Urol. 2002;167:2111-2.
21. Senkul T, Iseri C, Sen B, et al. Circumcision in adults: effect on sexual function. Urology. 2004;63:155-8.
22. Masood S, Patel HRH, Himpson RC, et al. Penile sensitivity and sexual satisfaction after circumcision: are we informing men correctly? Urol Int. 2004;75:62-6.
23. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, 2005. Vol. 17. Rev. ed. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; June 2007:1-54.
24. Kreiss JK, Hopkins SG. The association between circumcision status and human immunodeficiency virus infection among homosexual men. J Infect Dis. 1993 Dec;168(6):1404-8.
25. Buchbinder SP, Vittinghoff E, Heagerty PJ, et al. Sexual risk, nitrite inhalant use, and lack of circumcision associated with HIV seroconversion in men who have sex with men in the United States. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2005 May 1;39(1):82-9.
26. Templeton DJ, Jin F, Prestage GP, et al. Circumcision status and risk of HIV seroconversion in the HIM cohort of homosexual men in Sydney [Abstract WEAC103]. Presented at: 4th IAS Conference on HIV Pathogenesis, Treatment, and Prevention; Jul 22-25, 2007; Sydney, Australia. Accessed Jan 23, 2008.
27. Millett GA, Ding H, Lauby J, et al. Circumcision status and HIV infection among black and Latino men who have sex with men in 3 US cities. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2007 Dec;46(5):643-50.
28. Telzak EE, Chiasson MA, Bevier PJ, Stoneburner RL, Castro KG, Jaffe HW. HIV-1 seroconversion in patients with and without genital ulcer disease: a prospective study. Ann Intern Med. 1993 Dec 15;119(12):1181-6.
29. Warner L, Ghanem KG, Newman D, et al. Male circumcision and risk of HIV infection among heterosexual men attending Baltimore STD clinics: an evaluation of clinic-based data [Abstract 326]. Presented at: National STD Prevention Conference; May 8-11, 2006; Jacksonville, FL. Accessed Jan 23, 2008.
30. Xu F, Markowitz LE, Sternberg MR, Aral SO. Prevalence of circumcision and herpes simplex virus type 2 infection in men in the United States: the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 1999–2004. Sex Transm Dis. 2007 July; 34(7):479-84.
31. Risser JM, Risser WL, Eissa MA, Cromwell PF, Barratt MS, Bortot A. Self-assessment of circumcision status by adolescents. Am J Epidemiol. 2004 Jun 1;159(11):1095-7.
32. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Trends in circumcisions among newborns. Accessed Jan 24, 2008.
33. Nelson CP, Dunn R, Wan J, Wei JT. The increasing incidence of newborn circumcision: data from the nationwide inpatient sample. J Urol. 2005 Mar;173(3):978-81.
34. American Academy of Pediatrics, Task Force on Circumcision. Circumcision policy statement. Pediatrics. 1999 Mar;103(3):686-93.
35. Mansfield CJ, Hueston WJ, Rudy M. Neonatal circumcision: associated factors and length of hospital stay. J Fam Pract. 1995 Oct;41(4):370-6.
36. National Conference of State Legislatures. State Health Notes: Circumcision and infection.
37. Schoen EJ, Oehrli M, Colby CJ, Machin G. The highly protective effect of newborn circumcision against invasive penile cancer.Pediatrics. 2000 Mar;105(3):e36. Accessed Jan 24, 2008.
38. Adler R, Ottaway S, Gould S. Circumcision: we have heard from the experts; now let’s hear from the parents.Pediatrics. 2001:107:e20. Accessed Jan 24, 2008.
39. Benatar M, Benatar D. Between prophylaxis and child abuse: the ethics of neonatal male circumcision. Am J Bioeth. 2003 Spring;3(2):35-48.
40. Koblin BA, Chesney MA, Husnik MJ, et al. High-risk behaviors among men who have sex with men in 6 US cities: baseline data from the EXPLORE study. Am J Public Health. 2003 Jun;93(6):926-32. Erratum in: Am J Public Health 2003 Aug;93(8):1203.
41. World Health Organization and UNAIDS. New data on male circumcision and HIV prevention: policy and programme implications. 2007 Mar. Accessed Jan 24, 2008.
42. Williams BG, Lloyd-Smith JO, Gouws E, et al. The potential impact of male circumcision on HIV in sub-Saharan Africa.PLoS Med. 2006;3(7):e262. Accessed Jan 24, 2008.

Would you like to summarise the papers listed, and give us your views on them? I'm only a first-year science student, and I'm sure there are plenty of laypeople here like me who are unable to assess these papers very well by themselves.

Just to give my two Zimbabwean cents...about 8 or so years ago, when I was about 15, a good friend of mine turned up at the door of my house in obvious discomfort asking if could he use the bathroom. He diasappeared in there for about 15 minutes, looking significantly relieved. I asked him hat the story was, thinking he'd been taking a lengthy dump (he had a habit of using my house for that purpose back in those days). Turned out he'd been down in the park with a chick. She'd dropped the hand on him, but when she was finished she somehow managed to leave the foreskin stuck back completely retracted. I could never quite quite understand why he couldn't have righted it there and then but, in any case, he had to walk around for the next hour with the end of his mickey chafing against his boxers. He'd been in my bathroom, standing over the sink running the head of his penis under the cold tap for 15 minutes. He says it was the most uncomfortable experience of his life.

I'm not saying circumsised men have terrible sex lives and can't experience satisfaction, but there is just no way that no desensitivity occurs after the procedure. If any men in the house want to try to simulate the experience, they're welcome. I doubt you'd last five minutes...

easychair

Pace2008 wrote: »

Would you like to summarise the papers listed, and give us your views on them? I'm only a first-year science student, and I'm sure there are plenty of laypeople here like me who are unable to assess these papers very well by themselves.

Just to give my two Zimbabwean cents...about 8 or so years ago, when I was about 15, a good friend of mine turned up at the door of my house in obvious discomfort asking if could he use the bathroom. He diasappeared in there for about 15 minutes, looking significantly relieved. I asked him hat the story was, thinking he'd been taking a lengthy dump (he had a habit of using my house for that purpose back in those days). Turned out he'd been down in the park with a chick. She'd dropped the hand on him, but when she was finished she somehow managed to leave the foreskin stuck back completely retracted. I could never quite quite understand why he couldn't have righted it there and then but, in any case, he had to walk around for the next hour with the end of his mickey chafing against his boxers. He'd been in my bathroom, standing over the sink running the head of his penis under the cold tap for 15 minutes. He says it was the most uncomfortable experience of his life.

I'm not saying circumsised men have terrible sex lives and can't experience satisfaction, but there is just no way that no desensitivity occurs after the procedure. If any men in the house want to try to simulate the experience, they're welcome. I doubt you'd last five minutes...

I gave a link to the meta analysis in an earlier post, and here it is again http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm#ref5

Curiously, I have discussed the issue of sexual pleasure with men who have been circumcised as adults, and most say there is no discernable difference in sexual pleasure. On the other hand, many women say that they get more pleasure from a man who is circumcised.

Mark Hamill

easychair wrote: »

I gave a link to the meta analysis in an earlier post, and here it is again http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm#ref5

Why does a supposed meta analysis on the health benefits of circumcision include a questionnaire given to parents of circumcised kids (paper 38)?:

Paper 38 wrote:

Objective. The current study sought to investigate parental attitudes about circumcision and their satisfaction with the decision.

Methodology. Parents of boys (6 months to 36 months old) in 3 different practices filled out a questionnaire while waiting for their child's well-child examination.

Results. A total of 149 families were surveyed. Families (68) who did not have their sons circumcised were less satisfied with their decision. Compared with families (81) of circumcised children, parents of uncircumcised boys were less likely to have been asked by their physician about whether they wanted their child circumcised, believed that they did not receive adequate information about the procedure, felt less respected by their medical provider, and were more likely to reconsider their decision.

Conclusion. The importance of adequate information and discussion is highlighted by this study.

What has the satisfaction of 149 sets of parents got to do with the medical validity of circumcision as a method to stop transmissions of certain diseases?

What do you think is the most promising study in the list you gave?

easychair wrote: »

Curiously, I have discussed the issue of sexual pleasure with men who have been circumcised as adults, and most say there is no discernable difference in sexual pleasure. On the other hand, many women say that they get more pleasure from a man who is circumcised.

Well, you have two issues here. Firstly, it can be psychological, women with no medical understanding who think that circumcised is better will be more comfortable with circumcised penises and so will have more enjoyment (assuming we take all sexual partners as equally competent). Secondly, it would seem odd that losing a bit of girth would make sex more enjoyable for women (as girth is supposed to be the real kicker for female sexual pleasure, all men taken equally competent again). Why do you think that a circumcised penis is better in terms of sexual pleasure?

easychair

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Well, you have two issues here. Firstly, it can be psychological, women with no medical understanding who think that circumcised is better will be more comfortable with circumcised penises and so will have more enjoyment (assuming we take all sexual partners as equally competent). Secondly, it would seem odd that losing a bit of girth would make sex more enjoyable for women (as girth is supposed to be the real kicker for female sexual pleasure, all men taken equally competent again). Why do you think that a circumcised penis is better in terms of sexual pleasure?

I imagine anything might be psychological, and imagine some jews and muslims might even find it psychologically disadvantageous to be prevented from being allowed to be circumcised.

I've never heard a woman mention any extra bit of girth from a foreskin, but have often heard women say they prefer a circumcised man. Other women prefer a foreskin - its all so subjective.

My experience of sexual pleasure is different to yours, and find that penetration is the icing on the cake, as it were. Most women get a lot more pleasure from other acts, and penetration is only part of it in my experience. The trouble is these days we all expect to have amazingly whizz bang sex lives, with the meeja making us al believe that its normal to have sex in 17 different positions three times a day.

Sex is wonderful whether you are circumcised or not, and this thread is not about some battle between the pleasure derived from being circumcised or not (even thought most men who have been circumcised as adults say there is no discernable difference).

This thread is about the right of parents to decide to circumcise their infant boys and, while it's not a practice I subscribe to myself, my view is that it's a choice best left to the parents, and not for nanny state to try to legislate about.

Mark Hamill

easychair wrote: »

I imagine anything might be psychological, and imagine some jews and muslims might even find it psychologically disadvantageous to be prevented from being allowed to be circumcised.

I've never heard a woman mention any extra bit of girth from a foreskin, but have often heard women say they prefer a circumcised man. Other women prefer a foreskin - its all so subjective.

My experience of sexual pleasure is different to yours, and find that penetration is the icing on the cake, as it were. Most women get a lot more pleasure from other acts, and penetration is only part of it in my experience. The trouble is these days we all expect to have amazingly whizz bang sex lives, with the meeja making us al believe that its normal to have sex in 17 different positions three times a day.

Sex is wonderful whether you are circumcised or not, and this thread is not about some battle between the pleasure derived from being circumcised or not (even thought most men who have been circumcised as adults say there is no discernable difference).

This thread is about the right of parents to decide to circumcise their infant boys and, while it's not a practice I subscribe to myself, my view is that it's a choice best left to the parents, and not for nanny state to try to legislate about.

If this thread is about the right to circumcise kids, then why did you talk about how circumcised men have told you they dont notice a difference sexually, and how women say its better? You seem to backed away from these claims awfully quickly, which is weird because I wasn't really contradicting them, I was just trying to figure out why they might be the case.