Circumcision...The Science

Snozzle

Cherished Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 16, 2006
Posts
1,422
Media
6
Likes
318
Points
403
Location
South Pacific
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
what do you need to know to prove that you should leave a baby boys dick alone period
not your penis not your foreskin
Well I know your question was rhetorical, but for the sake of argument, IF infant circumcision

  • provided proven
  • strong protection
  • against deadly
  • contagious
  • diseases of childhood
and if it

  • had negligible risks
  • and harms
such that

  • the vast majority of circumcised men had no problem with it and
  • a significant proportion of intact men had had problems with being intact
then we might start to consider admitting it as a parental option
but there are probably other ethical issues I haven't thought of.
 

gymfresh

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jan 8, 2008
Posts
1,633
Media
20
Likes
154
Points
383
Location
Rodinia
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Or as noted ethicist Margaret Somerville has articulated, the case against infant circumcision is simple: the medical evidence is debatable (and always has been), and every disease it's alleged to prevent is avoidable by much less invasive means.
 

D_Miranda_Wrights

Account Disabled
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Posts
931
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
103
Sexuality
No Response
Or as noted ethicist Margaret Somerville has articulated, the case against infant circumcision is simple: the medical evidence is debatable (and always has been), and every disease it's alleged to prevent is avoidable by much less invasive means.

As much as I agree with her conclusion on this issue, although not her entire basis of argument, I think you mean "noted ethicist and selective jackass Margaret Somerville."
 

Ren69

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Posts
1,740
Media
25
Likes
1,772
Points
443
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I really love being circumcised. but is true also, that I choiced being circumsiced.

I think maybe is true, that we should let our kids choice it.
 

buffaloboy

Loved Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Posts
393
Media
13
Likes
561
Points
248
Location
London, UK
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
If the law in the States was changed so that it was illegal to perform circumcisions on children (under the age of 18), except for strictly medical problems such as severe phimosis which couldn't be treated with stretching techniques or steroid cream, then these discussions would stop overnight, since it's highly doubtful that men would choose to have their foreskin removed of their own volition.

What we see all too often on LPSG are flimsy post hoc justifications of something over which they've had no control.
 

B_circin867

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Posts
81
Media
0
Likes
15
Points
43
Location
Mountains SoCA
Sexuality
60% Straight, 40% Gay
Gender
Male
Well since a lot of politicians in your country got together and made it unlawful to use the word circumcision, you said OK and bowed down. So did Canada and the UK. We in the States said go away with your foolishness. Our infants, boys, adolescents, young men, etc. are still being circumcised at a rate of 95% for dozens of reasons. We won the war 1776 to 2012.
 

D_Miranda_Wrights

Account Disabled
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Posts
931
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
103
Sexuality
No Response
Well since a lot of politicians in your country got together and made it unlawful to use the word circumcision, you said OK and bowed down. So did Canada and the UK. We in the States said go away with your foolishness. Our infants, boys, adolescents, young men, etc. are still being circumcised at a rate of 95% for dozens of reasons. We won the war 1776 to 2012.

This is literally crazy.
 
S

SirConcis

Guest
The drop in circ rates in canada, australia, NZ was not due to the governemnts making circumcision illegal, it is simply because they stopped paying for it, and once parents have to pay for it, they ask questions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Papi

Mastur

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 21, 2008
Posts
733
Media
421
Likes
2,673
Points
498
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Verification
View
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Well since a lot of politicians in your country got together and made it unlawful to use the word circumcision, you said OK and bowed down. So did Canada and the UK. We in the States said go away with your foolishness. Our infants, boys, adolescents, young men, etc. are still being circumcised at a rate of 95% for dozens of reasons. We won the war 1776 to 2012.

And America won the war with Japan too. Hiroshima... What a splendid victory!
 

Snozzle

Cherished Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 16, 2006
Posts
1,422
Media
6
Likes
318
Points
403
Location
South Pacific
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
The drop in circ rates in canada, australia, NZ was not due to the governemnts making circumcision illegal, it is simply because they stopped paying for it, and once parents have to pay for it, they ask questions.
Actually in New Zealand it was well into decline by the time they stopped paying for it. One professor decided that one major hospital would not offer it (except as a private operation by a doctor from outside the hospital) and others were delighted to follow suit. They adopted a "sleeping dogs" policy of not mentioning it - let alone soliciting it - and intact babies were out of the hospitals before the parents noticed.
 

Snozzle

Cherished Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 16, 2006
Posts
1,422
Media
6
Likes
318
Points
403
Location
South Pacific
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Our infants, boys, adolescents, young men, etc. are still being circumcised at a rate of 95%
Almost certainly much less
for dozens of reasons.
Hundreds, actually, most of them bad
We won the war 1776 to 2012.
The men who fought the Britiish, and US men until the early 20th century, were almost all intact. (And you can be certain that all 19 of the Sept 11 terrorists were circumcised.)

But I'm taking this post way too seriously.
 
S

SirConcis

Guest


And in that article is the telling paragraph:

The slide portrays a precipitous drop in circumcision, to just 32.5 percent in 2009 from 56 percent in 2006. The numbers are based on calculations by SDI Health, a company in Plymouth Meeting, Pa., that analyzes health care data; they do not include procedures outside hospitals (like most Jewish ritual circumcisions) or not reimbursed by insurance.

So that 32% doesn't include those done in hospital and paid for, nor those done outside of a hospital and ether covered or not covered.

So, parents whose insurance doesn't cover circumcision would have to pay some amount to get their son circumcised, and this would not be included in that study.

So the drop in numbers may reflect more the drop in insurance coverage than the actual drop in circ rates.
 

D_Miranda_Wrights

Account Disabled
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Posts
931
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
103
Sexuality
No Response
Even if that's true, SirConcis, you've seen the state-by-state numbers. We also have those numbers tracked over years where states dropped coverage, which have varied. There's obviously something going on here that's not explained by drops in state insurance. We also have numbers for those on private insurance, among others. Also, I'm pretty sure you're wrong that it doesn't include private insurers in-hospital, because the state numbers for previous years definitely broke out private insurance vs. Medicaid. No?

In any case, it doesn't matter to this debate much if the current rate is 33% or 67% (I suspect it's somewhere in-between.) The point is whether RIC is right or wrong. Defending RIC is a losing battle, and I don't think your heart is really in it (I've never even see you say you think it's right.) I just wish you'd say that outright and move on to championing circumcision for adults, which I'm fine with.
 
S

SirConcis

Guest
I am not debating that circumision rates have dropped in the USA. However, they are nowhere near what those number suggest.

As helth insurance companies or states drop coverage for circumcision, then those statistics immediatly show a drop in circ rates.

Unfortunatly, real statistics are only available 18 years after the fact when you see young adults in locker room showers.

There really should be some statistics compiled for the true circumcision rate. But there are none.
 

JTalbain

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Posts
1,786
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
258
Age
34
Titsdude, condoms are more effective than circumcision when worn.

But when a religion such a the catholic one still won't accept the use of condoms, then this is a problem. The USA, between 2000 and 2008 would not fund charities that promoted use of condoms in Africa because the USA wanted to promote abstinence.
I agree that this is a problem, but this is not a problem that needs to affect the medical community. It is the job of the medical community to provide the best medical advice, not provide cultural commentary. They do not, and should not, bow down to a religious organization when presenting good science. If a religion is ordering its followers to do something that medicine has stated is hazardous to their health, either that religion will change its stance, or those followers will leave.
I really love being circumcised. but is true also, that I choiced being circumsiced.

I think maybe is true, that we should let our kids choice it.
Choice plays a big role in whether they like it. I'm sure that you can do studies to find out the harms caused by extreme gential modification, but that doesn't mean that those who have it done are going to like it less. They chose to get that Prince Albert, split glans, etc. It was something they wanted and they got what they asked for. Huge difference to not wanting something and having it forced on you.
The drop in circ rates in canada, australia, NZ was not due to the governemnts making circumcision illegal, it is simply because they stopped paying for it, and once parents have to pay for it, they ask questions.
100% true. If it's free, and the genral gist they get is that it's benficial, even mildly so, they'll be in favor without much question. The fact that closer examination of the benefits has caused that drastic a decrease in circumcision rates though should tell you something.
 

JTalbain

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Posts
1,786
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
258
Age
34
Ok well this is a very controversial topic, with a great number of view points, and backgrounds that have shaped those view points.

But the things that the debate comes back to are these.
1. Are the benifits of circumcision?
2. Are there negitives of circumcision? and..
3. Is infant circumcision a human rights breach?
I suppose I'll give the answers the OP was asking for.

Answer 1: It's kind of hard to find science discussing the benefits of circumcision which are almost entirely psychological in nature. If someone thinks that being circumcised is better, than in many way, it is for them. They will likely feel more confident and like their penises, and so there is a psychological element to it for them. As for health benefits...
A Cost-Utility Analysis of Neonatal Circumcision
Dr. Robert Van Howe compiled all available statistics from conditions that circumcision was said to affect the rates of, and subjected them to cost-benefit analysis. CBA is the standard that medical procedures are judged by; basically, what do they give up for what they receive in return. His study does not take into account loss of function from the foreskin itself or the claims of reduced pleasures from other studies. Regardless, on the basis of health benefits and complications alone, Van Howe concluded that circumcision provided a net loss to the health of its patients. More specifically stating this:

"Neonatal circumcision increased incremental costs by $828.42 per patient and resulted in an incremental 15.30 well years lost per 1000 males. If neonatal circumcision was cost-free, pain-free, and had no immediate complications, it was still more costly than not circumcising. Using sensitivity analysis, it was impossible to arrange a scenario that made neonatal circumcision cost-effective. Neonatal circumcision is not good health policy, and support for it as a medical procedure cannot be justified financially or medically."

So very mild decreases in some disease rates found almost exclusively among adult males may be the only benefits. Van Howe doesn't address HIV rates (because those studies weren't around in 2004, but many studies have called those results into question...

Green, L. et al., "Male Circumcision is Not the HIV �Vaccine� We Have Been Waiting For!" Future Medicine 2 (2008): 193-199, DOI 10.2217/17469600.2.3.193
McAllister, R. et al., "The Cost to Circumcise Africa," American Journal of Men's Health 7(2008): 307-316 (study states that supplying free condoms is at least 95x more cost effective to prevent HIV in Africa)
http://www.ajol.info/index.php/samj/article/viewFile/14003/2617 (found no correlation between HIV and circ rates at all in South Africa)

...and looking at circumcision rates compared to HIV rates in various countries throughout the world seem to show little connection as well.

Global circumcision rates | CIRCS
List of countries by HIV/AIDS adult prevalence rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (yes wikipedia, but they reference other statistics and have references with links to them)

There doesn't seem to be a logical connection proving circumcision rates being higher causes HIV rates to be lower, not even in a passing correlation.

Other 2 questions on a separate post...