Circumcision

Discussion in 'The Healthy Penis' started by funnyguy, Jan 3, 2010.

  1. funnyguy

    funnyguy Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Messages:
    723
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    30
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    California
    I know that this is a touchy subject for debate. Still, I think that the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Family Physicians have gone too far in their recommendations. See below and use the link if you see fit to do so:

    Google The Petition Site for more information and to sign a petition.


    End the Practice of Risky, Unnecessary Surgery on Non-Consenting Babies
    Subject: American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Family Physicians Routine circumcision is ethically wrong - but the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) may become the first medical associations in the world to recommend it for all baby boys.

    American parents trust their pediatricians and rely on them for the best advice in caring for their children. As a matter of ethics, that advice cannot include neonatal male circumcision - a medically unnecessary, potentially risky surgery that no major medical authority in the world recommends.

    That is why I am asking the committees charged with reviewing the neutral positions on infant circumcision of both the American Academy of Pediatrics and American Academy of Family Physicians, NOT to revise those positions in favor of the surgery.

    The United States is the only western nation today where doctors routinely circumcise infant boys in medical settings. Although the rate has fallen from above 90 percent 30 years ago to below 60 percent today, still, more than one million American babies undergo the surgery every year to the tune of one billion dollars in health-care spending.
     
  2. B_mitchymo

    B_mitchymo New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2008
    Messages:
    4,706
    Likes Received:
    12
    Location:
    Rugby, England
    No point in anyone outside the US commenting on this because it will often be seen as interfering rather than making a valid point.

    Suffice to say it is a pointless act and there can be no justifiable non-religious reason to have it enforced.
     
  3. johhnnyt

    johhnnyt New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    3
    Whats the medical reasoning you have that they shouldn't perform it? From what I understand the main reason it's suggested is The World Health Organization (WHO; 2007), the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS; 2007), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; 2008) state that evidence indicates male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex (at least thats what I've read).
    I've never read that its a risky surgery, just wonder what the basis of that statement is.
     
  4. B_mitchymo

    B_mitchymo New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2008
    Messages:
    4,706
    Likes Received:
    12
    Location:
    Rugby, England
    Wearing jeans and a bomber jacket during the height of summer will significantly cut the risk of skin cancer...

    Such an argument for recommending circumcision is a joke because a) your sex life is the biggest factor in the risk, not whether your dick has a (natural) hood and b) years down the line when Aids will be treated like tetanus it will all have been pointless.
     
  5. Jason

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Messages:
    9,926
    Likes Received:
    639
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    London (GB)
    The UK position is that non-medical circumcision is very strongly discouraged. The legal framework is developing. However it seems likely that circumcision of infants will come to be regarded as illegal - basically this will be determined by case law in the UK and elsewhere in the EU. There has already been a case in Denmark which appears to have established this point - the principle of subsidiarity means that it is likely to be mirrored elsewhere in the EU. When a child becomes an adult he could prosecute both his parents and the surgeon - so basically surgeons now don't want to do it.

    Behind the decision is a UK (and wider European) medical consensus that the risks are greater than the benefits, along with an ethical belief that parents do not have the right to make this decision.

    Religious circumcision is more difficult though in the end it is the courts that will decide. There is a drift which may lead to the courts declaring male circumcision illegal in all circumstances (like female circumcision) which would of course be a problematic decision.
     
  6. herkimer snow

    herkimer snow New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    Messages:
    150
    Likes Received:
    5
    Gender:
    Male
    If circumcision reduces the acquisition of HIV, let men decide if they wish to be circumcised. I've never known of a single male newborn who acquired HIV by having sex. Government, we are not stupid. Leave us alone!
     
  7. D_Miranda_Wrights

    D_Miranda_Wrights Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    970
    Likes Received:
    4
    I doubt the AAP and AAFP are going to radically reform their statement, beyond maybe emphasizing the benefits more. Studying pediatric medicine, it's been fun to find out what the "personalities" of the different med organizations. AAP is a bunch of geezers who try not to offend anyone, WHO is dependably dramatic, AMA avoids positions that stand to lose anyone money and therefore usually avoids policy positions at all.

    Anyway, we're talking about conservative organizations here, and I doubt they're looking to shape American social policy. Although their advisory board is probably full of people who think it's not worth questioning, so I wouldn't be surprised to be wrong. Which is sad. I hate to find myself in such a minority in my country, but I think it's messed up how many people zealously defend parental proxy rights and then ignore that this is a non-urgent and marginally beneficial procedure that denies any individual autonomy for the kid. And if medicine isn't ultimately about making the patient happy, healthy and self-possessed, we've lost ourselves.

    Maybe a lost fight in this country, but my son will make his own decision, for what that's worth.
     
  8. Beanie

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2007
    Messages:
    802
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    193
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    South wales, UK
    Verified:
    Photo
    circumcision is wrong plain and simple, if it wasnt meant to be there, it wouldnt be in the first place.

    as for it reducing HIV infections, those trials where based in africa where HIV infections are completely out of control and they have no access to other protection. the most effective means of protecting ones self from any infections, not just HIV is to use artificial protection e.g. condoms which the african people in the studies obviously didnt have access to.

    stating that circumcision can protect you from HIV is giving people license to disregard any other form of protection because, in their minds, they are already 'protected'
     
  9. mandoman

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    3,539
    Likes Received:
    123
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    MA
    Plus, the three studies that the WHO and CDC jumped on were based on junk science.
    They were never finished, poorly designed and poorly controlled, and some of them were conducted by people who had a strong bias towards circumcision.
     
  10. JTalbain

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,812
    Likes Received:
    5
    Thanks for letting us know about this. Signed.
     
  11. gymfresh

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    Messages:
    1,659
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    16
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Rodinia
    Verified:
    Photo
    Interesting headline today:

    The Globe and Mail

    Circumcision health benefit virtually nil, study finds

    Little evidence that world's most common surgical procedure can prevent sexually transmitted infections, urinary tract infections and penile cancer.

    Seems an Australian team undertook a comprehensive meta-analysis of all the circumcision research in recent decades in order to sift through the conflicting findings and speculation to get at the hard science of weenie snipping.

    Excerpt:


    While it is the most common surgical procedure in the world, there is virtually no demonstrable health benefit derived from circumcision of either newborns or adults, a new study concludes.

    The research, published in Tuesday’s edition of the Annals of Family Medicine, shows that, despite claims, there is little evidence that circumcision can prevent sexually transmitted infections, urinary tract infections and penile cancer.


    “Patients who request circumcision in the belief that it bestows clinical benefits must be made aware of the lack of consensus and robust evidence, as well as the potential medical and psychosocial harms of the procedure,” said Guy Maddern, of the department of surgery at The Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Adelaide, Australia, and lead author of the study.

    In newborns, he said, the surgery is “inappropriate” because it offers no therapeutic benefit. The procedure is done principally for religious, cultural and social reasons.

    The main social reasons the practice has continued is a widespread desire that boys resemble their fathers, and a belief that boys who undergo circumcision have fewer health problems. The new study, a systematic review (a compilation and analysis of previously published research), looked only at the latter point

    Dr. Maddern and his research team found no evidence that uncircumcised men have higher rates of penile cancer. In fact, they noted penile cancer is extremely rare and seemingly unrelated to the presence of a prepuce. The belief that urinary tract infections are more common in uncircumcised males is not backed up by research. Finally, there was no evidence at all that there are fewer sexually-transmitted infections among circumcised males.

    Rather, Dr. Maddern said, the prepuce seems to act as a barrier against contamination and, by helping maintain a moist environment, enhance sexual pleasure.

    According to the study, the only medical justification for circumcision is to treat boys or men with penile abnormalities.
     
    #11 gymfresh, Jan 12, 2010
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2010
Draft saved Draft deleted