Given that big axe you are grinding, I am certain you do not have the intellectual stamina to actually look thru old epidemiological stats on the rates of at syphillis and gonorrhea after the turn of the previous century... And the change in rates after the public health measure of RIC, and silver nitrate in b
Newborn's eyes... (why babies are squinty for days after birth... Adopted to reduce syphillis related blindness) But they can be found... I managed to find them way back before the intertubes...
I don't suppose you could produce said phantom evidence? Or are we supposed to take your word on the existence of such studies?
But guys who have your belief system are incapable of crediting real data that contradicts their assumptions.
Yes, the transmission of these diseases dropped dramatically after public health measures were adopted. You can argue about how much of this drop is attributable to RIC... And how much to educational efforts and increased condom use... But recent world health organization studies all further endorse the role of RIC in reducing transmission rates.
Period.
Your unsupported opinion notwithstanding.
Support RIC in preventing transmission rates in Gonorrhea and Syphilis? A permanent surgical procedure bypassing personal consent in order to
reduce the rates of diseases which can be treated effectively with antibiotics? How old are these studies you're quoting?
And which particular circle of WHO studies ALL endorse RIC?
Ah, yes... SOUNDS judicious, don't it... Except, of course, this is your dodge to criminalize the procedure... To make it against the law, regardless of the real benefits and the cultural importance many people's attach to it...
You can not abide a free world in which people and cultures can freely determine their own choices... You want to stick your nose into other people's lives and decree what is or is not acceptable.
Try presenting one study which actually shows said benefits without having logical holes large enough to sink the Titanic. In the meantime, what exactly is it when parents decree their child's foreskin is not acceptable? How is that not sticking their nose into someone else's life?
As to risk... Nothing is risk free... Not even leaving the foreskin on.
And frankly... As innoculation and vaccine programs prove, The tiny risk to a tiny number of people is offset by a vastly larger and more pernicious risk to the public at large.
The risks of having a foreskin are GREATLY exaggerated, while the risks of having the procedure are mostly understated. How many parents are actually aware of the laundry list of (uncommon) side effects that can result from the procedure?
In the end, ignoring all immediate effects from change of anatomy, circumcision exchanges one set of rates for another.
A Cost-Utility Analysis of Neonatal Circumcision Care to highlight where exactly the cut guys break ahead? Or even?
Imbeciles refusing to vaccinate Their children, put whole communities at peril of epidemics... And indeed, more children die of measles and whooping cough than ever die from vaccines for those diseases.
Agreed here. How is it that it was determined that such vaccines were a good idea? Cost-Benefit Analysis. What is the cost for this procedure (both in money and to the individuals)? What do we get from this procedure? In the case of vaccinations, the extremely rare negative reactions are overwhelmed by the quality of health increase for the subjects as a whole.
And BTW... Everything from Vaccines, to heart operations in vivo are perfect evidence that parents HAVE the right to make such decisions for their minor children.
Moreover... The State takes the position they have the Responsibility to make such decisions.
There's a big difference between the procedures. Immunizations are shown to be far and away some of the best procedures around. Immunizations are so effective they're basically synonymous with "preventive medicine". In addition, they do not permanently alter the child's anatomy in any way. In vitro heart surgery, meanwhile, falls under the banner of "medical imperative", which is the entire reason we allow consent by proxy, so children can get
important medical treatment for illness.
Meanwhile, what does circumcision prevent? Despite your claims that such studies exist, you have yet to present one, and your impotent opinion is overruled by the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, Center for Disease Control all disagree with you. In fact, nontherapeutic circumcision isn't even considered a strictly "medical" procedure anymore.
As for the state, we live in a democratic republic, not a dictatorship. Laws dictate the state's opinion, not the other way around. If the law is changed, the state will bow before it.
But, of course... Allowing actual science to inform public policy is unpopular...
Instead we have folks like you who claim their is no benefit, when it has been demonstrated.
Sorry... I don't recommend RIC to people... If they ask why I am happy with my own, or why I decided to have it done to my sons... I am happy to explain my reasons.
But I would leave it up to each person and each parent.
You would tell others what they can or can not do.
Projection at its best. Your entire stance involves allowing one class of people (parents) to impinge on the rights and preferences of another (children) at no net benefit to the other. An anti-RIC stance wishes to preserve the choice for the owner. Once they are of legal age to make such a decision for themselves, there is nothing stopping them.
In a country where RIC was illegal, it would be possible for everyone to have what they wanted. Barring other outside influence or unwise choices, 100% satisfaction with their intactness/altered state. Just look at this poll. If it were representative of the whole country (it isn't), would you seriously condone telling almost 20% of the population that no one cares what they think, just so they could be permanently altered in a way they may view as mutilation in exchange for dubiously marginal benefits? What percentage would be acceptable for you?