Mageth

The other important thing is to realize that not everything is opinion, and some issues are black and white.

When I stated "And to recognize that all issues are not as black-and-white as you may think they are," I didn't mean to give the impression that I think all issues are not black-and-white, or no issues are black-and-white, or even that you in particular think that all issues are black-and-white. Perhaps it would be better stated as "And to recognize that some issues are not as black-and-white as you may think they are."

Sorry for the confusion. I'm no nihilist.

Mageth

Mark_Chid:

Is neonatal male circumcision illegal in the UK?

Mark_Chid

Not at all - its just virtually unheard of, except for religious reasons.

Nobody I know of in England is circumcised, and nobody I know there has even considered the possibility of having it done to their children - the very idea is absurb and unpleasant.

Mageth

Here's a page on male circumcision in the UK:

<a href="http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/UK/" target="_blank">UK statistics</a>

While it's definitely on the decline (@3.8% of boys born today will be circumcised by 15th birthday), in 1994 an estimated 21.9% of the male population of the UK was circumcised (with the largest percentages being in older age groups).

Dr Rick

Something cannot be non-existent and also be inconclusive, hokum, misleading, and absolute crap.

American Journal of Pathology 2002 Sep;161(3):867-73
Susceptibility to human immunodeficiency virus-1 infection of human foreskin and cervical tissue grown in explant culture.
Patterson BK, et. al.
Department of Pediatrics, Division of Infectious Diseases, Children's Memorial Hospital, Chicago.

"Numerous studies have indicated a protective effect of male circumcision against acquisition of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1. We investigated mechanisms responsible for the possible increased HIV-1 susceptibility of human foreskin. Foreskins from eight pediatric and six adult patients with (n = 3) and without (n = 11) histories of sexually transmitted disease were evaluated. Six cervical biopsies from HIV-1-seronegative women were included as controls. CD4(+) T cells, macrophages, and Langerhans' cells (LCs) were quantified using image analysis. Cells expressing HIV-1 co-receptors CCR5 and CXCR4 were quantified using immunofluorescence and image analysis. Foreskin biopsies were infected ex vivo in organotypic culture with HIV-1. HIV-1 DNA copies in foreskin and cervical mucosal tissue were compared and the infected cell phenotype was determined. Foreskin mucosa contained higher mean proportions of CD4(+) T cells (22.4%), macrophages (2.4%), and LCs (11.5%) in adults than in children (4.9%, 0.3%, and 6.2%, respectively) or in cervical mucosa (6.2%, 1.4%, and 1.5%, respectively). The highest proportions of CD4(+) T cells and LCs occurred in patients with a history of infection. Foreskin immune cells expressed predominantly the CCR5 HIV-1 co-receptor. Adult foreskin mucosa had greater susceptibility to infection with HIV(bal) than cervical mucosa or the external surface of foreskin tissue. Circumcision likely reduces risk of HIV-1 acquisition in men by decreasing HIV-1 target cells

<strong> If this statement was true, physicians would be using baptism instead of pacemakers to treat heart disease.

<strong> The first recorded circumcisions were performed by victorious warriors upon their deceased foes to collect "trophies" long before the practice was established as a religous ritual.

The origins of circumcision are not relevant to an objective discussion of the studies that have indicated a protective effect of male circumcision against acquisition of infections and cancers.

<strong> Posted on this thread are numerous studies that have demonstrated a postive health effect of male circumcision along with additional information requested by some who asked for more evidence. A study has been posted specifically requested by you so that you will have something to consider.

<strong> Probably not, but this Biblical character's lack of knowledge does not rationally refute the findings of today's medical studies.

Rick

[ September 10, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

Mark_Chid

Its been less than 10% since way back in the 60s though, and the UK is probably 5% Moslem!

Mark_Chid

Maybe asomewhat over 10% then, but it must have regional and class-based variations as I only ever saw 1 circumcised boy in the showers at school

If its &lt;5% now then over half of those must be Moslems.

ybnormal

Mageth:

RE the "links" issue... this is has been going on for 9 pages... as someone else said on this page, I have nothing against Rick either... my attitude has been no more arrogant than his... if you have not read the entire thread, then you don't have the whole picture... he has dismissed most anything and everything posted and linked to, as being from "anti-circ" sites and not even worthy of discussion... And if he has said anything prior to it coming up again on page 8, about not having links available, I would like to see it.

The only thing he does consider worthy are his own profession's studies, which no one can access, which he refuses to provide links even to the ones available, like the one I found after 2 weeks and posted on page 8... which misses the main point I have made from the beginning... that his profession has been coming up with these studies for 132 years... had even ONE of them been legit, Rick would not be searching for others now...

Beginning in 1870, the president of the American Medical Association "demonstrated" (as the Rick is still doing in 2002) that circumcision, or "relieving the imprisoned penis" cures paralysis, hip-joint disease, bad digestion, hernia, insanity of the muscles, inflammation of the bladder, Epilepsy, Chorea, lunacy, tubercular meningitis and brass poisoning to list a few. When doctors added "sanitary precaution" as "preventive medicine" they caused circumcision to be "absolutely necessary" if men wanted women to touch an uncircumcised ("unclean") penis EVER again.

Which brings me back to the fact that Rick refuses to look at anything other than more studies by the same closed group (Rick:medical publications are proprietary) of people who manufactured this "necessary surgery" in the first place... the same people who have already erred or falsified hundreds if not thousands of these "scientific studies"... the same people who say, "you can trust these new studies"... the same people who are the ONLY people who stand to lose financially...

In other words, we are being asked, yet again, to trust this one closed group as judge, jury and executioner, which has been 100% wrong for 100 years. The fact that they are still searching, more than proves that point.

What comes across here more than anything else is Rick's attitude, which fully reinforces the same attitudes I pointed out in the previous two paragraphs. After 132 years in the US, circumcision remains a medical procedure in search of a disease.

Thank you for making all my points. And thank you again.

You have favored our resident doctor's perceived opinion, as most new parents do, and completely ignored the plethora of quotes from and links to Rick's own profession's mainstream medical organizations, every one of which, advises against routine circumcision, because there is NOT what you call, substantial evidence for circumcision.

Rick has only made it appear that this is the case. I doubt that you will get him to agree with your substantial evidence conclusion. Why not ask him? If so, he'll not only be going much further than he has previously stated, but he'd be directly contradicting all major medical associations.

Directly above your post were two other current conclusions:

I continue to find it fascinating that in all my searches for info, with Rick discrediting them as "anti-circ" sites, I have yet to find a single "pro-circ" site. Not one!

Maybe you would like to join the search of major mainstream medical organizations and prove me wrong.

As of now, I feel safe in stating that this "Circumcision, eek!" thread on Infidels.org is the only "pro-circ" site currently available.

Happy searching...

Peace!

Amen-Moses

Just out of interest I found this little table:

1999
Total Estimated New Cancer Cases and Deaths, United States:

Cancer Sites..New Cases Deaths
Vulva ....... 3,300 ... 900
Vagina &
other genital 2,300 ... 600
Testis ...... 7,400 ... 300
Penis &
other genital 1,400 ... 200

As a cancer risk, it is at least twice as dangerous to have intact labia as an intact foreskin.

Assuming these rates are correct why doesn't the US circumcise girls?

Amen-Moses

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: Amen-Moses ]</p>

Mageth

You have favored our resident doctor's perceived opinion, as most new parents do, and completely ignored the plethora of quotes from and links to Rick's own profession's mainstream medical organizations, every one of which, advises against routine circumcision, because there is NOT what you call, substantial evidence for circumcision.

Perhaps you should read the rest of my posts. I don't think I can so easily be categorized as favoring "our resident doctor's perceived opinion." Here's a quote from a previous post of mine:

"At present, I'd classify myself as "ambivalent," but leaning towards thinking circumcision is not justified."

I don't see how this qualifies me as completely ignoring anything.

I believe that the studies posted by Rick do indicate there are at least some health benefits from neonatal male circumcision. What other conclusion could one reach from reading the reports (the rather weak objections cited in this thread notwithstanding)? I also know there are others that conclude that the claims for health benefits are unfounded. So is one to throw out the conclusions of the former studies just because other studies reach other conclusions (as you seem to wish me to do), or is one to consider all the evidence and attempt to come to a rational conclusion?

I also have previously indicated I believe there is truth in the other side (the arguments you claim I ignored) - there are risks and moral issues involved. Rather than considering the pointless and questionable, if I might say, attacks on the motives of MDs in general or in particular, on century-old questionable reasoning behind circumcision which is no longer held by the Medical profession and thus is irrelevant, and/or on weak criticism of the studies posted, I choose to rationally consider the evidence and weigh the two sides at face value to attempt to come to a personal, rational (rather than emotional) opinion on the subject.

As I have indicated, I lean towards considering neonatal male circumcision as unjustified. Perhaps if certain posters on this thread would consider the poor quality of some of the arguments they're making, and attempt to stick to the facts rather than ad hominem attacks on the motives of MDs and parents, faulty criticism of statistical methods, and emotional appeals, more people could likewise be persuaded.