Corwin

Yes yes... rural Uganda.

Where condom use is virtually nonexistant.

This justifies mutilating baby boys in the first world, where condom use is common....

How exactly?

Dr Rick

...and if you are looking for some really big numbers, check this out:

Over 28, 000 boys in North America were part of the study cohort:

Pediatrics 2000 Apr;1054 Pt 1:789-93
 
Newborn circumcision decreases incidence and costs of urinary tract infections during the first year of life.
Schoen EJ, Colby CJ, Ray GT.
Departments of Genetics and Pediatrics, Kaiser Permanente Medical Care
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of newborn circumcision on the incidence and medical costs of urinary tract infection UTI during the first year of life for patients in a large health maintenance organization. SETTING: Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program of Northern California KPNC. PATIENTS: The population consisted of members of KPNC. The study group consisted of a cohort of 28 812 infants delivered during 1996 at KPNC hospitals; of the 14 893 male infants in the group, 9668 64.9% were circumcised. A second cohort of 20 587 infants born in 1997 and monitored for 12 months was analyzed to determine incidence rates. DESIGN: Retrospective study of all infants consecutively delivered at 12 facilities. OUTCOME MEASURES: Diagnosis of UTI was determined from the KPNC computerized database using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision code for inpatients and KPNC Outpatient Summary Clinical Record codes for outpatients. A sample of 52 patient charts was reviewed to confirm the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision and KPNC Outpatient Summary Clinical Record codes and provide additional data. RESULTS: Infants <1 year old who were born in 1996 had 446 UTIs 292 in females; 154 in males; 132 86% of the UTIs in males occurred in uncircumcised boys. The mean total cost of managing UTI was 2 times as high in males $1111 as in females $542. This higher total cost reflected the higher rate of hospital admission in uncircumcised males with UTIs 27.3% compared with females 7.5%; mean age at hospitalization for UTI was 2.5 months old for uncircumcised boys and 6.5 months old for girls. In 1996, total cost of managing UTI in uncircumcised males $155 628 was 10 times higher than for circumcised males $15 466 despite the fact that uncircumcised males made up only 35.1% of the male patient base in 1996, reflecting the more frequent occurrence of UTI in uncircumcised males 132 episodes than in circumcised males 22 episodes, and the larger number of hospital admissions in uncircumcised males 38 than in circumcised males 4. The incidence of UTI in the first year of life was 1:47 2.15% in uncircumcised males, 1:455 .22% in circumcised males, and 1:49 2. 05% in females. The odds ratio of UTI in uncircumcised:circumcised males was 9.1:1. CONCLUSIONS: Newborn circumcision results in a 9. 1-fold decrease in incidence of UTI during the first year of life as well as markedly lower UTI-related medical costs and rate of hospital admissions. Newborn circumcision during the first year of life is, thus, a valuable preventive health measure, particularly in the first 3 months of life, when uncircumcised males are most likely to be hospitalized with severe UTI.

Rick

Corwin

Wow... for once we find one that ISN'T preventable by a condom instead of circumcision.

Of course it's preventable by BATHING... (keeping babies somewhat clean is important...)

We've been over this before in these threads. UTI's are fairly rare, and easily treated. Again... whacking off part of someone's anatomy is rather an extreme form of preventative, don't you think? Especially when regular changing and care will work about as well as far as preventatives go?

Sure UTI's may be less common. Of course that doesn't factor in the infections caused by elective surgery... amputation on an appendage that is then placed in a diaper. (Wow. Totally sanitary there....)

Again. The benefits don't outweigh the risks.

The problems are well known, well attested to, and pretty much universal. (Decreased sexual enjoyment, disfigurement, etc.) There are also non-universal, but much more serious problems associated with circumcision. (Severe disfigurement, penile disfunction, gender reassignment from botched circumcisions, occasional death...)

All of this for a 1% lower rate of HIV cases and a .5% lower incidence of HPV? And that it's easier to keep your baby from getting a UTI, (of course you now also have an open wound to keep clean....)

I'm thinkin no?

Mark_Chid

The main benefit of NOT being circumscised - masturbate is possible without lubrication -indeed without a foreskin I cannot imagine that masturbation is a fraction as enjoyable. I thank my parents HUGELY that they did not deny me this!

Dr Rick

[ September 12, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

Corwin

The most common cause of UTI's in infants is due to poor sanitary conditions. (Diapers aren't exactly the most sanitary situation in the world.) Bacteria grow in urine and feces. Now, the body can accept a fair amount of this... at least in adults. The less developed immune system of an infant, however, is less effective and washing becomes more of an issue. (In adults it's also culturally reinforced... and in those for whom it isn't, the rest of us tend to heartily wish it was...)

So tell us Dr Rick... exactly how is it somehow dangerous to bury your urethera in shit... but for some odd reason it's perfectly ok to bury a post op wound in it? Care to explain THAT one?

Dr Rick

We're still waiting for your links and evidence.

[ September 09, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

Corwin

Now you're just getting snippy doc.

Look back over the previous thread. UTI incidence is less than 5% overall in newborns. Actually taking care of a baby goes a long way toward preventing it. It's really not much of an argument for circumcision. By that logic, we should cut your toes off. After all... you're just going to drop something on them and crush them.

Fight all you like... eventually you're going to have to take a hard look at what you're advocating. Bottom line is, the only consistient reason for circumcision goes across both genders. It's done in males for exactly the same reason other cultures do it to females. In our more scientific culture, we look for medical reasons to justify it. Dressing it up doesn't make it true, neither does repetition.

Mark_Chid

I am so pleased that I grew up in the UK, where the refusal of the National Health service to offer free circumcisions after the war lead to wholesale abandonment of the practice - very very few English males are circumcised and English parents no longer even consider it an option unless their are religious reasons.

ybnormal

So, uh, you are claiming that it is NOT common procedure here, for one to provide a link to contested claims, in order for skeptics to examine more than a few well-chosen excerpts.

Is that correct? And further, that it is the duty of any of the 7,000+ interested forum members to go search for evidence that supports your claim? Evidence that you claim to have at your fingertips?

Please feel free to let me know if I failed to restate your position properly...