Mageth

ybnormal:

In addition, in the future, if you have problems with Dr. Rick's arguments or perceived motives, I'd prefer you address them to him and not me.

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

ybnormal

Thanks! I'll take that as a retraction of this previous statement:

Had you first said, studies posted by Rick do indicate, then I would have had no argument there. However, you said, there is substantial evidence, which you have now restated, that there are only indications.

And please don't chide me for not taking other posts into consideration, when the above, clearly states your summary conclusion of this dicussion.

How disingenuous! You approached me... And thanks for confirming my earlier suggestion that you indeed, have not read much of this thread...

And about your implication of "emotions" being involved in my response... that too has been covered in-depth, earlier... and without a specific example to back your "emotion" claim, I shall let it pass. I have detailed facts here as much as anyone else, and I have provided a working link to every single one of them.

So, in my summary, it is clear that many here remain skeptical of and at odds with these mostly inaccessible, thus unverifiable studies... like it or not, until the position statements of Rick's own professional organizations change their official positions, and back up his opinions, he seems to remain in opposition to ALL of them.

Peace!

Dr Rick

Every one of the medical studies I posted is available to anyone. I pay for the information; so can you, or you can read them on this thread, or you can go to a university library and look them up. You will find they say exactly what I posted. I was asked to post the information, and I did so.

I cannot be simultaneously defending the medical profession and be at odds with the recommendations made from every representative organization, yet both strawmen have been erected on this thread.

Not the AAFP, AAP, AUA, AMA, ACS, AGA, ASGE, nor even the ASPCA recommend against circumcision. Not recommending something is not the same as advising against it, and it is wrong to infer that it is.

Besides, and despite repeated strawman assertions to the contrary, I am not and have not recommended circumcision. I have posted that there are medical benefits to the procedure and have provided evidence to prove it, but that is not the same as arguing "every boy should be circumcised," which has been falsely asserted on this thread.

I can neither benefit nor lose from circumcision as I have never performed one, never recommended one, never had one performed on a child of mine, and never will have reason to perform one in my specialty practice. The aspersions cast that I am posting on this thread merely to justify a corrupted practice is another in the long list of strawmen that direct attention away from the erroneous assertion made by some that "there is no medical benefit" to circumcision.

Rick

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

Mageth

Thanks! I'll take that as a retraction of this previous statement:
...
Had you first said, studies posted by Rick do indicate, then I would have had no argument there. However, you said, there is substantial evidence, which you have now restated, that there are only indications.

Substantial (from dictionary.com): 1) Of, relating to, or having substance; material.

The studies Rick posted do constitute substantial evidence, the substantial evidence presented by the studies does indicate...; I don't think the second statement invalidates the first statement.

Perhaps you're confusing this usage of substantial with another of its usages: large in size, value or importance.

And please don't chide me for not taking other posts into consideration, when the above, clearly states your summary conclusion of this dicussion.

Perhaps my conclusion on Rick's posted evidence, which is part of this discussion, but not on the general subject of this discussion, which appears to be on whether neonatal male circumcision is justified in light of all evidence and arguments. I've stated several times now that I lean towards it not being justified when considering all arguments/evidence.

How disingenuous! You approached me... And thanks for confirming my earlier suggestion that you indeed, have not read much of this thread...

I approached you? Our first interaction on this thread was where you responded to a post I directed at Corwin. And am I in "time out" now for not reading every post in the thread?

And about your implication of "emotions" being involved in my response... that too has been covered in-depth, earlier... and without a specific example to back your "emotion" claim, I shall let it pass. I have detailed facts here as much as anyone else, and I have provided a working link to every single one of them.

I don't recall naming you as one who made emotional responses. Do you think you have?

So, in my summary, it is clear that many here remain skeptical of and at odds with these mostly inaccessible, thus unverifiable studies... like it or not, until the position statements of Rick's own professional organizations change their official positions, and back up his opinions, he seems to remain in opposition to ALL of them.

It's fine to be skeptical of the conclusions of studies unless and until they can be verified, but some of what I've seen here has gone far beyond skepticism - more like outright dismissal and derision without even considering verification.

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

brighid

I have a question about the incidence of penial cancer - could it possibly be that the lower incidence of penial cancer versus vulvar cancer are because of neonatal circumcision, thereby demonstrating the benefit indicated in medical research?

Brighid

Amen-Moses

So explain why Denmark has lower per capita rates of penile cancer than the US when they have a circumcised figure of less than 1%? In fact the differences in cancer rates around the world have no relation whatsoever to circumcision rates!

It is also worth mentioning that breast cancer rates are far higher in men than penile cancer rates but we don't remove those useless male mammary glands at birth do we?

Amen-Moses

brighid

Woe dude – I was asking a question in a very honest and inquiring way … my goodness …

I am not sure there is any easy answer and there are many factors that contribute to cancer in any part of the body, and therefore many factors are relevant when making an accurate determination in regard to causation: such as diet, exposure to environmental carcinogens, exercise, genetic factors, sexual practice (many partners vs. few, protected vs. unprotected sex). I think those factors are especially relevant when discussing cancer and this topic. I would be curious to know if the different standards of sexual health education in Europe vs. the United States help to decrease the chance of reproductive cancers in men and women. This seems to be a probable factor and may logically pose a problem when attempting to examine the impact of circumcision (it’s benefits and detriments) in regard to different populations of people that have different environmental, genetic and lifestyle factors that would contribute to the variance in disease occurrences.

Brighid

Dr Rick

Hi Brighid; the answer to your question is sort-of yes and no.

The much lower penile cancer rates in circumcised men compared with intact ones is by itself a benefit, albeit a small one as penile cancers are rare. It has been opined by some that good foreskin hygiene would be just as efficacious as circumcision in preventing penile malignancies, but supporting data is lacking.

Superficial penile and vulvar cancers can be treated by laser, surgery or radiotherapy, but when the cancer infiltrates and/or the tumor displays an aggressive histology, a partial or total amputation of the penis or female external genitalia has to be performed.

Penile cancer rates are a fraction of vulvar cancer's even though the majority of men in the world are intact, so factors other than circumcision probably account for most of the difference between penile and vulvar cancer rates.

Male circumcision is not the surgical equivalent of vulvectomy. The vulva is all of the external female genitalia (ie. most of what you will see if you look between your legs with a mirror) including the clitoris, mons pubis, labia majora and minora, and the vaginal vestibule; removal of all of these organs, as is done in female genital mutilation or "female circumcision," is equivalent to amputation of the penis and scrotum, leaving only the scrotal contents in place.

Rick

Dr Rick

Doing so has now made you a target for all sorts of insults and strawman arguments on this thread. Rick

Dr Rick

Scand J Urol Nephrol 2000. Etiology of squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. Dillner J, von Krogh G, Horenblas S, Meijer CJ. Microbiology & Tumor Biology Center, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.

"...circumcision neonatally, but not after the neonatal period, was associated with a 3-fold decreased risk [of penile carcinoma]..."

Rick

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