ybnormal

So, "whatever benefits circumcision offers..." (for HIV protection)
are then diminished further,
if circumcision is delayed maybe 20 years,
when he MAY become sexually active before,
his monogamous marriage for life,
when both issues of circumcision and HIV,
pretty much become
moot.

From the referenced SOURCE in my initial post on page 3:
"What They Never Told You About Male Genital Mutilation"(MGM)
(excerpts)
Clearly, there is something other than medicine going on here.

The 1999 report of the American Academy of Pediatrics task force on circumcision said:

"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however these data are not sufficient to recommend [it]."

The word "potential" in this context means "proposed but unproven."

On the basis of over a century of similarly ambiguous, sloppy, value-laden and selectively publicized research, the high priests of American medicine have successfully promoted and defended their idiosyncratic practice of genital surgery on six generations of normal, healthy, non-consenting boys,

repeatedly indicting, but never managing to convict the foreskin for one malady after another.

SOURCE (excerpts)
HIV is only the most recent example of this pattern.

Despite medicine's most strenuous efforts however, MGM, the USA's most common surgical procedure, remains in search of a disease.

The same paragraph, with my emphasis added...

RESULTS: We find no significant differences between circumcised and uncircumcised men in their likelihood of contracting sexually transmitted diseases. However, uncircumcised men appear slightly more likely to experience sexual dysfunctions, especially later in life.[/quote]


Perhaps I should thank rbochnermd for continuing to confirm my SOURCE regarding
a century of similarly ambiguous... research by American medicine.

no significant differences, does not appear and negligible, rbochnermd?

Surely a physician, and more surely a biased physician, with access to locating every medical study ever conceived, can find more compelling reasons for

this:

SOURCE (excerpts)
Naturally, this frequently provokes an erection.

Some physicians deliberately provoke erections in order to judge the "cutoff line" and to aid in the surgery itself.

In other words, in the infant's brand new, wide-open, pre-verbal consciousness, this is his first sexual experience: a torturous nightmare.


My initial post quoted Dr. Kellogg advising America in 1888 that, circumcision is a remedy for masturbation in small boys.

It is strange that we still allow 'physicians' to essentially masturbate (deliberately provoke erections) little boys, with a medical excuse that flourished as a remedy to stop little boys from doing it themselves.

It is also not lost on me, that a present day description such as, his first sexual experience: a torturous nightmare, is tragically similar to Dr. Kellogg's hundred year old plan for pain as punishment with circumcision's effect upon the mind of an innocent and helpless baby.

What these 'physicians' are allowed to get away with daily, for the money no less, would be stopped dead cold by your local Humane Society, were it attempted on any other animal on the planet.

Clearly, there is something other than medicine going on here.

atrahasis

Hey,

Circumcision is not just a Gods sign to mark his people. It is according to Exodus 4 sort of way of relieving God/making him happy; a ramson.

[ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: Black Moses ]</p>

MrDarwin

Ah, a debate I just can't resist entering...

I'm fully aware of the benefits of circumcision. For me the debate has a somewhat different slant: whether it's right for parents to subject their child to a medically unnecessary amputation, which has very real and well-documented risks associated with it, to remove a healthy and properly functioning part of the infant's body. For me, it is an issue of consent (or lack thereof), of unnecessary medical procedure, and the rights of a child vs. the rights of his parents. The potential benefits don't enter into the equation at all, because the benefits are small and there is no way to predict who will or will not benefit from the procedure.

[notch up the emotional rhetoric]

I've pointed out previously that a parent could cut the rates of testicular and breast cancer in their children in half by having one testicle removed from every male infant and one breast from every female infant, but for some reason people seem to find this suggestion monstrous...

Do most parents really have their sons circumcised for the medical benefit? I suspect that in many cases (because I've heard more than one set of parents justify it this way) the parents do it because the father is circumcised. The parents (especially the mother) are either squeamish about having an uncircumcised infant, or want the child to be "like Daddy". Try it sometime. Ask a parent who is expecting, or who has just had their son circumcised, what the reason for it was. How many of them will say "because I don't want my son to get penile cancer"? How many of them are even aware that the risk of contracting certain STDs is slightly lower in circumcised men?

[ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]</p>

nyx

Rick,

If circumcision provides no significant difference, why does the medical profession in the US continue to practice it? Are the recent studies an attempt to justify a social practice without medical foundation?

If it does provide some dramatic benefit, then why is it not a problem in the rest of the world where it's not commonly practiced? Shouldn't we see a much greater incidence of urinary tract infections and STD's in Italy, for example?

Nyx

Dr Rick

The one JAMA study did not find a significant difference in STD rates, but since then over a dozen <a href="http://www.cancer.org/eprise/main/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_New_Study_Shows_Benefit_of_Male_Circumcis ion" target="_blank">studies</a> have shown that male circumcision protects against penile cancers, cervical cancers, HIV, human papilloma virus, syphillis, chancroid, gonorrhea, and urinary tract infections. These conditions are all more likely to occur in populations that don't practice male circumcison.

Medical studies are rarely in 100% agreement, whether one is studying heart disease, diabetes, or circumcison, so its not all that alarming that the JAMA study results are not in concordance with the others. Nonetheless, the overhelming preponderance of evidence shows that circumcision confers the health benefits listed above. These benefits must be weighed against the complications of the procedure in making an objective deicision about circumcision.

The differences in the health status of intact versus circumcised males is not "dramatic" except in areas where HIV is endemic because most men do just fine either way. The benefits of circumcision and the risks are both relatively small.

Rick

Dr Rick

What evidence do you have to support the cause and effect you assert here?

Rick

Dr Rick

If so, it's one hell of a conspiracy. The article I linked to above came out of Spain. Other positive studies have come from Sweden, Britain, Uganda, Kenya, the US, Southeast Asia and a host of international health organizations.

Rick

Dr Rick

Well, I'm impressed; Congratulations on being so well-informed and up-to-date. I'm a doctor, and yet I have to go review the literature before proclaiming myself "aware" of the pertinent facts in discussing an area of medicine in which I don't practice.

Stiil, you might try reading up on the subject if for no other reason than to confirm the correctness of your beliefs.

<strong> Here's where some study could also help you. If you'll read a little bit about medical decision making, you'll learn that one can predict who will or will not most likely benefit from any well-studied medical intervention including circumcision. That's why we do clinical studies.

<strong> It not a good analogy this time, either.

The procedures you propose are made without supporting evidence that the risks and harm from them would outweigh the benefits. Absent supporting evidence, there is no reason to implement your suggestions. This is not the case with male circumcision, where the risks and benefits have been extensively studied.

<strong> Your suspicions have been borne-out. Clinical studies have shown that most parents do choose to circumcise their boys for other than medical reasons; however, what this has to do with an objective discussion of the benefits and risks of circumcison is not clear from your post.

Rick

[ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

MrDarwin

Rick, I guess these are my biggest issues when it comes to circumcision:

Do I believe that parents have carte blanche when it comes to the medical treatment of their children? I don't. Where do I draw the line? Good question. It's a gray area.

But do I believe that the medically unnecessary amputation of a healthy and properly functioning organ, performed on a person who is incapable of giving consent--much less understand the possible benefits or risks of such procedures--is justifiable? I have concluded it is not, and I'm always surprised that so many people believe that it is.

MrDarwin

Actually, it's condescension that I find tedious. Next time I'll know better than to defer to you as a medical professional when it comes to subjects involving medicine.

Come to think of it, I'll know better than to discuss such subjects with you in the first place, since you are apparently omniscient to the point of knowing what I have or haven't read about the subject.

(edited to respond to this:

On re-reading our interaction I probably should have made more clear that I'm talking about routine circumcision... although I suppose Rick will find some reason to deride me again, this time for observing that circumcision is sometimes medically necessary.)

[ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]</p>