Dr Rick

This is a misrepresentation of the AAP policy statement which reads:

Circumcision policy statement. American Academy of Pediatrics. Task Force on Circumcision. 1999
Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. If a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided.

There are medical reasons in favour of male circumcision which include decreased risks of malignancies and infection transmission, but there are also risks. The real question is not, "are there any benefits?" to the procedure but rather, "do the benefits outweigh the risks?"

Posts that contain self-agrandizing claims of personal experience "with all sorts of penises" and arbitrary demands for others to do homework assignments on statistics are of no value in this debate.

[ February 17, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

tronvillain

So... you'd rather not answer the questions then.

Dr Rick

The questions are a deceitful ploy rather than an earnest attempt at discourse.

For instance, when aleko posted:

"Many of the studies which claim to have found protective effect have P value higher than 0.05 which means "results are not statistically significant".

I responded with a study that included:

"...The incidence of [HIV] seroconversion was...16.7 per 100 person-years among 137 uncircumcised male partners, whereas there were no seroconversions among the 50 circumcised male partners (P&lt;0.001)."

And now I'm being asked too explain the relevance of studies with large "p" values?!

It's your turn, tronvillian: Post a study that statistically demonstrates a net harmful effect from circumcision.

I'm not a defendant on trial. I see no point in responding to off-topic questions about American Cancer Society policies. There are a number of ridiculously emotional and erroneous comments about a complex issue here on this thread. I have posted opposing information to off-set some of the blatantly wrong comments about the protective effects male circumcision has against certain infections and cancers. Whether these advantages outweigh the risks is still open to debate, of course.

So, no, I rather not waste my time answering irrelevant questions; feel free to do so, yourself.

[ February 17, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

tronvillain

<a href="http://www.aap.org/policy/re9850.html" target="_blank">AAP Circumcision Policy Statement</a>

tronvillain

Obviously this is not an argument, but I found it amusing: <a href="http://www.noharmm.org/breen.htm" target="_blank">Breen Cartoon</a>.

Dr Rick

Me, too.

I would agree that circumcison without analgesia and/or anesthetic is cruel and should not be allowed.

Oolon Colluphid

Fair enough. It was just a thought. I have no experience of the scarring from simple circumcision. However, since I apparently have to spell it out , I don't need a fucking textbook to see what hypospadias correction scarring looks like.

BTW, hypospadias has an S at the end -- I'd have thought you'd know that since you know so much else about it.

To repeat, since you apparently weren't listening last time: four of my former girlfriends and my wife all would disagree in the particular case of my own chordee penis. Got it now? Based on my own experience, I am not wrong. Maybe your data sample is much wider than mine though.

No idea. Do a survey. Personally, I had gathered that within reason, thickness was on balance a more important element than length. I can only go on what I've been told, doubtless an unrepresentative sample.

Thank you for stating the completely sodding obvious. Where did you get the idea that I meant that since thickness is important, something the size of a marrow must be bloody wonderful? <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Yeah? Well gosh darn, I hadn't frigging noticed that. I was referring, if you remember, to what personally has been reported as a silver lining to the cloud, not the cloud itself.

[ February 17, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]</p>

Anunnaki

rbochnermd,

I`m probably one of the people making "ridiculously emotional and erroneous comments about a complex issue here on this thread."
After all I`m not a physician like you so what would I know about anything?

I`m sure your time is limited being an important MD and all,but could you please take a moment to tell us what type of physician you are.

Dr Rick

Oh, joy...another irrelevant post.

*sigh* I'm a gastroenterologist: an internist with additional subspecialty training and certification in digestive diseases.

alek0

Oolon Colluphid,
I am not disputing that thickness is more important than length. I just disagree with your general statement that chordee would improve things. This is not always the case.

Rbochnermd,

I think that questions I have asked are relevant.
American cancer society are experts on cancer. If they do not recognise circumcision as preventive measure, I think that there is good reason to beleive that they know better than some bogus researcher from India.

I have also quoted studies which give large p values and large confidence intervals. On which you've had no comment. As I have said before, you can always find papers to support your point of view. What is necessary is to do critical analysis of those results. If there is a paper which claims that there is protective effect of circumcision in cities but not in rural areas and islands, there is something strange in those results, don't you think? It is ridicilous to rely only on statistics, and good scientific study should also give a valid and supportable explanation of the observed results.

I have also quoted a paper on surgical correction of phimosis without circumcision. On which you've had no comment.

I also think that if the estimates of risk are made on the basis of self-reported factors such as number of partners, it is very relevant to ask how reliable that is. Also, amount of foreskin removed is very relevant if Langerhan's cells play a role in virus transmission.

I have also posted papers on complications of circumcision, which you have decided to ignore.

But the most important question is how STD risk justifies circumcision of infants?