Neanderthal

Do the math yourself, if you're capable. The U.S. population is approx. 281,000,000. Assuming half are males, that makes 140,5000,000 males. If there are going to be 1200 new cases in 2002, that is 1/117,083/year not per lifetime.

"Climbing the penile shaft" and curvature are not the same thing.

</strong>

According to my urologist, this is simply antic circ BS.

</strong>

Where did I say that I was glad that I was circumcised *because* my friends were? Where did I say that I was *concerned* about my peer's penises? You need to better understand what read before you go off on a tangent. What I said was that I wished that I had been circumcised as an infant *since* all my friends were anyway (and obviously *since* I had to be later on anyway).

</strong>

Rant and rave? Biased? Jeez, there's nothing like reading into something what isn't true. FYI, I'm neutral regarding infant circumcision. I think circumcision has some advantages and some disadvantages. I don't think it makes much difference one way or the other, especially now that the circ rate has dropped to the point that it isn't so unusual to be uncircumcised.

So, do you protest routine immunizations? They are painful, too, and there is some evidence that there are some untoward side effects which make some of them not so good as routine.

Betz

Anunnaki

Welcome to the board BetzAza,but you`re dead wrong.

Frogsmoocher said:
You replied:
Well you`re wrong and I`m living proof. My penis developed a downward curve due to a tight circumcision. The circumcision was so tight in fact that half my fucking nutsack climbs up the underside of my penis when erect.
Try and figure out what I`m saying here OK. My penis bends down when erect and the skin on the underside is VERY tight. So tight in fact that it drags about half my nutsack up my shaft. What this means is that the skin is already stretched beyond any natural elasticity and has to rely on scrotal skin. Would you like me to say it again?
What part of this don`t you fucking idiotic circumcision apologists understand? Do you need photos and diagrams?

[ February 23, 2002: Message edited by: Anunnaki ]</p>

tronvillain

BetzAza:
Obviously the risk can't be interpreted to actually be 1/100 000 per year, since it is essentially only found in those over fifty.

alek0

Betzaza,

if chordee as a circumcision risk is anti-circ BS, why is it listed as possible complication in the statement of American Academy of Pediatrics?

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

I think your urologist should do a bit more reading before making statements like that.

2tadpoles

Betz said:
[quote}"Climbing the penile shaft" and curvature are not the same thing.[/quote]

I never said they were. I was pointing out that doctors do not know how large the adult penis will be when they circumcise a newborn. Taking too much skin can cause complications, one of which is chordee.

As a former health care worker, I am very aware that physicians, even specialists, have their own biases and are often not as informed as they would like you to believe. Since urologists can make money off performing circumcisions, it's doubtful that many are openly against the procedure.

Read your first post. You said that you wished you had been circumcised as an infant, especially since all your friends were. That suggests that you the appearance of your penis as compared to your friends mattered to you.

Evidently. Maybe the way you phrase things leads to confusion.... hm?

And this implies that the status of your friends' penises mattered to you.

So you agree that most people circ for cultural or cosmetic reasons, and that one previous benefit to circumcision was to look like everyone else? Those are not good reasons to circumcise, and people are slowly beginning to realize that.

No, I don't protest immunizations. Immunizations have proven health benefits, even though there are possible side effects. Routine circumcision has NO proven health benefits, and I've never heard tell of a baby boy dying from not being circumcised, although I've heard of many who've died from not being immunized.

It seems the only things that circumcision has been reported to prevent (not proven, though) are penile cancer and some STD's. Baby boys don't normally get penile cancer or STD's. There is no reason to routinely circumcise infants. They can make their own decisions, for their own bodies, when they are older. It will be an informed decision, and can be done with proper anesthesia and post-operative pain medication.

Dr Rick

Nothing in medicine is ever "proven."

Nonetheless, the evidence that neonatal circumcision decreases the risks of certain infections and cancers is well-accepted by the medical community. The older studies and editorials cited by some posters suggesting that this might not be the case have been supplanted with recent large scale studies demonstrating clear benefit, many within the past 36 months. Whether the benefits outweigh the risks is still a matter of debate:

What is not clear is if the benefits are conferred when circumcision is performed later in life. A recent study of 5507 men in rural Uganda (Male Circumcision and HIV Acquisition and Transmission: Cohort Studies in Rakai, Uganda. Rakai Project Team, Gray et. al.. AIDS, 2000, 14:2371-2381) found that circumcision protected against HIV aquisition, but this effect was observed only in men circumcised before puberty and not in men circumcised later. Other investigators have made similar observations.

Circumcising adult males does not decrease the risk of urinary tract infections in infants:

The mutations that lead to malignant transformation can occur years or even decades before the malignancy becomes apparent, so deferring circumcision until adulthood could also negate some of its anti-cancer effect:

That cancer-risk is particularly increased in men who have experienced phimosis:

A controlled trial enrolling 2000 men is planned in Kenya to address the issue of HIV prevention through circumcision of adults. Of those who consent to enrollment, half will be circumcised and the two groups studied prospectively for differences in rates of HIV acquistion. Results should be available within about 2 years after the study is initiated.

[ February 24, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

2tadpoles

So why does NO medical organization recommend RIC? On a side note, I used to work with an ob/gyn who refused to perform circumcisions on the infants he delivered. RIC is not accepted by most of the world. It's an American obsession.

So which is it? Is it a clear benefit, or a potential benefit. There is a difference between the two. One implies that boys WILL benefit from the surgery, while the other implies that boys MIGHT benefit from the surgery. MIGHT is not good enough for me, personally.

[quote]No studies on these poor uncircumcised boys who get severe UTI's address the fact that far too many parents and health care providers do not know how to care for an intact penis, which may be the CAUSE of many of these infections. My own firstborn son was nearly a victim of an uneducated physician assistant who intended to force the prepuce back during an exam. I stopped him, of course, and he became quite huffy. Since the foreskin is adhered to the glans in young boys, pushing it back will create wounds which are wonderful breeding ground for bacteria.

Most studies don't address the fact that many of the intact boys who are treated in hospitals for UTI were already sick or premature to begin with, and were already in the hospital. Often, that is why they are intact.... because they are too frail or ill to circ.

They also don't mention that breastfed babies are less likely to contract UTI's. Yet the hospitals push formula on new mothers at every turn, and often give terrible breastfeeding support. It's hard to learn to nurse when you're shoved out the door in 24 hours.

This page addresses quite a bit about UTI's in newborn boys: <a href="http://www.infocirc.org/uti2.htm" target="_blank">http://www.infocirc.org/uti2.htm</a>

The author concludes, "It is misleading to speak of a medical 'benefit' of a procedure when serious complications occur at a rate far greater than the problem the procedure was meant to address, when less invasive but effective interventions are available, and when the procedure results in a permanent loss of function."

I concur. A foreskin is not a birth defect. The way I see it, males are born with a protective sheath for a reason.

And as for HIV.... since the countries with the highest HIV rates are pretty much all in Africa, I would speculate that their problems with HIV go way beyond their foreskins. If the number of intact males truly affects the prevalance of HIV in a country, then the HIV rates for other areas of the world should compare to those from Africa.
Countries like Kenya need more money for education and basic needs; not for amputating foreskins.

::edited for format::

[ February 24, 2002: Message edited by: Frogsmoocher ]</p>

Dr Rick

Because it's still debatable whether the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks. This important distinction has been stated several times on this thread.

<strong> The benefits have been clearly demonstrated by many studies, including several posted on this thread, but the benefits may not outweigh the risks.

<strong> There are very few medical decisions that can be stated without the qualifier "might." Your son might avoid a serious infection through vaccination, but he also might die from an adverse reaction to one of them. Almost every medical decision involves a degree of uncertainty.

You're might be increasing the risk that your son will get penile cancer or HIV by not circumcising him. However, that risk might be outweighed by the risks of circumcision.

<strong> What's the point of making an argument in the complete abscence of supporting data? More importantly, how does your mere speculation mitigate the results of a large study?

<strong> Anecdotes aren't especially convincing arguments against objective data.

<strong> That's just plain wrong; it's in premature boys that some of the greatest benefits from circumcision are realized:
Can circumcision prevent recurrent urinary tract infections in hospitalized infants?Clin Pediatr (Phila) 2000 Dec;39(12):699-703  
Cason DL; Carter BS; Bhatia J
Department of Pediatrics, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta 30912-3740, USA.
"Urinary tract infection (UTI) is an uncommon but concerning condition for hospitalized premature infants. A retrospective chart review of all male infants admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) from June 1996 through March 1999 was conducted...Mean gestational age in [the] groups...were similar (29...weeks)...None of the premature infants in the study had a recurrent UTI once a circumcision was performed. Premature uncircumcised males had an increased risk for UTI (Odds Ratio=11.1, 95% CI, 3.3-28.9, p&lt;0.001). Circumcision appears beneficial in reducing the risk for recurrent UTI in these infants"
.
<strong> This is not really on topic; you appear to be shooting-out random arguments that bear no relation to the issue of circumcision.

<strong> What is this reason, and does its outweigh the cancer and infection risks? The link you provided is to an anti-circ site; the author's rants were not subject to peer review, and they are inaccurate.

<strong> This speculation could only be correct if circumcison was the only variable that affected HIV transmision.

<strong> No doubt you'll be one of the keynote speakers at the next International AIDS Conference.

The HIV epidemic needs to be stopped, and some AIDS investigators have provided evidence that circumcision may help do so. Further studies are warranted and in progress.

[ February 24, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

Chrs

I was cut as a newborn and I resent it. (And there are more of us out there than you might imagine...)

Nobody had the right to remove normal, healthy tissue from my body without my consent. Nobody. My foreskin was part of my body and it was mine. Just like my eyes, my hands, my ears. Mine. So, why should parents have the right to amputate a healthy, normal foreskin, but not, say a healthy little toe or a normal earlobe from a child? That makes no sense.

And the fact that the majority of American men are probably happy that they were cut as infants is irrelevant. The fact that the majority don't mind that they were genitally mutilated as babies is no excuse to inflict this harm onto more babies. Just because the majority doesn't want a foreskin is no excuse to deny the minority their intrinsic right to keep theirs.

Of course, the fact that most cut American men claim happiness is largely due to ignorance and familiarity (ignorance of normal male genitals and lifelong familiarity with altered male genitals)...NOT because of any supposed "benefits" to losing an important part of your penis. Circumcision *damages* the penis; it does not improve the penis. It is a harmful procedure whose damaging effects continue for the life of the victim. It is medically unnecessary. And certainly it shouldn't be forced onto babies.

Actually, for all you men who say you're happy you were cut, think deeply about this: many *women* who were genitally mutilated report happiness with their cut status, too. They even demand the same for their daughters. Hmmm....

Females have a federal law in the US protecting their right to enjoy complete, intact genitals. To deny this same right to males is sexism and therefore wrong.

Every human being has the intrinsic right to keep ALL of his or her healthy, normal body parts. We just have to bring American society and law into line with this most basic human-rights concept.

2tadpoles

Comments such as these aren't really necessary, but if it makes you feel superior to shoot 'em out, go on ahead. I've worked with more than one egotistical physician, and I know all about their need to make other people seem stupid.

I won't respond to any more of your posts. I'm sure that will make both of us happier.