Stranger than paradise

Maybe we could get to the bottom of this if the medical studies were not weighing the benefits of removing healthy errogenous tissue vs. the risks of the surgery and/or at some point in time that healthy tissue becoming diseased. It seems that the medical info and studies are usually completly lacking in adressing the question of the benefit of HAVING that anatomy and the benefit of the function of the anatomy. It is only reasonable to weigh the risks and benefits of amputation, if the part in question has no value, but since it DOES have value- that has to factor into the equasion.

The human prepuce has a function and is part of a very perfect natural design. Does the risk of rare disorders outweight the absolute risk of losing that function, errogeny and physical integrity and having the internal aspects of your sex organ permenantly externalized? Do your medical studies address the benefit of HAVING, or only the benefit of being robbed of this healthy part of your body and the superstitious belief that it will inevidably become diseased?

The risks of the surgery itself, which are always avoidable by NOT doing the surgery, are high as any risk of naturally occuring disorders. How does one outweigh the other, expecially in terms of medical ethics. For example- meatal stenosis occuring in 10% of circumcised boys, and ONLY in circumcised boys. All of the risks of circumcision were intentionally caused by a physician preforming an unethical surgery. How does that figure with "First do not harm."?

Dr Rick

They aren't "my medical studies;" They are the labors of hundreds of earnest physicians working world-wide trying to determine the best way to maintain health and prevent disease, not "rob" people of body parts.

The finding that certain diseases are more prevelant in uncircumcised males is not a "superstitious belief" nor considered "inevitable;" it is the result of several clinical studies.

In a well-deigned clinical study, the benefits and risks of intervention are compared with the risks and benefits of the alternative(s)under consideration. Most of the circumcision studies compare circumcised males with non-circumcised males, so any benefit from the latter state should become apparent through these clinical trials.

What benefit(s) are you hypothesizing the foreskin confers that outweighs the benefits of circumcision that clinical studies have so far missed? What scientific evidence is there that the foreskin confers benefits in humans?

<strong> This is the subject of ongoing debate and continued study, not a foregone conclusion. It's not at all clear that the increased risk of HIV aquisition, penile cancers, and UTI's are less than the risks of circumcision. What is your evidence that "the risks of the surgery...are high as any risk of naturally occuring disorders?"

<strong> By weighing the risks and benefits; this is how most medical interventions are evaluated, be they surgical or pharmacological

<strong> All of the complications from vaccinations arise only because physicians intentionally administer vaccinations, but that does not mean that all vaccination administrations are unethical. On the contrary, failure to administer appropriate vaccinations would be harmful and considered unethical.

[ February 25, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

Dr Rick

I initially posted another sarcastic reply here but realized both that one and the prior one were rude; I owe you an apology.

I feel like I've been posting in circles on this thread, and vented my frustrations on you. I am sorry.

Rick

[ February 25, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

Stranger than paradise

The BENEFIT is the benefit of the doubt!

It is the benefit that the parts of our sex organ we are born with, are a part of us and are meant to be there, that they do have a function and a value in and of themselves. The wholeness and supple yielding and the genius of nature is not something to be mocked and tossed in the garbage because of a trumped up new theory by circumcised scientists who do not know the value of the errogeny and function in question.

Would you likewise argue that gouging out left eyeballs has a scientific standing because it is proven to reduce the risk of cataracts by 50%? Or do you think binocular vision and a two eyed face might have value to all the people who would never have gotten a cataract in their left eye? Does medecine acknowledge that people might LIKE having two eyes, and that they might not like to be tied to a table unanesthetized and have the most sensitive piece of their penis crushed off at a time in their life thay have no power to stop it? Or that even if a person did get a cataract, that gouging out the eye would not be a cure to it- eye gouging as preventative medecine is upsurd.

Don't mock the analogy- it is intentionally upsurd, just as your assertation that ruining the mechanical function and removing 50% of the errogenous skin and permenantly externalizing the internal aspect of the male sex organ is an upsurd trade off for the miniscule number of things that could potentially got wrong with that healthy tissue for a very small minority of people.

Your passion to disbelieve the value of the intact male sex organ is begining to look patheticly sexually unaware. "Don't look behind the curtain!" There you are- cowering behind the biased attitudes of this circumcising medical culture. Would you ever try to make this argument to a tablefull of Swedes? Or do you think those big guys with unscarred penises would just laugh you right back home.

Debating you is a bore- because you are in denial that the very crucial center center of the debate even exists. And that is, the sexual value of the prepuce. When you finally figure it out- lets see if you would give it up on the 1 in 1000 chance that it could prevent and easily treatable UTI.

Dr Rick

I have never once on this thread said that I am in favor of routine neonatal circumcision but have presented evidence to support its use and counter some of the anti-circ arguments that were posted. The issues surrounding circumcision are still unresolved and the subject of continuing debate and study. I don't know if its benefits outweigh its risks, but the above poster appears to think he does. Whether or not he has a rational argument to make in support of his position remains to be seen.

[ February 26, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

Neanderthal

When it comes to many in the anti circ crowd, if you aren't with them, you are against them. If you aren't anti circ then you must be pro circ.

The anti circ cause is like a religion. A lot of what is believed is taken on faith because it comes from someone else in the anti circ congregation. When reality doesn't seem to fit with what is already believed, reality must be attacked rather than what is believed.

Betz

Corwin

When it comes to most in the pro-circ crowd, you're dealing either with doctors who have performed the procedure over and over again, or parents who had the procedure done to their children. Neither one wants to face the fact that they've mutilated children for what are frequently either wrong, or mind-bogglingly stupid reasons. But we've already been over this....

Dr Rick

Etiology of squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl 2000;(205):189-93

Dillner J; von Krogh G; Horenblas S; Meijer CJ
Microbiology & Tumor Biology Center, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.

"...Strong risk factors [for penile cancer]identified by case-control studies included phimosis, chronic inflammatory conditions such as balanopostitis and lichen sclerosus et atrophicus...circumcision neonatally, but not after the neonatal period, was associated with a 3-fold decreased risk."

[ February 26, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

Morat

I haven't been involved in this, for very good reasons. But I have to agree with BetzAza's comment's on the anti-circ crowd, or at least the more vocal members.

They use the same sorts of emotional appeals I've become accustometed to from the worst pro-lifers and creationists. From "true believers".

Arguments by bloody pictures (as if any medical procedure, whether necessary or cosmetic looks any prettier than the most barbaric torture). Arguments by emotional appeal. Claims of bias because the authors of a study are Christian, nor not American, or pro-circ. Arguments by everything but facts, and reason, and thought.

There are good points on the anti-circ side. Why on earth do you insist on arguing in such a self-defeating way?

I have a hard time taking seriously someone who throws out a "Look how horrible this procedure is! You're doing it to BABIES!".

That's on the level of people throwing red-paint filled dolls at women entering Planned Parenthood. You're not even attempting to argue rationally.

Personally, I sit the fence on circumcision. I don't have a child, so it's not a choice I have to face. I'm circumcized, and don't see a real problem with it. However, I find some of the arguments from the anti-circ crowd to be compelling enough to make circumcizing my child, should I ever have one, a matter of far more thought and deliberation than before.

In other words: I haven't decided. So I'm not biased towards anything but wanting the facts. And I have to tell you, that after 8 pages, I get the real sneaking suspicion which side is relying on facts, and which side is relying on emotion.

That's not the way to sway me, at the very least.

GunnerJ

Oh, and aren't I lucky to have you tell me why I think the way I do! Thank you, my liberator!

This type of statement reminds me of the Stalinist "vangaurd party" idea. "The only reason the proleteriat isn't revolting is because they're unenlightened, and they need us to show them the way!"