ybnormal

Gurdur:
...everything I see indicates to me that rbochnermd has the well-being of people at heart very strongly

But which people? Unknown adults, and some potential partners of those unknown adults in the years 2020 to 2050?

If you can claim that my use of the term "medical industry" implies the "entire" medical industry, can I not then claim that your well-being of people implies all people? I think not, in this instance either. Maybe you want to think that, but it is certainly not true.

rb shows NO concern for real infants with real names TODAY, who suffer directly from rb's seemingly personal beliefs and convictions.

IMO, rb is, and rb represents the only real problem. Yes, rb may have the well-being of people at heart, but it is clearly NOT all people, and more specifically, NOT all little boys.

Folks like rb are advocating the continued, routine "harm" to real children now, for some abstract, possibly potential, unknown benefit to a fewer number of unknown adults in the distant future.

Please tell me if that is not a true statement.


rb admitted:
Again, the debate is still unsettled,

Then STOP the routine "procedure" now, until it IS settled.

Isn't that what medicine usually does in such cases... STOP it?

At least, advise against it? Why not this "procedure"?

That "unsettled" comment was an explicit admission that there is NO medical PROOF. There has NEVER been medical PROOF for over 100 years.

rb continues to make my point, AND, the point of all the so-called anti-circ sites, which incidentally, quote the major American medical organizations for their arguments against circumcision.

Someone please show me where rb is not doing exactly what I said earlier... that, for some strange reason, pro-circ folks like rb, seem to insist that this "procedure" continue, WHILE they search for the same elusive medical PROOF they needed 100 years ago.

Someone please show me, that when rb admits there is no settled PROOF, that the above statement is untrue...

It matters not, whether rb is right or not... medicine has claimed to be right all along... that IS NOT the question here... the question is whether or not rb is doing exactly what the anti-circ sites claim has been going on for decades in the medical profession...

Someone please show me, that what rb is doing here, is not precisely what the anti-circ sites claim rb is doing; searching for some reason to continue this common surgical procedure.

Anyone?


rb continued:
but it now hinges upon whether or not the demonstratable benefits of the procedure outweigh its risks and potential for harm.

It doesn't just now hinge on such a demonstration... it has hinged on the same medical need-for-demonstrable proof for over 100 years... what has changed, while how many boys have bled and screamed? 100 Million?

Are we not, still waiting for some future proof?

Waiting now, on rb's latest studies to "settle" this debate? The assertion that it only now hinges on more study is as disingenuous as disingenuous gets.

It has been clearly demonstrated here, if not proven, that doctors have NEVER proven ANY medical benefits that outweigh its risks and potential for harm.

And, nothing, could be more disingenuous than insinuating that "harm" (an infant's agony) is potential.

The harm is not "potential"... rb's medical PROOF is "potential", as it has been "potential" for over 100 years.

Was that a slip of the typing fingers, or intentional... that, "potential for harm"?

Every major medical advice organization I have seen, says in essence, the exact same thing, as exampled below...

<a href="http://kidshealth.org/parent/system/surgical/circumcision.html" target="_blank">The Nemours Foundation</a>

Every single medical site... possible advantages vs. THE problems

There is ALWAYS a medical benefits disclaimer...

There is NEVER a medical harm disclaimer...

Why is that?

One of the last sane

Not to mention hangnails, infections, blood-blisters under the nails. It would also stop you scratching yourself or others. Damn Corwin, I think you're onto something! Fingernails are an anachronism anyway.

Seriously though - good comparison.

One of the last sane

Another question - why neonatal circumcision? Newborn baby boys wear diapers for crissake, surely you are asking for infection to create a wound inside a warm, usually wet environment which regularly gets exposed to loose excreta (if Mom nurses anyway). Would it not make a whole lot more sense to delay circumcision until the kid is at least out of diapers? But by then I guess he might have got fond of his foreskin...

2tadpoles

Not only that, but the foreskin of a neonate is adhered to the glans. So the skin has to be torn away (i.e., "peeled") from the penis before it can be cut off.

If they waited to do it until the male was older, at least the foreskin would be retractable.

2tadpoles

Although that makes sense, it is the complete opposite in my family. My ex-husband is circumcised but our son isn't. My husband is circumcised but our son isn't. My husband is the only male in his immediate family who is circumcised; his father, uncles, and grandfather are all intact. He is circumcised for no other reason than he was born in the midwest in the 70's.

On a side note, I think it's terrible that most people don't think before performing a surgical procedure on their newborn. They do it "just because." These are people like my former neighbor who modified his child's body to look like his, and for no other reason.... yet freaked out when his son wanted to get his ear pierced.

Dr Rick

Thank you for asking.

Yes, I probably would have him circumcised for the same reason I would probably have him vaccinated against polio: the evidence for both suggests that the benefits outweigh the potential for harm.

On the other hand, if his mom felt strongly that he shouldn't be circumcised, I can't see getting myself worked into a lather over circumcision: it just isn't that big of a deal.

Male circumcision protects a healthy boy and his future wife and offspring against certain infections and cancers. It's reasonable to circumcise a boy, but by no means is it mandatory or essential. I feel very strongly that children should be immunized against polio; the reasons for circumcising a boy are much less compelling because the benefit-to-risk ratios, though significant, are smaller.

There are many things that profoundly impact the well-being of a child; circumcision is not one of them. Circumcision's overall effect is beneficial but relatively minimal.

<strong> I genuinely have no idea; my collegues and I discuss a great many things, but I cannot recall the last time we talked about circumcision.

My opinions are my own. I don't circumcise my patients. I've never performed nor published research on the procedure.

<strong> I support and am a lifetime member and/or recognised contributer to The Nature Conservancy, Amnesty International, the ACLU, Save the Children, Colorado Animal Rescue, The National Center for Science Education, and the ASPCA. It would be fair to say that I "vigourously" support these groups and their objectives; the inference you made regarding my beliefs is at best a misinterpretation. I donate neither my money nor my name to the cause of male circumcision.

<strong> So you're looking for "certainty?" You'd somehow be reassured if someone posted the right answers?

Physicians don't have the right answers; we went to school and stayed-up for many nights to learn that neither we nor anyone else does, but that's not an admission you'll get from some of us.

I know a lot; in fact, I know an awful lot. I also know that the tremendous faith that is placed in us physicians is unwarranted; in times, it scares me how much people depend upon us.

I also know that most people don't want to hear or read any of this.

At best, we have data, often reams of it, and sometimes it's contradictory in nature. Add to that our human frailties and biases, and it's not suprising that our conclusions are not completely harmonious.

We are not gods, and very little that we say is certain. Good doctors, in my opinion, recognise and acknowledge uncertainty. If it is cerainty that you seek, go to the Baptist Boards, Answer in Genesis, or any of the anti-circ sites.

What I'm posting on this thread is what I know, and how I've interpreted what I know.

<strong> I have gone to great lengths to make it clear that very little in science or medicine or what I post is conclusive.

<strong> You've stumped me. I know of nothing in science that is "tied up" or certain. Everything in science and medicine is open to question and re-evaluation.

Everything.

Is the wheel now being re-invented because of the recent findings in Chad that challenge "Lucy" as our common ancestor? Was the dig that discovered an older hominid a re-invention of the wheel or an earnest attempt to further our knowledge?

<strong> You rank me, then; I have no source to rely upon except the peer-reviewed literature.

<strong> Thanks; it was a blast.

Rick

Mark_Chid

If your son wishes to protect himself and any female partners from 'certain infections and cancers' then let him decide as an adult to be circumcised.

It is not circumcision per se that is wrong, it is INFANT circumcision. The deliberate, irreversible mutilation of a healthy child for no good reason. It is child abuse and there is NO excuse for it, not even religion. You are taking away your child's right to choose for himself and thats plain WRONG.

Vaccination vs polio does not comapre because there is no mutilation and avaccinated child has lost nothing in later life. Also the benfits aply to the child. the 'benefits' you claim for circumcision don't apply until adulthood, so it can wait!

Dr Rick

Unfortunately, whatever benefits circumcision offers is diminished if the procedure is delayed until adulthood:

AIDS 1999 Feb 25;13(3):399-405

Age of male circumcision and risk of prevalent HIV infection in rural Uganda.

Kelly R, Kiwanuka N, Wawer MJ, Serwadda D, Sewankambo NK, Wabwire-Mangen F, Li C, Konde-Lule JK, Lutalo T, Makumbi F, Gray RH.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether circumcision performed on postpubertal men affords the same level of protection from HIV-1 acquisition as circumcisions earlier in childhood.

A total of 6821 (Ugandan) men aged 15-59 years were surveyed and venous blood samples were tested for HIV-1 and syphilis. Age at circumcision was dichotomized into men who were circumcised before or at age 12 years (prepubertal) and men circumcised after age 12 years (postpubertal). Postpubertal circumcised men were also subdivided into those reporting circumcision at ages 13-20 years and &gt; or = 21 years. RESULTS: HIV-1 prevalence was 14.1% in uncircumcised men, compared with 16.2% for men circumcised at age &gt; or = 21 years, 10.0% for men circumcised at age 13-20 years, and 6.9% in men circumcised at age &lt; or = 12 years. On bivariate analysis, lower prevalence of HIV-1 associated with prepubertal circumcision was observed in all age, education, ethnic and religious groups...CONCLUSIONS: Prepubertal circumcision is associated with reduced HIV risk, whereas circumcision after age 20 years is not significantly protective against HIV-1 infection...

Similar findings have been found for reduction of cancer risk by circumcision.

Rick

Mark_Chid

Have you any idea whatsoever WHY this might be true? It strikes me that cultural factors might well skew these figures - maybe those circumcised in childhood tend to come from different cultural backgrounds to those circumcised as adults. I certainly can't imagine any physical reason.

Anyway - its still a violation of the child's right to choose for himself.

Infinity Lover

Sircumsision, eek!

The number one thread in the science section...

...I hope they never dig up this civilization.

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

[ September 02, 2002: Message edited by: Infinity Lover ]</p>