Circumcising USA

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Should circumcision be routine in the USA?

  • Yes

    Votes: 76 38.0%
  • No

    Votes: 106 53.0%
  • Undecided

    Votes: 18 9.0%

  • Total voters
    200
It's a human rights issue as well as a medical issue.

See, these lines are just classic, and they keep me coming back here again and again, long after the rest of SDN has rolled their eyes and moved on to more important threads (like that "poop hotdog" one).

Please, keep posting. :thumbup:

Presumably you never bothered to read the link I've posted from the British Medical Association:
The law and ethics of male circumcision - guidance for doctors

If you had, you'd see that they say the following:
"Doctors must consider whether their decisions impact on a person's human rights and, if so, whether the interference can be justified."

They actually go on to list the articles of the European Convention on Human Rights that are relevant.

The British Medical Association take this whole thing seriously - why don't you? If someone described the removal of a baby girl's prepuce as a human rights issue, would you scoff at them too?

Members don't see this ad.
 
The British Medical Association take this whole thing seriously - why don't you?

Because I'm American, and the Consitution doesn't mention foreskin.

Or maybe because it's really silly.

One of those. Definetely one of those.
 
Because I'm American, and the Consitution doesn't mention foreskin.

Or maybe because it's really silly.

One of those. Definetely one of those.

The Constitution doesn't mention any other body parts either, but that doesn't mean doctors can cut them off babies.

How about my second question?
"If someone described the removal of a baby girl's prepuce as a human rights issue, would you scoff at them too?"

Do you have a smartass answer for that too? Actually I expect you do.

I can think of a third reason why you resent the notion that people might be against neonatal male circumcision, and keep on posting fatuous messages to defend it despite all the quotes you've seen from the various medical organisations. You're circumcised yourself, and you don't like the idea that there might be something important missing from your penis. The most vigorous defenders of female circumcision are circumcised women, and like I've pointed out before, they use the exact same arguments to defend female circumcision as are used to defend male circumcision.

If you're happy with your equipment, that's great, but what's wrong with letting other people choose for themselves whether or not they want part of their penis removing? Like I said before, adult circumcision hurts less, is less dangerous, and the results are cosmetically better.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Would "circumcising USA" somehow involve Florida?
 
The Constitution doesn't mention any other body parts either, but that doesn't mean doctors can cut them off babies.

Actually, I believe the widespread (and totally accepted) practice of circumcision proves you wrong.


"If someone described the removal of a baby girl's prepuce as a human rights issue, would you scoff at them too?"

I don't care about female circumcision, because (in America) we recognize that this is a barbaric practice, and other than a few random idiot immigrants, it doesn't happen here. What other backward, under-developed countries do is of no concern to me.

You want to know if I consider it a human rights issue? Don't know and don't care. It's not an issue for me at all. In fact, I have no use for the concept of "human rights" in the context you are speaking. I care about constitutional rights, not some largely-ignored B.S. document the UN produced a couple decades ago.

I can think of a third reason why you resent the notion that people might be against neonatal male circumcision, and keep on posting fatuous messages to defend it despite all the quotes you've seen from the various medical organisations. You're circumcised yourself, and you don't like the idea that there might be something important missing from your penis.

:laugh: C'mon, don't steal my argument. I've already told you I think you have a jacked-up cock, which is why you're so worked up over this. You can't just turn it around and say, "Nuh-uh, you have the jacked up penis!"

If you're happy with your equipment, that's great, but what's wrong with letting other people choose for themselves whether or not they want part of their penis removing?

Babies aren't people. Plus adult circumcision uses general anesthesia, which is far more dangerous than the regional block we use for babies. And it costs a whole lot more, and isn't covered by insurance. Essentially your plan would give wealthy people a choice, but burden poor people with an unattractice tube steak.
 
Good choice. I hate to say that I've had the misfortune of assisting in some of these procedures. They were pretty ****ing barbaric. I've never seen babies cry as much during anything else in my life.

:confused:

I've done a few circumcisions (with the attending breathing down my neck, obviously), and the babies didn't cry THAT much, once the penile block was over. They seemed to cry more because they were cold and because they were being handled by strangers. Pop a pacifier in their mouths, cover up their upper half with a blanket, and most of them stopped crying. I've heard kids cry a lot more while getting vaccinated or while taking cough syrup.

By the way, who named this thread anyway? It always makes me think of that Beach Boys song.....
 
I've done a few circumcisions (with the attending breathing down my neck, obviously), and the babies didn't cry THAT much, once the penile block was over. They seemed to cry more because they were cold and because they were being handled by strangers. Pop a pacifier in their mouths, cover up their upper half with a blanket, and most of them stopped crying. I've heard kids cry a lot more while getting vaccinated or while taking cough syrup.

Ditto. I did about a dozen of them as a student. The penile block made them cry a lot, but so did putting them down in the pre-molded "baby tray". A little sucrose syrup in a nipple usually made them sleep through the entire thing.
 
Tired, I did some further research expecting to confirm my arguments and not yours, but instead I found a very convincing nurse who is in full agreement with you. She explains her position in this video. She makes a lot of good points, so along with what you have been saying (particularly about the US constitution, which does NOT mention foreskins even once) I'm going to need to step back and reconsider all this.
 
Tired, I did some further research expecting to confirm my arguments and not yours, but instead I found a very convincing nurse who is in full agreement with you. She explains her position in this video. She makes a lot of good points, so along with what you have been saying (particularly about the US constitution, which does NOT mention foreskins even once) I'm going to need to step back and reconsider all this.

Hillarious!

"Do you want your baby to have an elephant trunk for a penis?!"

:laugh::laugh::laugh:
 
The Constitution doesn't mention any other body parts either, but that doesn't mean doctors can cut them off babies.

Actually, I believe the widespread (and totally accepted) practice of circumcision proves you wrong.

The Constitution doesn't mention the word "clitoris" either, and it used to be totally accepted in the USA for them to be cut them off. Did that mean it was right?

"If someone described the removal of a baby girl's prepuce as a human rights issue, would you scoff at them too?"

I don't care about female circumcision, because (in America) we recognize that this is a barbaric practice, and other than a few random idiot immigrants, it doesn't happen here. What other backward, under-developed countries do is of no concern to me.

You want to know if I consider it a human rights issue? Don't know and don't care. It's not an issue for me at all. In fact, I have no use for the concept of "human rights" in the context you are speaking. I care about constitutional rights, not some largely-ignored B.S. document the UN produced a couple decades ago.

I've already posted about how female circumcision used to be commonplace in the USA. Blue Cross/Blue Shield had a code for it till 1977, and there are old and middle-aged American women walking round with parts of their genitalia missing because they were cut off by surgeons.

I think you'll find that most people in the USA, as well as in the rest of the world take the UN Declaration on Human Rights very seriously.

I can think of a third reason why you resent the notion that people might be against neonatal male circumcision, and keep on posting fatuous messages to defend it despite all the quotes you've seen from the various medical organisations. You're circumcised yourself, and you don't like the idea that there might be something important missing from your penis. The most vigorous defenders of female circumcision are circumcised women, and like I've pointed out before, they use the exact same arguments to defend female circumcision as are used to defend male circumcision.

:laugh: C'mon, don't steal my argument. I've already told you I think you have a jacked-up cock, which is why you're so worked up over this. You can't just turn it around and say, "Nuh-uh, you have the jacked up penis!"

I'm perfectly happy with my penis just the way it is. I'm an intact male btw, though most male intactivists are circumcised, and there are almost as many female intactivists as male intactivists. If I would prefer to be circumcised, I have more than enough money to get it done by the best surgeon in town, and I'd be more than happy to pay for my son to be circumcised if that what he wants. I don't think I have the right to take that decision for him though.

I've posted to say why I think it's a serious issue. You on the other hand keep saying it's a non-issue, and you can't take it seriously, but you keep posting anyway. This is more than just trolling - I agree with Llenroc that you seem threatened by the thought that circumcision might not be a good idea.

If you're happy with your equipment, that's great, but what's wrong with letting other people choose for themselves whether or not they want part of their penis removing? Like I said before, adult circumcision hurts less, is less dangerous, and the results are cosmetically better.

Babies aren't people. Plus adult circumcision uses general anesthesia, which is far more dangerous than the regional block we use for babies. And it costs a whole lot more, and isn't covered by insurance. Essentially your plan would give wealthy people a choice, but burden poor people with an unattractice tube steak.

1) Babies aren't people?!? WTF! So if you'd been one of the rare people whose penis is cut off by circumcision, it wouldn't matter because you weren't a person? What about the deaths I linked to? Were they not "people"?

2) Adult circumcision with GA is safer than infant circumcision whatever anesthesia is used. Are you aware of a single case of adult circumcision in a western medical setting which resulted in death or amputation?

3) Most adult intact men have more than enough money to get themselves circumcised if they want to, but almost no-one does. They seem to be happy to stay intact.

4) "unattractive tube steak", "elephant trunk" - so it's all about cosmetic surgery, based on how you think a penis is supposed to look? For you, that apparently seems to override the statements of the Canadian Pediatric Society, Royal Australasian College of Physicians, British Medical Association etc.

5) You slipped up by using the word "choice". What choice does a baby have once it's already had part of its penis cut off? Since you don't regard babies as people, what choice does an adult have if they were circumcised when they were a baby? It doesn't matter how wealthy you are, even with restoration, you cannot get a fully-functioning prepuce back once it's been cut off. I think we should let people decide for themselves whether or not they want part of their genitals cut off.
 
Quit whining. It's none of your business if people don't want their kids junk to look all nasty. Kids get surgery to remove tails and third nipples too cause they look messed up.
 
Quit whining. It's none of your business if people don't want their kids junk to look all nasty. Kids get surgery to remove tails and third nipples too cause they look messed up.

The prepuce is a normal body part. Females have one too. By your logic, people shouldn't have the right to choose whether or not they have normal parts of their body cut off, so if someone's parents think that inner labia are "all nasty", they should be able to have them cut off.

Your cosmetic preferences shouldn't allow surgery on newborns to amputate normal body parts. Many doctors in Egypt and Malaysia think intact female genitals are "all nasty", but that doesn't mean it's ok to cut parts of them off.

No-one yet has given me a good reason why we can't let people decide for themselves whether or not they want parts of their genitals removing. Hardly any intact adults decide they want to be circumcised though. Is that what you're afraid of?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
The prepuce is a normal body part. Females have one too. By your logic, people shouldn't have the right to choose whether or not they have normal parts of their body cut off, so if someone's parents think that inner labia are "all nasty", they should be able to have them cut off.

Your cosmetic preferences shouldn't allow surgery on newborns to amputate normal body parts. Many doctors in Egypt and Malaysia think intact female genitals are "all nasty", but that doesn't mean it's ok to cut parts of them off.

No-one yet has given me a good reason why we can't let people decide for themselves whether or not they want parts of their genitals removing. Hardly any intact adults decide they want to be circumcised though. Is that what you're afraid of?

That's not what they think at all, as I'm sure you know.

I think 'intact' is a loaded word and that you are obsessive about this issue. It's just unattractive extra skin. If you weren't obsessed with the topic you might be arguing against removal of skin tags in children. Skin tags are also harmless but unattractive bits of skin. I doubt people walking around with skin tags refer to themselves as 'intact' though.
 
I think 'intact' is a loaded word and that you are obsessive about this issue. It's just unattractive extra skin.
The demonization (or at least devaluation) of the mobile sleeve of skin and mucosa which protects the glans and provides sensory capability in males is worthy of study. The professionals trained to preserve normal function, instead, do the opposite. One day we will all look back on this peculiar behavior and shake our heads in disbelief.

It will take some time for the American medical associations to shift from recognizing there is no medical indication (as they have for most of a decade) to recommending against it to preserve normal function and autonomy. We are lagging behind the rest of the developed world on this.

It is surprising, however, that they have not yet declared a regional block to be the standard of care, and warned members that failing to use anesthesia or using substandard anesthesia (EMLA cream, sugar) is unacceptably poor care and not tolerated from members of their organization. It's a natural progression from their recognition only in the last decade that infant pain should be taken seriously. Failure to take this moderate step is causing a tremendous amount of avoidable pain and discomfort for patients who cannot speak for themselves.
 
Would a suit made out of foreskins be more or less soft than suede?
 
Study: Male circumcision helps prevent 2 STDs
Buzz Up Send
Email IM Share
Delicious Digg Facebook Fark Newsvine Reddit StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Bookmarks Print By ALICIA CHANG, AP Science Writer Alicia Chang, Ap Science Writer – Wed Mar 25, 5:51 pm ET
LOS ANGELES – Circumcision not only protects against HIV in heterosexual men, but it also helps prevent two other sexually transmitted infections, a large new study found. Circumcised males reduced their risk of infection with HPV, or human papillomavirus, by 35 percent and herpes by 28 percent. However, researchers found circumcision had no effect on the transmission of syphilis.

Landmark studies from three African countries including Uganda previously found circumcision lowered men's chance of catching the AIDS virus by up to 60 percent. The new study stems from the Uganda research and looked at protection against three other STDs. The findings are reported in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine

"Evidence now strongly suggests that circumcision offers an important prevention opportunity and should be widely available," Drs. Matthew Golden and Judith Wasserheit of the University of Washington wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Worldwide, only about 30 percent of men are circumcised. The figure is higher in the United States, where about 79 percent of men are circumcised, according to surveys by the National Center for Health Statistics.

An international team of researchers who conducted the study said circumcision, the surgical removal of the foreskin from the penis, should be an accepted method to reduce sexually transmitted infections among heterosexuals.

"It must be emphasized that protection was only partial, and it is critical to promote the practice of safe sex," they wrote.

HPV can cause cervical cancer and genital warts. Herpes greatly increases the chances of infection with HIV.

The American Academy of Pediatrics previously said there was not enough evidence to recommend routine circumcision of infants. The doctor's group is reviewing its position based on recent studies. About 2,800 herpes cases in newborns occur in the U.S. every year transmitted from mothers to infants that can lead to disability or death.

The latest research involved 3,393 HIV-negative heterosexual adolescent boys and men from Uganda who were part of the original HIV study. About half were randomly selected to undergo circumcision right away while the rest had the procedure 2 years later. All had physical exams and were offered voluntary HIV counseling and condoms.

After two years, herpes infection was detected in 114 circumcised men compared with 153 uncircumcised men. HPV was detected in 42 circumcised men compared with 80 uncircumcised men. There was no significant difference between the two groups on rate of syphilis infections. The researchers considered condom use, number of sex partners and other factors to calculate the risk reductions.

Why circumcision may reduce the risk of infection is not entirely known. But researchers think cells in the foreskin of the penis may be susceptible to HPV and the herpes virus.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Bill and Melissa Gates Foundation. It was conducted by the Rakai Health Sciences Program and Makerere University in Uganda, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and a division of the National Institutes of Health.

The results were similar to two recent studies from South Africa that found circumcision reduced HPV and herpes by up to a third.

Researchers plan to study whether circumcision reduces the spread of HPV to female sex partners.

___

On the Net:

New England Journal: http://www.nejm.org

Male circumcision clearinghouse: http://www.malecircumcision.org
 
1) Babies aren't going to be getting any STI's before they're old enough to decide for themselves whether or not they want part of their genitals cutting off. It's their body; it should be their decision.

2) These latest studies are from Africa. A 29 year study of males in New Zealand (probably a lot more relevant to the USA) showed a slightly *higher* rate of STI's among circumcised men:
http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(07)00707-X/abstract
Most European countries have circumcision rates less than 5%, but they also have far lower rates of STI's than the USA.

3) If we found out that cutting off part of a girl's genitals reduced her risk of contracting an STI, would that make it acceptable?
This study shows exactly that: http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138

If female circumcision had caught on in the USA (it was promoted in medical papers till at least 1959, and practised till the early 70's), and western researchers were looking for benefits of female circumcision as enthusiastically as they are looking for benefits to male circumcision, we'd now be getting news articles about how female circumcision helps prevent STI's. It wouldn't mean that there aren't better ways to prevent STI's, and it wouldn't make female circumcision right.
 
1) Babies aren't going to be getting any STI's before they're old enough to decide for themselves whether or not they want part of their genitals cutting off. It's their body; it should be their decision.

2) These latest studies are from Africa. A 29 year study of males in New Zealand (probably a lot more relevant to the USA) showed a slightly *higher* rate of STI's among circumcised men:
http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(07)00707-X/abstract
Most European countries have circumcision rates less than 5%, but they also have far lower rates of STI's than the USA.

3) If we found out that cutting off part of a girl's genitals reduced her risk of contracting an STI, would that make it acceptable?
This study shows exactly that: http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138

If female circumcision had caught on in the USA (it was promoted in medical papers till at least 1959, and practised till the early 70's), and western researchers were looking for benefits of female circumcision as enthusiastically as they are looking for benefits to male circumcision, we'd now be getting news articles about how female circumcision helps prevent STI's. It wouldn't mean that there aren't better ways to prevent STI's, and it wouldn't make female circumcision right.

1) We do it early because babies bounce back from it very fast. I've known grown men who took days to weeks for recover. Babies are fine within hours. That's why we do it so early.

2) I seriously doubt that our high circumcision rate is to blame for our higher STD rate. We have lots of social issues that exceed Europe's. I think its much more likely that its a cultural issue - specifically our different attitudes towards sexual relations. I, of course, can't prove this - just my observations.

3) Maybe, but I doubt we'll ever know so its really just guessing at this point.

Look, I'm not saying I support or am against this practice. Like most people, I just frankly don't care. That being said, until you can prove that its a harmful practice then we let this continue. We shouldn't restrict things just because we find them objectionable.
 
2) I seriously doubt that our high circumcision rate is to blame for our higher STD rate. We have lots of social issues that exceed Europe's. I think its much more likely that its a cultural issue - specifically our different attitudes towards sexual relations. I, of course, can't prove this - just my observations.
Of course it's not. That's the point. All of these studies showing that circumcision reduces the rates of STDs in African men are worthless in the US (and suspect even in Africa,) because there are numerous confounders like you mention above.
 
1) We do it early because babies bounce back from it very fast. I've known grown men who took days to weeks for recover. Babies are fine within hours. That's why we do it so early.

2) I seriously doubt that our high circumcision rate is to blame for our higher STD rate. We have lots of social issues that exceed Europe's. I think its much more likely that its a cultural issue - specifically our different attitudes towards sexual relations. I, of course, can't prove this - just my observations.

3) Maybe, but I doubt we'll ever know so its really just guessing at this point.

Look, I'm not saying I support or am against this practice. Like most people, I just frankly don't care. That being said, until you can prove that its a harmful practice then we let this continue. We shouldn't restrict things just because we find them objectionable.

If babies really recovered that quickly, we should take their tonsils and appendices out just in case. It's actually safer, less painful, and cosmetically better to wait to circumcise, but the point is that it doesn't need to be done at all, and living tissue is being cut off someone's body when they can't give consent. Not just any old tissue either, but the most sensitive part of their penis. It's not legal to cut off a baby girl's prepuce, or even to make any incision down there, so why is it considered acceptable to cut off a baby boy's prepuce?

Babies occasionally die or suffer amputation from circumcision. I've never heard of that happening with an adult circumcision in a western clinical setting.

The record payout for a botched circumcision is $22.8 million. It was said at the time that the victim "will never be able to function sexually as a normal male and will require extensive reconstructive surgery and psychological counseling as well as lifelong urological care and treatment by infectious disease specialists."
Sure, cases like that are very rare, but why should they happen at all? If you look up the galleries of botched jobs, one thing that may surprise you is just how many jobs were botched cosmetically, rather than medically. Skin tags and skin bridges and hair growing half way up the shaft are not normal, but would not be counted as medical complications.

In the latest case, $2.3 million was awarded on Friday to a boy in Georgia who had about a third of his glans removed in 2006.
 
If babies really recovered that quickly, we should take their tonsils and appendices out just in case. It's actually safer, less painful, and cosmetically better to wait to circumcise, but the point is that it doesn't need to be done at all, and living tissue is being cut off someone's body when they can't give consent. Not just any old tissue either, but the most sensitive part of their penis. It's not legal to cut off a baby girl's prepuce, or even to make any incision down there, so why is it considered acceptable to cut off a baby boy's prepuce?

Those require general anesthesia which increases the risk. Plus, both are more invasive than circs. Also, show me the evidence that it is less painful to circumcise at a later age.

Babies occasionally die or suffer amputation from circumcision. I've never heard of that happening with an adult circumcision in a western clinical setting.

Show me a source with the rates of that happening.

The record payout for a botched circumcision is $22.8 million. It was said at the time that the victim "will never be able to function sexually as a normal male and will require extensive reconstructive surgery and psychological counseling as well as lifelong urological care and treatment by infectious disease specialists."
Sure, cases like that are very rare, but why should they happen at all? If you look up the galleries of botched jobs, one thing that may surprise you is just how many jobs were botched cosmetically, rather than medically. Skin tags and skin bridges and hair growing half way up the shaft are not normal, but would not be counted as medical complications.

It was said... that makes it sound like lawyer talk. Not saying its wrong, I just prefer medical opinions on such matters. Find me some studies and then we'll talk.
 
The fact that some men feel compelled to restore a foreskin may suggest that they feel sexually inadequate, and they attribute all their problems to a piece of skin removed when they were a baby.

I'd like to see a study on it, but I find that very odd. Many women I've known think uncircumsized penises look "strange," probably mostly a cultural thing having not seen many of them. Aside from a lack of foreplay, women often complain that coitus itself is not long enough in duration. In that regard, desensitization from a lack of foreskin could be a good thing.

I'm circumsized and I might not know what I'm missing, but if I were to form an opinion on this I'd have to know the number needed to treat (help) versus number needed to harm. Penile cancer clearly doesn't outweigh MRSA, but there are likely other benefits. I agree we need more evidence on this before forming a solid opinion. It so far seems like any net gain or net detriment is small.

What principles of medical ethics allow a doctor to perform a circumcision without a medical indication? This is a normally functioning, healthy body part that is removed. For historical reasons, a special exception is currently being made for the male foreskin.

There is no consistent ethical standard which permits removal of the male foreskin, but would not permit removing other normal body parts as well.

Any male unhappy with having been circumcised has a legitimate gripe with the physician who performed it, unless there was a medical need and more conservative treatments had failed. Maybe a legal claim, too.

Most physicians (please correct me if I'm wrong) don't actually explain to parents what the functions of the foreskin are, including sexual sensitivity, before querying parents if they want it cut off. In other words, parents haven't even been properly informed.


One idea, already stated, is that the risk of infection and disease transmission is reduced. Do we even know if or how much? Sure some of that can be modulated by behavior, but basing policy/practice on what people should do is naïve. But then again, we don’t really know if the benefits outweigh the risks but we do it anyway. This reflects a much wider problem in medicine of lacking sufficient evidence one way or the other, so the default is to follow cultural norms or specious assumptions. Consider how attitudes have changed on when it is appropriate to do full hysterectomies, appendectomies, or extra aggressive chemotherapy for any cancer. In some cases the therapy may be more likely to kill the patient than reduce their risk of dying. One needs data to know one way or the other. Sufficiently rigorous data just doesn't always exist...

The problem is you have absolutely no basis of comparison. You have no way of knowing what function was lost. I have no problem with circumcision for aesthetic or any other reason, as long as the patient is able to make an informed consent. Therefore I think circumcision should be banned until the patient is 18, or at least old enough to understand and approve of the procedure.

Circumcision reduces sensation for men. Foreskins have nerves, and you are removing them. End of story. Men should be able to decide for themselves it's worth reducing the amount of skin on their penises for appearance's sake.


Parents and doctors make medical decisions for their children. You may think children should have more legal autonomy, but there is no legal case for a lack of informed consent based upon the child not being able to consent.

Is getting circumsised later really comparable to it happening early as far as complications go?

Proponents of female circumcision do the exact same thing. If they can't counter rational arguments, they resort to attacking the posters and suggesting they should have something better to do. Try debating with bloggers in Egypt and Malaysia that have just had, or are about to have their daughters circumcised. They make the exact same defence of the surgery in the first place, then make the exact same attacks on the people against it.

Are the risks or benefits of these two procedures in any way comparable? Female circumcision was for the purpose of reducing female sexual pleasure in order to make it less likely for the women to stray and thus less likely for bastards to be produced. Hence it had a purpose, but a purpose that doesn't apply to a modern world.

Male circumcision could not be culturally comparable to that because it became prevalent amongst a patriarchal society with plenty of other strange rules.
On what do you base this conclusion, given that medical associations worldwide choose not to recommend it after examining the potential benefits and the risks? And what if the patient regrets missing part of his penis, which was taken without medical cause and without his consent?

Do they base it on an objective measure, such as X/100k will be harmed, Y/100k will be helped, and since X>Y then the procedure is discouraged? Please show me if so.
 
I agree with liveuninhibited
r.e. the different between male and female circumcision. I don't think it's fair to compare the 2 procedures because they have different purposes and results. Female circumcision results in the woman being unable to enjoy sex very much and also there is a much greater chance of medical complications, right? Male circumcision isn't definitely medically necessary, but it isn't necessarily detrimental for the vast majority of people, and may be beneficial. It makes it easier to keep that area clean, which is important. Also, it may reduce the risk of STI's...for places like Africa with high HIV rates, that is important I think. I haven't met any circumcised guys who had any trouble enjoying sex...

I think it's fine if someone doesn't want to do circumcision on their male infant, but if they do, it is also their choice. Parents make all types of medical decisions for their kids. There's no reason this should be different. Any medical procedure we have, you can find examples of horrible outcomes/complications. There are people who get gangrene from a botched bikini wax, but we haven't banned bikini waxing.
 
Parents and doctors make medical decisions for their children. You may think children should have more legal autonomy, but there is no legal case for a lack of informed consent based upon the child not being able to consent.

Parents do make medical decisions for their children, and that is right in a situation where a medical decision is required--for example, signing consent for little Timmy's appendectomy). When it comes to deciding to remove a piece of normal anatomy, I believe that decision should be left to the owner of said anatomy.

By the way, parents do not have unrestricted rights to make healthcare decisions for their children. Particularly in the area of reproductive health (of which I consider penis modification a part), children can make their own decisions, and the parents don't even have the right to be informed. You do not need parental consent for elective abortion, birth control pills, safe sex counseling, or anything like that, and in fact, it is illegal in most states for the physician to even inform the parents that the child asked about those services.

Children are legal minors, that is true, but they are not slaves. I doubt you would find many physicians willing to perform a circumcision on a 10 year old boy who didn't want it, but somehow because a baby cannot understand and voice his opinion, it is ok to do whatever we want?

I think it's fine if someone doesn't want to do circumcision on their male infant, but if they do, it is also their choice. Parents make all types of medical decisions for their kids. There's no reason this should be different. Any medical procedure we have, you can find examples of horrible outcomes/complications. There are people who get gangrene from a botched bikini wax, but we haven't banned bikini waxing.

You might find this interesting. NJ recently attempted to ban Brazilian waxing over infection concerns, but had to back off due to public outrage.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/offbeat/2009-03-19-brazilian-wax_N.htm
 
Children are legal minors, that is true, but they are not slaves. I doubt you would find many physicians willing to perform a circumcision on a 10 year old boy who didn't want it, but somehow because a baby cannot understand and voice his opinion, it is ok to do whatever we want?


That seems kinda like apples and oranges to compare a 10 year old to a newborn, especially since u're acknowledging that there is a fundamental difference between the two.
 
I agree with liveuninhibited
r.e. the different between male and female circumcision. I don't think it's fair to compare the 2 procedures because they have different purposes and results. Female circumcision results in the woman being unable to enjoy sex very much and also there is a much greater chance of medical complications, right? Male circumcision isn't definitely medically necessary, but it isn't necessarily detrimental for the vast majority of people, and may be beneficial. It makes it easier to keep that area clean, which is important. Also, it may reduce the risk of STI's...for places like Africa with high HIV rates, that is important I think. I haven't met any circumcised guys who had any trouble enjoying sex...

I think it's fine if someone doesn't want to do circumcision on their male infant, but if they do, it is also their choice. Parents make all types of medical decisions for their kids. There's no reason this should be different. Any medical procedure we have, you can find examples of horrible outcomes/complications. There are people who get gangrene from a botched bikini wax, but we haven't banned bikini waxing.

You might see a fundamental difference between male circumcision and female circumcision, but the people that cut girls don't. Try debating with them. There are intelligent, educated, articulate women who will passionately defend it, and as well as using the same reasons that are used to defend male circumcision in the US, they will also point to male circumcision itself, as well as labiaplasty and breast operations, as evidence of western hypocrisy regarding female circumcision (they get incandescent if you call it "mutilation"). They will swear that female circumcision is cleaner, healthier, and that it has actually improved their sex life.

Many forms of female circumcision do less damage than the usual form of male circumcision. One just removes the clitoral hood (the female foreskin), so it's the exact equivalent of cutting off a boy's foreskin. In some countries, female circumcision is performed by doctors in operating theatres with pain relief. Conversely, male circumcision is often performed as a tribal practice. When circumstances are similar, so are outcomes, and 22 boys died of circumcision in Eastern Cape Province last year.

Women's genitals are harder to clean than men's but we don't cut parts off baby girls to make cleaning them easier. Babies aren't going to be getting any STI's before they're old enough to decide for themselves whether or not they want part of their genitals cutting off. It's their body; it should be their decision.

These latest studies are from Africa. A 29 year study of males in New Zealand showed a slightly *higher* rate of STI's among circumcised men:
http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(07)00707-X/abstract

If we found out that cutting off part of a girl's genitals reduced her risk of contracting an STI, would that make it acceptable?
This study shows exactly that: http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138

Are you aware that the USA also used to practise female circumcision? Fortunately, it never caught on the same way as male circumcision, but there are middle-aged white US American women walking round today with no external clitoris because it was removed. Some of them don't even realise what has been done to them. There are frequent references to the practice in medical literature up until the late 1950's. Most of them point out the similarity with male circumcision, and suggest that it should be performed for the same reasons. Blue Cross/Blue Shield had a code for clitoridectomy till 1977.

One victim wrote a book about it:
Robinett, Patricia (2006). "The rape of innocence: One woman's story of female genital mutilation in the USA."

If it had caught on, we'd now have armies of researchers running studies looking for medical benefits to cutting off parts off girls' genitals.

If people are serious about stopping female circumcision, they also have to be against male circumcision. Even if you see a fundamental difference, the people that cut girls don't. The sooner boys are protected from genital mutilation in the west, the sooner those peoples that practice fgm will interpret western objections as something more than hypocritical cultural imperialism.

It's worth remembering that we wouldn't even be having this discussion if it weren't for the fact that 19th century doctors thought that :
a) masturbation caused various physical and mental problems (including epilepsy, convulsions, paralysis, tuberculosis etc), and
b) circumcision stopped masturbation.

Both of those sound ridiculous today I know, but if you don't believe me, then check out this link:
A Short History of Circumcision in North America: In the Physicians' Own Words

Over a hundred years later, circumcised men keep looking for new ways to defend the practice.

News just in last week: A jury in Atlanta has awarded $1.8 million to a boy whose penis was severed in a botched circumcision five years ago. The Fulton County jury also awarded the boy's mother another $500,000.


Cutting part of a baby boy's penis off isn't just another decision like what kind of diapers, or whether or not they should watch television. It's cutting part of someone's genitals off. It's illegal to make an incision on a baby girl's genitals, even if no tissue is removed, even if the parents want to do it because of strongly held religious or cultural beliefs, or even if they believe strongly that it's medically beneficial. Why don't boys get the same protection?
 
Last edited:
if you don't mind me asking, whats' the relative risk of a severed penis or other major complication of circumcisions done by trained professionals? It's hard to get a grasp of how common anecdotes happen in practice.

You might see a fundamental difference between male circumcision and female circumcision, but the people that cut girls don't. Try debating with them. There are intelligent, educated, articulate women who will passionately defend it, and as well as using the same reasons that are used to defend male circumcision in the US, they will also point to male circumcision itself, as well as labiaplasty and breast operations, as evidence of western hypocrisy regarding female circumcision (they get incandescent if you call it "mutilation"). They will swear that female circumcision is cleaner, healthier, and that it has actually improved their sex life.

Many forms of female circumcision do less damage than the usual form of male circumcision. One just removes the clitoral hood (the female foreskin), so it's the exact equivalent of cutting off a boy's foreskin. In some countries, female circumcision is performed by doctors in operating theatres with pain relief. Conversely, male circumcision is often performed as a tribal practice. When circumstances are similar, so are outcomes, and 22 boys died of circumcision in Eastern Cape Province last year.

Women's genitals are harder to clean than men's but we don't cut parts off baby girls to make cleaning them easier. Babies aren't going to be getting any STI's before they're old enough to decide for themselves whether or not they want part of their genitals cutting off. It's their body; it should be their decision.

These latest studies are from Africa. A 29 year study of males in New Zealand showed a slightly *higher* rate of STI's among circumcised men:
http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(07)00707-X/abstract

If we found out that cutting off part of a girl's genitals reduced her risk of contracting an STI, would that make it acceptable?
This study shows exactly that: http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138

Are you aware that the USA also used to practise female circumcision? Fortunately, it never caught on the same way as male circumcision, but there are middle-aged white US American women walking round today with no external clitoris because it was removed. Some of them don't even realise what has been done to them. There are frequent references to the practice in medical literature up until the late 1950's. Most of them point out the similarity with male circumcision, and suggest that it should be performed for the same reasons. Blue Cross/Blue Shield had a code for clitoridectomy till 1977.

One victim wrote a book about it:
Robinett, Patricia (2006). "The rape of innocence: One woman's story of female genital mutilation in the USA."

If it had caught on, we'd now have armies of researchers running studies looking for medical benefits to cutting off parts off girls' genitals.

If people are serious about stopping female circumcision, they also have to be against male circumcision. Even if you see a fundamental difference, the people that cut girls don't. The sooner boys are protected from genital mutilation in the west, the sooner those peoples that practice fgm will interpret western objections as something more than hypocritical cultural imperialism.

It's worth remembering that we wouldn't even be having this discussion if it weren't for the fact that 19th century doctors thought that :
a) masturbation caused various physical and mental problems (including epilepsy, convulsions, paralysis, tuberculosis etc), and
b) circumcision stopped masturbation.

Both of those sound ridiculous today I know, but if you don't believe me, then check out this link:
A Short History of Circumcision in North America: In the Physicians' Own Words

Over a hundred years later, circumcised men keep looking for new ways to defend the practice.

News just in last week: A jury in Atlanta has awarded $1.8 million to a boy whose penis was severed in a botched circumcision five years ago. The Fulton County jury also awarded the boy's mother another $500,000.


Cutting part of a baby boy's penis off isn't just another decision like what kind of diapers, or whether or not they should watch television. It's cutting part of someone's genitals off. It's illegal to make an incision on a baby girl's genitals, even if no tissue is removed, even if the parents want to do it because of strongly held religious or cultural beliefs, or even if they believe strongly that it's medically beneficial. Why don't boys get the same protection?
 
if you don't mind me asking, whats' the relative risk of a severed penis or other major complication of circumcisions done by trained professionals? It's hard to get a grasp of how common anecdotes happen in practice.
I don't have a statistic for you, but tangentially relevant (and a fascinating story, even though this is not what you were asking about) is the case of David Reimer, whose penis was burned off in a botched circumcision attempt in the 1960s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

In my view, one mishap like this is too much. Circumcision is a medically unnecessary procedure, and I'd be damned if I'd risk my son getting MRSA for something that was unnecessary.
 
I don't have a statistic for you, but tangentially relevant (and a fascinating story, even though this is not what you were asking about) is the case of David Reimer, whose penis was burned off in a botched circumcision attempt in the 1960s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

In my view, one mishap like this is too much. Circumcision is a medically unnecessary procedure, and I'd be damned if I'd risk my son getting MRSA for something that was unnecessary.

Same could be said about vaccinations in a place where you have near total herd immunity. Babies can have horrific outcomes and i'm sure there are plenty of anecdotes that can attest to that. But anecdotes outside of context are really useless other than to emotionally jar ppl. I could probably find anecdotes about plenty of stuff that is done everyday and is very unnecessary This is why I actually ask for a "is this an everyday occurence or is this a freak accident that occurs every few years to one of hundreds of thousands of babies". (and i'm asking this not because i know the answer. just to actually have some objective basis to form an argument for or against)
 
Same could be said about vaccinations in a place where you have near total herd immunity. Babies can have horrific outcomes and i'm sure there are plenty of anecdotes that can attest to that. But anecdotes outside of context are really useless other than to emotionally jar ppl. I could probably find anecdotes about plenty of stuff that is done everyday and is very unnecessary This is why I actually ask for a "is this an everyday occurence or is this a freak accident that occurs every few years to one of hundreds of thousands of babies". (and i'm asking this not because i know the answer. just to actually have some objective basis to form an argument for or against)
Comparing circumcision to vaccinations is the dumbest argument that I have heard in a long time. An uncircumcised male suffers no adverse consequences. An unvaccinated child can suffer horrific consequences.
 
Comparing circumcision to vaccinations is the dumbest argument that I have heard in a long time. An uncircumcised male suffers no adverse consequences. An unvaccinated child can suffer horrific consequences.

My point was more about the uselessness about anecdotes than saying that vaccines are useless and I'm not arguing for or against circumcision at this point. Maybe i'll try to explain how my thinking was working in that post: what're the odds of an unvaccinated child getting diptheria when 99% of the kids around him are immune. Very very low. Could there be horrific consequences? sure, a dead kid. I'm sure there's an anecdote for that.
Now could the kid who does get his DT vaccine get anaphylactic shock the first time and die as a result of his vaccine? very unlikely, but hell yes this can happen. I'm sure there are anecdotes for this.
So how do we actually base our opinions on whether vaccinations are worthwhile? we see how often bad anecdotes occur and we rate them by some system. and we see how often good anecdotes occur or how often bad anecdotes fail to occur and rate those by some system. and then we compare the two.

What're the odds of an uncircumcised male getting penile cancer. very low. but is it a potentially horrific consequence. *looks at his penis* hell yes I don't want cancer there! (don't know the specific data, but let's assume there's a very small increase in cancer rates regardless of whether it's 1 in a million more or 1 in 10 more just for the sake of argument. I don't really wanna get into phimosis since that makes me shudder more.)
Could the circumcised male have his entire penis burned off in a freak accident? yeah, you just showed that has happened.

Now don't go off saying "it's not worth it just to avoid potential penile cancer" because I'm not arguing that at all (if I were, I'd actually look up whether or not the rate in creases and by how much). My entire point was that saying "omg we mutilated this kid!!!!!!!!!!!" is just an emotional argument that doesn't really tell me anything other than that I'm supposed to feel really bad about something. So that's why I'm asking for actual information on how often these tragedies occur to see if it's often or a freak occurence like a plane falling on my house.
 
Interesting discussion. I agree that circumcision should not be a routine practice. The only consistent medical support for circumcision involves risk reduction for penile cancer, but the prevalence of penile cancer is so low that it doesn't seem to outweigh the risk of surgery. The argument for reducing infections has too many loopholes and confounders, such as education, caregiver concern, etc. to be much of a support for circumcision. I thought ml66uk provides an interesting article in an earlier post assessing sexual function before/after in males who have undergone circumcision in adulthood. Some people demand evidence but it seems common sense to me that removing the foreskin would reduce sexual function. When in doubt, let nature takes its course.
 
Well, personally, I like evidence since I've been inundated with numerous cases where EBM showed common sense to be killing people (e.g. SWORD/CAST studies). Of course, EBM, also dictates when there is lack of evidence, that common sense should dictate.

Interesting discussion. I agree that circumcision should not be a routine practice. The only consistent medical support for circumcision involves risk reduction for penile cancer, but the prevalence of penile cancer is so low that it doesn't seem to outweigh the risk of surgery. The argument for reducing infections has too many loopholes and confounders, such as education, caregiver concern, etc. to be much of a support for circumcision. I thought ml66uk provides an interesting article in an earlier post assessing sexual function before/after in males who have undergone circumcision in adulthood. Some people demand evidence but it seems common sense to me that removing the foreskin would reduce sexual function. When in doubt, let nature takes its course.
 
there are different forms of female circumcision.
I think a lot of the countries whose female circumcision practices we object to do things to the clitoris, do they not? I am sorry, but the type of male circumcision that is practiced here in the US is not similar to removing a female's clitoris. The latter is definitely barbaric and WOULD case decreased sexual pleasure, if not other problems such as scarring, probably pain with intercourse, etc. I've never had a guy who was circumcised say that sex was painful or impossible.

I'm not making the argument that male circumcision is medically necessary...it really isn't. There are +/- on both sides of the argument...it is an elective procedure, as the pediatricians have pointed out in their position statement on this.
 
Circumcision is an archaic religious tradition and any doctor who still supports it is either a fundie or a complete jackass.
 
its mutilation. There are zero medical reasons for it. Not even getting into the violation of basic human rights it reperesents. Foreskin is a natural, functional part of the male anatomy. Should we start remving one breast from every post puberty female because this will cut breast cancer risk in half? Thats about how much sense circumcision makes. Why is this so hard for everyone to understand? There are no +/- on both sides of the argument. Its wrong.
 
its mutilation. There are zero medical reasons for it. Not even getting into the violation of basic human rights it reperesents. Foreskin is a natural, functional part of the male anatomy. Should we start remving one breast from every post puberty female because this will cut breast cancer risk in half? Thats about how much sense circumcision makes. Why is this so hard for everyone to understand? There are no +/- on both sides of the argument. Its wrong.

yeah...foreskin is like an entire breast...
This is why I hate debates on sensitive subjects. Ppl just love to make strawmans, false comparisons, and ignore the fact that there is any possibility the other point of view has any value to their arguments.
 
its mutilation. There are zero medical reasons for it. Not even getting into the violation of basic human rights it reperesents. Foreskin is a natural, functional part of the male anatomy. Should we start remving one breast from every post puberty female because this will cut breast cancer risk in half? Thats about how much sense circumcision makes. Why is this so hard for everyone to understand? There are no +/- on both sides of the argument. Its wrong.

Is the data on it really that conclusive? If so, seriously I'm sure those of us who are intellectually honest would love to see it. I want to know the number of circumcisions needed to harm somebody, and the number of circumcisions needed to help somebody, and weigh them against each other. (NNT v. NNH)

Your breast analogy is interesting, and some people with a family history of breast cancer who go in with a recommendation for a lumpectomy request a prophylactic full mastectomy followed by plastic surgery to be on the safe side. So yeah, cutting off breasts isn't always a bad idea. Perhaps if we knew more about the effects of circumcision it would be indicated for some babies and not others, depending upon family hx or genetic markers.
 
Perhaps if we knew more about the effects of circumcision it would be indicated for some babies and not others, depending upon family hx or genetic markers.
Even so, this is not an argument for ROUTINE circumcision, but for targeted circumcision (Assuming that markers existed that could predict that p(developing penile cancer) > p(contracting MRSA infection from circumcision)). Even then, the analysis is a bit more complex, because penile cancer apparently only has a fatality rate of ~23% (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/types/penile/) and MRSA certainly isn't a death sentence.....
 
Look, if I ever meet the doctor who circumcised me, I'm kicking him in the nuts, hard. What a ****ing *******. I know my parents told him to do it, but he's the ****ing doctor for ****'s sake. He's the one who's supposed to know better. Totally inexcusable.
 
yeah...foreskin is like an entire breast...
This is why I hate debates on sensitive subjects. Ppl just love to make strawmans, false comparisons, and ignore the fact that there is any possibility the other point of view has any value to their arguments.


its (was, :D) MY foreskin you ignoramus. Other people's point of view (parents included) is irrelevant!

Nobody else has the right to decided what happens to a mans foreskin.

Am I being clear?
 
Is the data on it really that conclusive? If so, seriously I'm sure those of us who are intellectually honest would love to see it. I want to know the number of circumcisions needed to harm somebody, and the number of circumcisions needed to help somebody, and weigh them against each other. (NNT v. NNH)

Your breast analogy is interesting, and some people with a family history of breast cancer who go in with a recommendation for a lumpectomy request a prophylactic full mastectomy followed by plastic surgery to be on the safe side. So yeah, cutting off breasts isn't always a bad idea. Perhaps if we knew more about the effects of circumcision it would be indicated for some babies and not others, depending upon family hx or genetic markers.


its (was, :D) MY foreskin you ignoramus. Other people's point of view (parents included) is irrelevant!

Nobody else has the right to decided what happens to a mans foreskin.

Am I being clear?
 
its (was, :D) MY foreskin you ignoramus. Other people's point of view (parents included) is irrelevant!

Nobody else has the right to decided what happens to a mans foreskin.

Am I being clear?

Um, sure, but for young children consent is usually obtained through parents.
 
Um, sure, but for young children consent is usually obtained through parents.

Yes, and I think what people are arguing against here is the parents having the right to consent to remove normal anatomy of a newborn for cosmetic reasons. Just because there is a long tradition of such consent does not make it right or acceptable.
 
Yes, and I think what people are arguing against here is the parents having the right to consent to remove normal anatomy of a newborn for cosmetic reasons. Just because there is a long tradition of such consent does not make it right or acceptable.

umm...we're asking about NNT and NNH specifically. Cosmetics has nothing to do with NNT and NNH.
 
Were they using anesthesia those ties? If so what type? Wondering since it sounds as if it was not working, so wondering what the problem there was. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Were they using anesthesia those times? If so what type? Wondering since it sounds as if it was not working, so wondering what the problem there was. Thanks.
 
Good choice. I hate to say that I've had the misfortune of assisting in some of these procedures. They were pretty ****ing barbaric. I've never seen babies cry as much during anything else in my life.
What anesthesia were they using and why was it not working? That is the urgent question in those cases.
 
Top