Would you perform non-necessary circumcisions?

[ILikeDrugs]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Would you baptize a Catholic couple's baby if the newborn were in danger of death in the delivery room or the NICU? It is my understanding that even non-Christians can do so in an emergency and residents are taught how to do it.

No, I wouldn't want to perform any sort of religious ceremony. If anyone can do it, then I don't see why the family wouldn't do it themselves. If there is some sort of special passage that needs to be said during the baptism, then the hospital should have some sort of print-out/pamphlet ready for such an occasion so that a family member can perform it. I'd be more than glad to warm up some water and hand them some towels and a bowl.

I also find it kind of strange that residents are being taught to baptize. Are they also being taught how to perform an anointing of the sick (usually given as the last rite before a catholic dies, for anyone who doesn't know)?

 

[LizzyM]

No, I wouldn't want to perform any sort of religious ceremony. If anyone can do it, then I don't see why the family wouldn't do it themselves. If there is some sort of special passage that needs to be said during the baptism, then the hospital should have some sort of print-out/pamphlet ready for such an occasion so that a family member can perform it. I'd be more than glad to warm up some water and hand them some towels and a bowl.

I also find it kind of strange that residents are being taught to baptize. Are they also being taught how to perform an anointing of the sick (usually given as the last rite before a catholic dies, for anyone who doesn't know)?

The annonting of the sick can only be performed by a priest. When someone is in danger of death, anyone can baptize.

There are instances where the parents are not present when things go south...

 

[Geekchick921]

Parents are also not supposed to baptize their own children. It's my understanding that the Church would prefer a non-Christian perform an emergency baptism before a parent.

 

[FlowRate]

Are you kidding me? Parents can and do exert their personal/religious views on their child's medical decisions with near impunity. Your example of end-running parental authority usually requires 1. a life and death situation, and 2. an order from a judge.

What's your point? I'm still right. Parents may not let their child die for religious reasons. That was my point. There's legal precedent for it. You agreed. Next.

 

[FlowRate]

My point (and I did have one) was that if you were going to object to circumcision if the parents were doing for religious or cultural reasons but have no problem with another religious custom that might be performed by a physician in some circumstances, then you'd need to work out what religious customs are acceptable and which are not according to your values.

The problem with saying it's ok if the parents want it for health reasons but not if it is for religous/cultural reasons is that you are going to get people telling you what you want to hear. Same thing happens in some places when people want to abort female fetuses.

Although you originally created a strawman in disagreement with ILikeDrugs, you make a reasonable point here, now that it's been extrapolated.

However, I don't think that the rejection of performing potentially harmful religious rites is really done because of the religious portion. That's simply an extra objection.

It is not ok to mangle a child's body esp their genitals. I would even wager that other cultures that don't have this desensitization to male genital mutilation would consider is sexual assaul or rape. However, I'm not a relativist. It's not ok in any culture, just like murder isn't ok in any culture.

My theology is weak here, but I don't even recall why post-crucifixion Christians still perform circumcisions.

How do you know it's desensitized?

Seems pretty well documented...

 

[Adaggiote]

hmm..let's see. Dentists do unnecessary procedures all the time, so 'sure'.

 

[Parts Unknown]

What's your point? I'm still right. Parents may not let their child die for religious reasons. That was my point. There's legal precedent for it. You agreed. Next.

Your point, as I interpreted, was that parents cannot force their religious beliefs on their children. You cited what I presume is the old Jehovah's Witness blood transfusion conundrum. But circumcision is not a life or death situation, so it is difficult to analogize the two.

Moreover, parents can and do let personal/cultural/religious preferences impact the medical decisions they make on behalf of their children. This is so the norm that you had to posit a life-or-death scenario to find a situation where the state would intervene. Your example defeats your point.

 

[Parts Unknown]

Seems pretty well documented...

Really, where?

My question was really targeted at an individual. To truly say your penis is desensitized from circumcision would require contact with a parallel universe. Perhaps this person just has amazing stamina.

 

[FlowRate]

Your point, as I interpreted, was that parents cannot force their religious beliefs on their children. You cited what I presume is the old Jehovah's Witness blood transfusion conundrum. But circumcision is not a life or death situation, so it is difficult to analogize the two.

Moreover, parents can and do let personal/cultural/religious preferences impact the medical decisions they make on behalf of their children. This is so the norm that you had to posit a life-or-death scenario to find a situation where the state would intervene. Your example defeats your point.

I'll grant you that. However, I would argue that mangling children based off of religious preferences is not justifiable either; there's probably also legal precedent for that, too.

It's really aside from the point that I keep trying to bring the discussion back to. Circumcision in the US is probably performed for religion only (% of population that identifies as practicing Jewish/(100-% of non-circumcisions)) amount of the time. It is not a Protestant or Catholic ritual.

Therefore, even if we were to grant the religious rites point, there are still ~80% give or take of circumcisions that are done without definitive medical benefit and for no other reason other than it's how we've done things for a while.

Is it ok for parents to modify their children's bodies in any way they desire?

 

[Parts Unknown]

I'll grant you that. However, I would argue that mangling children based off of religious preferences is not justifiable either; there's probably also legal precedent for that, too.

I would argue that your use of the word "mangling" to describe circumcision is an appeal to emotion, exposes a lack of objectivity on you part, and does not facilitate the persuasiveness of your argument.

Of anyone in this thread, I am perhaps alone in having actually examined foreskins of older children and teenagers removed for phimosis. Did the surgeon "mangle" them intraoperatively?

In any case, please dig up some legal precedent and let's have a look.

Is it ok for parents to modify their children's bodies in any way they desire?

No, of course not, but circumcision is an established tradition in this country, and there are tens of millions of healthy, 100% sexually functional circumcised males roaming America. It's somewhat difficult to see an overt amount of harm being done by the practice.

 

[WorldChanger36]

If it is not medically required then no. People need to have as few surgeries as possible. Circumcision should not be done just because we can but must have a medical reason as to why this is required. Same thing with C-sections. If it is not medical necessary to perform then let that kid get pushed out the vag. All surgeries have risks and side effects including circumcision, and should only be done if the benefits far out weight the risks and side effects and in my opinion infant circumcision does not.

 

[FlowRate]

I would argue that your use of the word "mangling" to describe circumcision is an appeal to emotion, exposes a lack of objectivity on you part, and does not facilitate the persuasiveness of your argument.


No, of course not, but circumcision is an established tradition in this country, and there are tens of millions of healthy, 100% sexually functional circumcised males roaming America. It's somewhat difficult to see an overt amount of harm being done by the practice.

An appeal to logos is only one part of an argument. I am using the word as a reframing of the argument in the same way that FGM reframes the idea of "female circumcision." What other words accurately describes the removal of a part of another human's body? I'm sure there are plenty, but I went with one that supported my side of the argument.

Furthermore, if you want to play the logical fallacy game, your appeal to authority via your personal examination of more Human penises than myself does not substantiate your argument.

Is the risk of surgery, however minute, worth supporting an American/somewhat-European cultural tradition?

Are there reliable scientific studies that show risk(Phimosis)>CombinedRisks(Circumcision)? The greater burden of proof is generally on the positive action i.e. if circumcision were a new procedure and not an ancient cultural one, it would have to have proven medical benefits.

If it is not ok for parents to modify their children's bodies however they please, then what ways are acceptable? How do you philosophically differentiate between different forms of child modification?

This debate can actually be abstracted to a lot of other issues, but we'll stick with circumcision/genital modification for now.

 

[LizzyM]

Is the risk of surgery, however minute, worth supporting an American/somewhat-European cultural tradition?

In Kyrgyzstan, in Central Asia, it is done at age 3. In some parts of Africa it is a rite of passage from childhood to adulthood. It is not unique to Europe/America or Judaism.

 

[FlowRate]

In Kyrgyzstan, in Central Asia, it is done at age 3. In some parts of Africa it is a rite of passage from childhood to adulthood. It is not unique to Europe/America or Judaism.

Another strawman. Really not anything near the point of the post.

Is the risk of surgery, however minute, worth supporting a scientifically unproven tradition?

Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Map_of_Male_Circumcision_Prevalence_at_Country_Level.png

Islamic and tribal religion countries do it, but it's definitely not as prevalent in the rest of the developed West, aside from the US. Giving examples of places where you have to cut off part of your penis to stay in the tribe isn't really proving any sort of useful point.

 

[WorldChanger36]

Another strawman. Really not anything near the point of the post.

Is the risk of surgery, however minute, worth supporting a scientifically unproven tradition?

Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Map_of_Male_Circumcision_Prevalence_at_Country_Level.png

Islamic and tribal religion countries do it, but it's definitely not as prevalent in the rest of the developed West, aside from the US. Giving examples of places where you have to cut off part of your penis to stay in the tribe isn't really proving any sort of useful point.

Could not agree more but the map you sited has US and Canad as 20 to 80 percent. A bit of a large gap wouldn't you say....

 

[FlowRate]

Could not agree more but the map you sited has US and Canad as 20 to 80 percent. A bit of a large gap wouldn't you say....

Yeah, the US, Canada, and Australia (sometimes the UK) are often really close in cultural issues. They are in the top of the West, whereas the rest of the West is in the bottom percentiles. The US has been cited at up to 90% even though that map puts them under 80%.

 

[Parts Unknown]

An appeal to logos is only one part of an argument. I am using the word as a reframing of the argument in the same way that FGM reframes the idea of "female circumcision." What other words accurately describes the removal of a part of another human's body?

Excision, resection, amputation.

I'm sure there are plenty, but I went with one that supported my side of the argument.

Emotional arguments for juries. Is that what you're striving for, to sound John Edwards on a good day?

Furthermore, if you want to play the logical fallacy game, your appeal to authority via your personal examination of more Human penises than myself does not substantiate your argument.

It's foreskins, not penises. If the circumcision yields penile tissue the hospital can go ahead and get out its checkbook. You can dislike my argument all you want, it doesn't stand or fall on my personal experience.

Sometimes an anecdote is just an anecdote.

Is the risk of surgery, however minute, worth supporting an American/somewhat-European cultural tradition?

Are there reliable scientific studies that show risk(Phimosis)>CombinedRisks(Circumcision)? The greater burden of proof is generally on the positive action i.e. if circumcision were a new procedure and not an ancient cultural one, it would have to have proven medical benefits.

Sure, but that's not the world we live in. The world we live in has infantile circumcision, a procedure with minimal risk and debatable benefit, versus non-circumcision, a choice with no immediate risk, some slight risk down the road, and debatable benefit. Like everything else in medicine and life, a trade-off.

Perhaps you see a fine reason to buck the status quo, but I'm more conservative.

If it is not ok for parents to modify their children's bodies however they please, then what ways are acceptable?

I'd have to consult a dart board or Magic 8 Ball.

How do you philosophically differentiate between different forms of child modification?

I don't. I utilize the same methodology for defining pornography.

 

[FlowRate]

It's foreskins, not penises. If the circumcision yields penile tissue the hospital can go ahead and get out its checkbook. You can dislike my argument all you want, it doesn't stand or fall on my personal experience.

As far as I know, foreskin is attached to (or removed from lol) and part of a penis.

Sure, but that's not the world we live in. The world we live in has infantile circumcision, a procedure with minimal risk and debatable benefit, versus non-circumcision, a choice with no immediate risk, some slight risk down the road, and debatable benefit. Like everything else in medicine and life, a trade-off.

Perhaps you see a fine reason to buck the status quo, but I'm more conservative.

I believe that part of human progress is deciding what parts of the status quo are worth keeping and, perhaps more importantly, what parts are not worth keeping.

I'd have to consult a dart board or Magic 8 Ball.

I don't. I utilize the same methodology for defining pornography.

I was, non-sarcastically, most interested in a serious response to those questions.

Why is it ok to modify some parts of a child's body, but not others?
Is the argument for circumcision a consequentialist argument?
Have the studies produced reliable results for making the conclusion to support circumcision?
Is consequentialism a valid decision making (esp. in reference to ethics) framework in medicine?

For the record, I'm not actually sure where I fall on the circumcision issue, personally. However, I'm very fond of a good debate, especially since I find that healthy debate helps me discover truth in an argument and either solidify or change a position. Right now I'm leaning 60% don't circumcise, 40% circumcise, to be changed as I read up more on the literature when I get time or if presented with an excellent argument for either side.

 

[Parts Unknown]

As far as I know, foreskin is attached to (or removed from lol) and part of a penis.

Your hair is attached to your head. Does that make a haircut a partial decapitation? I guess if you're a true anatomic lumper it just might.

The penis consists of the corpus spongiosum, corpus cavernosa, urethra, and supporting connective tissues.

The foreskin is a redundant portion of keratinizing squamous epithelium with underlying fibroconnective tissue.

I have seen dozens of the latter, but only one of the former; a penectomy (yes, that's what it's called) specimen removed for squamous cell carcinoma. Of note, the man wasn't circumcised.

I believe that part of human progress is deciding what parts of the status quo are worth keeping and, perhaps more importantly, what parts are not worth keeping.

Well duh.

 

[FlowRate]

Your hair is attached to your head. Does that make a haircut a partial decapitation?

I do believe that's a disanalogy. Foreskin plays a similar role to the clitoral hood, not the hair on your balls.


Again, that's not even the interesting part of the circumcision debate. I always figured med folks might be interested in ethics, given all the hoopla about diversity and well rounded education and what not.

 

[kansaskid]

I would do it, based on parents wishes. I've seen them done and it was very difficult to watch at first, but there's a local anesthetic and most didn't cry much at all after a few minutes. Parents are entrusted with making decisions for their children unless it unnecessarily harms them or the child is mature enough to reasonably assume they can make their own health choices. The issue is whether or not circumcision is unduly maleficent (too much of a "harm") to outweigh any future beneficence of the action and that decision is currently treated as an individual distinction by the parents. So yes, I'd do it if they wanted it.

As far as my own children go, I haven't completely made up my mind yet, although I'm leaning toward it. A lot of parenting advice suggests that little boys "look like their dad" and that idea has a lot of merit I think. There's nothing wrong with the function of a circumcised penis (although some decreased sensitivity is often said to be an issue) and there are several downsides to being uncircumcised, both socially and medically. Every parent wants their child to be happy and healthy, and right now, judging from the current literature as well as my own experience and opinions, circumcision seems to be slightly preferred.

That said, it is definitely better to do it when the kid is a baby! There are villages here in Benin (West Africa) where they dedicate entire ceremonies to the ritualistic foreskin removal as a coming of age routine. These boys are usually 15 to 20 years old and have to stand at attention during the procedure and not even flinch or they'll be considered "less of a man"!! 😱

 

[Hoody]

Of note, the man wasn't circumcised.

anecdotal, no?

 

[LizzyM]

anecdotal, no?

No!

"Circumcision in early childhood may help prevent penile cancer by eliminating phimosis, a significant risk factor for the disease."


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15825185

 

[startswithb]

anecdotal, no?

No. I've read that uncircumscised men have a higher rate of penile cancer which can result in a penectomy.

EDIT: beat me to it! I wanted to be the smart one! 😛

 

[RingTailedDoc]

The incidence of penile cancer in the United States is extremely low, approx. 1 per 100,000. Data on the incidence of complications from circumcision (due to infection, etc.) is a bit more convoluted, but some of the lower estimates I found from a quick search are around 0.1%, also very low.

I think the bottom line from the previous few pages of well thought out and supported arguments for and against circumcision is that, with the body of literature available, you could argue either side relatively well and be justified in your case. We could go back and forth all night, and it doesn't seem like anyone's mind would change. It's an exercise in futility. Circumcision is just the "tip" of an iceberg of medical ethics questions (what rights do parents have over their children's bodies, what place do religious customs have in modern medicine, what level of evidence of risk or benefit is necessary to justify a procedure, etc.) that have and will hopefully continue to be debated, but will most likely come down to physician preference every time.

 

[WorldChanger36]

No!

"Circumcision in early childhood may help prevent penile cancer by eliminating phimosis, a significant risk factor for the disease."


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15825185

I like this. It is good to cite data in a debate.👍.
Keep in mind there are a good amount of other studies that do show circumcision has its benefits and it may outweigh the risk and side effect of the surgery.
I still don't feel that it should be done unless expressly required because of the rarity of penile cancer. Should a patient have phimosis, yes , cut the foreskin off. Still this is uncommon ( even though it happened to me causing me to get circumcised in my 20s). It does make a difference to have the skin or not, as I am one of the rare cases that could compare, the discomfort of just wearing pants is high and sex is very different although I would not say worse. Cancer is a real risk and does have to be considered but it don't think we should treat circumcision like a vaccination because people that are circumcised still do get penile cancer ( at a bit lower rate, but still get it). Penile cancer is just to rare to advocate the cutting of every infant penis or holding circumcision as a solution to penile cancer.
Just my two cents...

 

[WorldChanger36]

and 300 posts ...whooo

 

[0919mmk]

I hesitate to rejoin this argument, but let me just put one perspective out there: that of the biologist, which we really all ought to share as pre/medical people.

We don't needlessly remove arms because they have a good purpose that is the result of millions of years of evolution.

We don't needlessly remove any of our organs, because they have biological purpose. Evolution has found the best body plan for us, period. Yes, there are organs and part that have become vestigial (appendix I guess), and serve no useful purpose, but these are relatively few. I have never seen any convincing argument or evidence that the foreskin is in any way vestigial. And even if it was, we only remove the appendix when it becomes a problem.

The logic behind removing the foreskin is, at least originally, religious, just like the logic behind not eating cows, or pigs, or seafood, or not eating meat for a month in lent, or going to a building every sunday, or every friday, or 5 times a day to kneel. The fact that people have tried to retroactively justify circumcisions with science is totally against the spirit of science, and thus yields questionably reliable results at best. Hence the trend of scientific organizations, including the AMA etc, no longer recommending circums.

I'm sorry, I know I am being disparaging to religious beliefs. I don't have a problem at all with you believing whatever you want to believe, but don't use faith to make or justify medical decisions, use science.

EDIT: Please, do not make the argument that the foreskin is less important than the arm. I know it is 🙂

 

[Negrodamus]

No!

"Circumcision in early childhood may help prevent penile cancer by eliminating phimosis, a significant risk factor for the disease."


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15825185

I don't understand how this article is applicable to this topic. Phimosis is a medically valid reason to perform a circumcision.

Also this:

When we restricted our analysis to men who did not have phimosis, the risk of invasive penile cancer associated with not having been circumcised in childhood was not elevated (OR = 0.5, 95% CI 0.1-2.5).

If you can't retract your foreskin, get a circumcision; leave it alone if you can.

 

[LizzyM]

I don't understand how this article is applicable to this topic. Phimosis is a medically valid reason to perform a circumcision.

Also this:


If you can't retract your foreskin, get a circumcision; leave it alone if you can.

The topic was the association of circumcision to penile cancer. The suggestion was that one observation in a path lab was anecdotal. I brought in a case control study to show that the observation of one penis amputated for the treatment of cancer could be backed up with research that shows that cancer of the penis is more common in men who have not been circumcised.

 

[FlowRate]

The topic was the association of circumcision to penile cancer. The suggestion was that one observation in a path lab was anecdotal. I brought in a case control study to show that the observation of one penis amputated for the treatment of cancer could be backed up with research that shows that cancer of the penis is more common in men who have phimosis.

Fixed

 

[LizzyM]

Fixed

The "fixing" needs to be done in infancy or childhood. If it waits until phimosis becomes a problem (as another poster has experienced) then the benefit in terms of cancer prevention is lost.

 

[FlowRate]

The "fixing" needs to be done in infancy or childhood. If it waits until phimosis becomes a problem (as another poster has experienced) then the benefit in terms of cancer prevention is lost.

I need to do more research, but I wonder if Risk(Phimosis)*Risk(Cancer with Phimosis) is less than or equal to Risk(Circumcision complications).

I was simply correcting that phimosis is considered a risk factor for penile cancer, but foreskin is not causally related to penile cancer.

 

[Parts Unknown]

I do believe that's a disanalogy. Foreskin plays a similar role to the clitoral hood, not the hair on your balls.

The relationship of the foreskin to the clitoral hood has no bearing here. You asserted that the foreskin is part of the penis because it is attached to the penis. I disagree. My analogy was merely intended to point out that a close anatomic association does not necessarily make one structure a part of another structure. I can examine your hair without examining your head. Or scrotum.

Then again, anatomy is nothing of not arbitrary distinctions.

 

[Parts Unknown]

And even if it was, we only remove the appendix when it becomes a problem.

We only wait on the appendix because it's abdominal surgery. For many years it was a common surgical practice to remove the appendix if one was in the abdomen for unrelated reasons. Just snip it off so it never even has the chance to become a problem.

Rest assured, if the appendix were as easily accessible as the foreskin is on a newborn, appendectomies would be the standard of care.

If a truly analogous situation existed between the foreskin and any other anatomic structure, male or female, we would have found it by now. But there isn't. It's unique, and we have to assess it on its own merits.

 

[Parts Unknown]

We don't needlessly remove any of our organs, because they have biological purpose. Evolution has found the best body plan for us, period.

Yeah, why don't you visit a nursing home and get back to us?

 

[Charles_Carmichael]

I hesitate to rejoin this argument, but let me just put one perspective out there: that of the biologist, which we really all ought to share as pre/medical people.

We don't needlessly remove arms because they have a good purpose that is the result of millions of years of evolution.

We don't needlessly remove any of our organs, because they have biological purpose. Evolution has found the best body plan for us, period. Yes, there are organs and part that have become vestigial (appendix I guess), and serve no useful purpose, but these are relatively few. I have never seen any convincing argument or evidence that the foreskin is in any way vestigial. And even if it was, we only remove the appendix when it becomes a problem.

The logic behind removing the foreskin is, at least originally, religious, just like the logic behind not eating cows, or pigs, or seafood, or not eating meat for a month in lent, or going to a building every sunday, or every friday, or 5 times a day to kneel. The fact that people have tried to retroactively justify circumcisions with science is totally against the spirit of science, and thus yields questionably reliable results at best. Hence the trend of scientific organizations, including the AMA etc, no longer recommending circums.

I'm sorry, I know I am being disparaging to religious beliefs. I don't have a problem at all with you believing whatever you want to believe, but don't use faith to make or justify medical decisions, use science.

EDIT: Please, do not make the argument that the foreskin is less important than the arm. I know it is 🙂

I don't think the bolded is true. From what I understand, if you're having abdominal surgery, it's not uncommon to be asked if you wanted the appendix removed as well (even if you have no symptoms of appendicitis). I remember hearing/reading about this a while back, so I'm not sure if it's still true today. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[gettheleadout]

I like this. It is good to cite data in a debate.👍.
Keep in mind there are a good amount of other studies that do show circumcision has its benefits and it may outweigh the risk and side effect of the surgery.
I still don't feel that it should be done unless expressly required because of the rarity of penile cancer. Should a patient have phimosis, yes , cut the foreskin off. Still this is uncommon ( even though it happened to me causing me to get circumcised in my 20s). It does make a difference to have the skin or not, as I am one of the rare cases that could compare, the discomfort of just wearing pants is high and sex is very different although I would not say worse. Cancer is a real risk and does have to be considered but it don't think we should treat circumcision like a vaccination because people that are circumcised still do get penile cancer ( at a bit lower rate, but still get it). Penile cancer is just to rare to advocate the cutting of every infant penis or holding circumcision as a solution to penile cancer.
Just my two cents...

As a circumcised male, I can say that is definitely not normal. I think the argument that infantile circumcision causes discomfort with normal contact between the glans and surroundings is completely without merit, barring data that shows that any number of men actually exist that complain about discomfort in just wearing pants. Discomfort after a far later circumcision? Sure, as the tissue is less able to heal and scarring/pain is probably going to be much greater after the procedure. I don't buy that infantile circumcision causes lifelong vulnerability of the glans; I think your case is just another example of why late circumcision is extremely undesirable (if you had been circumcised at birth, you'd lack a foreskin now as you do anyway, and you very likely wouldn't have the discomfort.)

 

[FlowRate]

As a circumcised male, I can say that is definitely not normal. I think the argument that infantile circumcision causes discomfort with normal contact between the glans and surroundings is completely without merit, barring data that shows that any number of men actually exist that complain about discomfort in just wearing pants. Discomfort after a far later circumcision? Sure, as the tissue is less able to heal and scarring/pain is probably going to be much greater after the procedure. I don't buy that infantile circumcision causes lifelong vulnerability of the glans; I think your case is just another example of why late circumcision is extremely undesirable (if you had been circumcised at birth, you'd lack a foreskin now as you do anyway, and you very likely wouldn't have the discomfort.)

Sense adaptation.

 

[MCAT guy]

I was curious how this thread lasted as long as it did, skimmed 2 or 3 posts on this page, then realized...

 

[MCAT guy]

Lets start a thread about breasts next.

What can be the title? hmmmmm.

 

[Rollo]

I'm sorry, I know I am being disparaging to religious beliefs. I don't have a problem at all with you believing whatever you want to believe, but don't use faith to make or justify medical decisions, use science.

The irony of this statement is that it is your faith in science that science will provide you with a clear answer in every medical situation.

 

[RingTailedDoc]

The irony of this statement is that it is your faith in science that science will provide you with a clear answer in every medical situation.

I don't think he was implying that at all. His earlier posts indicate he agrees there is no clear answer in this situation, but he has taken the stance that because there is no definitive scientific support for circumcision we should reconsider how routinely it is performed in the United States.

 

[Parts Unknown]

anecdotal, no?

It's pretty much the definition of anecdotal. But as the say, chance favors the prepared mind, so the observation may lead one to ask broader questions about circumcision, phimosis, penile squamous cell carcinoma, and the evolving role of HPV in non-cervical malignancies.

 

[gettheleadout]

Sense adaptation.

But since that is possible with infantile circumcision and clearly not possible with later ones, and studies have shown no difference in sexual satisfaction between circumcised/uncircumcised men, doesn't this imply that infantile circumcision is better if only for its elimination of the chance for a late life procedure?