The Sensitive Issue of Circumcision

Morrigan said:
Woo, another strawman. You're on a roll!

If it's such a useless piece of skin, how about you have it removed and see how it feels like without it. I mean, you have nothing to lose at all, and you could shut the pieholes of all the other people who argue differently. Right? But I'm sure you'll refuse even if the procedure were paid for.

Reminds me of the HIV denialists who refuse to inject themselves with the virus...
Click to expand...
An adult is past the point where there would be a medical benefit unless there was some specific issue. So your comparison is not valid. It is the infant and young child that has the greater risk of UTI and potential serious complications.

Joe's point is the same as mine. The choice is not as consequential as some of you are trying to portray it as. The claims here circumcision has some major impact on male sexual pleasure is not supported by the evidence other than a kind of dogmatic belief about it. The medical benefit is not overwhelming but for some people it is a legitimate and reasonable choice.
 
skeptigirl said:
An adult is past the point where there would be a medical benefit unless there was some specific issue. So your comparison is not valid. It is the infant and young child that has the greater risk of UTI and potential serious complications.

Joe's point is the same as mine. The choice is not as consequential as some of you are trying to portray it as. The claims here circumcision has some major impact on male sexual pleasure is not supported by the evidence other than a kind of dogmatic belief about it. The medical benefit is not overwhelming but for some people it is a legitimate and reasonable choice.
Click to expand...

Should parents be able to tattoo their children's bodies as they see fit?
 
skeptigirl said:
The research has shown a difference in circumcised and uncircumcised infants. What makes you think the difference would not show up in comparison of larger groups?
Click to expand...

That is not what I said.

skeptigirl said:
And, if you take the reverse of what you are saying, there is also no evidence the culture circumcising their infants are clearly suffering negative outcomes either.
Click to expand...

It doesn't seem as if you read the post of mine you quoted and apparently were responding to...
 
Darat said:
That is not what I said.



It doesn't seem as if you read the post of mine you quoted and apparently were responding to...
Click to expand...
OK, I reread it. I did miss the second half reading in haste. It seems we agree.

But as to the first half,
Darat said:
The answer has to be no - and this is why I said it's a classic example of cultural relativism.

I'd go even further and say we can conclude that any actual benefit is insignificant in the real-world else we'd have seen it show up in different health outcomes in the populations of comparable cultures that do and do not circumcise regularly. ...
Click to expand...
What did I miss?

"any actual benefit is insignificant"

It doesn't mean that. The difference in outcomes has not been looked for. If you look for it, you will find it. At least that is what the evidence shows comparing a smaller number of children.

Insignificant is relative.
 
Last edited:
Excuse me if these figures have already been linked to (I really can't be bothered to read every single link thoroughly to check), but does anyone know the NNT for circumcision and UTIs (and anything else that circumcision is thought to have an impact on) and also the rates of complications in infant circumcision.
 
skeptigirl said:
More irrelevant stuff. I take it you cannot find any evidence to back up your claim of serious harm?
Click to expand...

All amputations are harmful. Most people only agree to have them performed when there is a significant and likely benefit to outweigh the harm.
 
Professor Yaffle said:
Excuse me if these figures have already been linked to (I really can't be bothered to read every single link thoroughly to check), but does anyone know the NNT for circumcision and UTIs (and anything else that circumcision is thought to have an impact on) and also the rates of complications in infant circumcision.
Click to expand...

HIV in Africa: NNT ~50-60

UTI in US: NNT ~100
 
Professor Yaffle said:
Excuse me if these figures have already been linked to (I really can't be bothered to read every single link thoroughly to check), but does anyone know the NNT for circumcision and UTIs (and anything else that circumcision is thought to have an impact on) and also the rates of complications in infant circumcision.
Click to expand...
You can find a pretty thorough review of the literature in this link:

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS:
Circumcision Policy Statement
COMPLICATIONS OF THE CIRCUMCISION PROCEDURE

The true incidence of complications after newborn circumcision ...

CIRCUMCISION AFTER THE NEWBORN PERIOD

Should circumcision become necessary after the newborn period...

ANALGESIA

There is considerable evidence that newborns who are circumcised without analgesia...

CIRCUMCISION STATUS AND UTI IN
INFANT MALES

There have been several studies published in the medical literature over the past 15 years....

CIRCUMCISION STATUS AND CANCER
OF THE PENIS

Cancer of the penis is a rare disease; the annual age-adjusted incidence of penile cancer is ....

Edited by chillzero: 
Trimmed for Rule 4
Click to expand...
That last part under the UTI risk reminded me of the other problem with UTIs in infants. If the baby has one it necessitates a radiology study to check for anatomical defects. One more serious procedure the baby has to go through that could have been prevented.

Edited to point out the sections to read that are too long to copy.
 
Last edited:
skeptigirl said:
You can find a pretty thorough review of the literature in this link:

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS:
Circumcision Policy StatementThat last part under the UTI risk reminded me of the other problem with UTIs in infants. If the baby has one it necessitates a radiology study to check for anatomical defects. One more serious procedure the baby has to go through that could have been prevented.
Click to expand...

How does circumcision correct internal anatomical defects?
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
All amputations are harmful. Most people only agree to have them performed when there is a significant and likely benefit to outweigh the harm.
Click to expand...
Still no evidence, Ivor? Since a circ is not an amputation except when the anti-circ fundies try to frame it as one, this isn't relevant either. That's strike three.
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
How does circumcision correct internal anatomical defects?
Click to expand...
You have a short memory since we discussed this in the other thread.

All first UTIs in infants necessitate an IVP. All IVPs do not find anatomical defects. So if the infant's UTI is caused by any risk factors that not circumcising results in rather than an anatomical defect, that infant will be one of ones who gets a needless IVP.
 
Last edited:
skeptigirl said:
You have a short memory since we discussed this in the other thread.

All first UTIs in infants necessitate an IVP. All IVPs do not find anatomical defects. So if the infant's UTI is caused by any risk factors that not circumcising results in rather than an anatomical defect, that infant will be one of ones who gets a needless IVP.
Click to expand...

What's are the risks of an infant having an IVP?

ETA: From your link:

There is always a slight chance of cancer from radiation. However, the benefit of an accurate diagnosis far outweighs the risk.
The effective radiation dose from this procedure is about 1.6 mSv, which is about the same as the average person receives from background radiation in six months. See the Safety page for more information about radiation dose.
Contrast materials used in IVP studies can cause adverse reactions in some people.
Women should always inform their physician or x-ray technologist if there is any possibility that they are pregnant. See the Safety page for more information about pregnancy and x-rays.
Click to expand...

So I guess people who take those risks seriously also don't travel on planes.

The pro-circumcision argument has the problem of requiring all risks of treatment of UTI being multiplied by 0.01. I.e. a boy has a little chance of requiring medical treatment in the first place.
 
Last edited:
skeptigirl said:
Still no evidence, Ivor? Since a circ is not an amputation except when the anti-circ fundies try to frame it as one, this isn't relevant either. That's strike three.
Click to expand...
Just on the point of amputation: Yes, I think C can be defined as an amputation. A living, natural body part is removed, so technically it is an amputation. I also agree that the term appears a bit over-dramatic in this case.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
Just on the point of amputation: Yes, I think C can be defined as an amputation. A living, natural body part is removed, so technically it is an amputation. I also agree that the term appears a bit over-dramatic in this case.

Hans
Click to expand...

How about the term excision?

Or should we stick with non-descriptive euphemisms?
 
Can't see why we can't use the term we use to describe such practises for which we we do not have cultural acceptance i.e genital mutilation. We can then reserve the term "circumcision" for the medically required interventions.

To me that seems a neutral and meaningful descriptor; it's better than amputation since I think that would be more commonly understood as "chopping it off"!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom