Nordic countries may finally ban circumcision.

[kellyb]

Last response to you:

http://adc.bmj.com/content/90/8/853.full

http://thecaseagainstintactivism.wordpress.com/2012/11/30/cant-you-just-take-antibiotics-circumcision-and-utis/

/by the way, the astonishing lack of civility shown in this thread is very indicative of the lack of merit of the arguments of the anti-circumscion crowd.

That first link says:

Conclusions: Circumcision reduces the risk of UTI. Given a risk in normal boys of about 1%, the number-needed-to-treat to prevent one UTI is 111.

111 circumcisions to prevent ONE UTI?

Do you think this is some sort of win for the pro-circumcision side?

Also:

http://cpj.sagepub.com/content/45/1/49.short

Meatal stenosis was diagnosed in boys from 1.94 to 12.34 years of age. The diagnosis was made in 24 of 329 circumcised boys who were Tanner I development and older than 3 years of age (7.29%, 95%CI=4.48-10.10%). Nearly all required meatotomy to resolve their symptoms. All of the boys with meatal stenosis were circumcised neonatally (exact OR=3.54, 95%CI=0.62-∞).

So, out of those 111 circumcisions to prevent one UTI, you get almost one in 10 developing meatal stenosis?

 

[jdp]

Last response to you:

http://adc.bmj.com/content/90/8/853.full

http://thecaseagainstintactivism.wordpress.com/2012/11/30/cant-you-just-take-antibiotics-circumcision-and-utis/

/by the way, the astonishing lack of civility shown in this thread is very indicative of the lack of merit of the arguments of the anti-circumscion crowd.

Say it with me, context:

Conclusions: Circumcision reduces the risk of UTI. Given a risk in normal boys of about 1%, the number-needed-to-treat to prevent one UTI is 111. In boys with recurrent UTI or high grade vesicoureteric reflux, the risk of UTI recurrence is 10% and 30% and the numbers-needed-to-treat are 11 and 4, respectively. Haemorrhage and infection are the commonest complications of circumcision, occurring at rate of about 2%. Assuming equal utility of benefits and harms, net clinical benefit is likely only in boys at high risk of UTI.

 

[rustypouch]

Last response to you:

http://adc.bmj.com/content/90/8/853.full

http://thecaseagainstintactivism.wordpress.com/2012/11/30/cant-you-just-take-antibiotics-circumcision-and-utis/

/by the way, the astonishing lack of civility shown in this thread is very indicative of the lack of merit of the arguments of the anti-circumscion crowd.

For some reason, there are people who find the idea of mutilating infants extremely distasteful.

There are ways to describe people who enjoy hurting children, many which are much more rude than anything in this thread.

 

[jdp]

Meatal stenosis was diagnosed in boys from 1.94 to 12.34 years of age. The diagnosis was made in 24 of 329 circumcised boys who were Tanner I development and older than 3 years of age (7.29%, 95%CI=4.48-10.10%). Nearly all required meatotomy to resolve their symptoms. All of the boys with meatal stenosis were circumcised neonatally (exact OR=3.54, 95%CI=0.62-∞).

So, out of those 111 circumcisions to prevent one UTI, you get almost one in 10 developing meatal stenosis?

Exactly then you trade a short course of ABX for additional surgical intervention.

 

[Rolfe]

Last night I had to cut my toenails. It took me about ten minutes. I have to do this about once a month. Think of the time this has taken out of my life over the years!

My elderly mother's toenails became very hard and difficult to cut. She couldn't do it herself and needed help. It was a painful process for her and it took at least half an hour every month or so. She hated having it done.

I had an infection under one toenail about a year ago which took some time to clear up and prevented me from going on a nice walk one afternoon on holiday.

My friend had serious problems with ingrowing toenails, so bad the doctors eventually recommended she had them ripped out. It took some time for the toes to heal. Imagine how much better it would have been for her if it had been done when she was eight days old and she wouldn't have remembered? Probably have healed better too.

A woman I used to work with had the most appalling infections under all her toenails. I have no idea why she wore sandals except perhaps they were more comfortable. I think it was something fungal. Quite disgusting.

Look at all the problems these toenails can cause. And we don't need them at all. Just useless bits of modified skin. My friend who had hers ripped out isn't inconvenienced in the slightest by not having them. Why don't we just rip out all babies' toenails at eight days old? The logic is impeccable.

Rolfe.

 

[The Norseman]

I'd very much appreciate any feedback on point (5) of my rebuttal of that paper. If you guys agree with my analysis, I'm going to submit a response to the paper on their website.

Yes, by all means, it's quite factual and understandable.

 

[The Norseman]

Your point?

Creationists "question" evolution.

The mere existence of "questions" doesn't mean the "questions" have valid logical and/or empirical grounding.

True; in this case, the questioning is quite valid and clearly demonstrates that the supposed medical benefits of routine neonatal circumcision aren't really there. The facts seem to show that it's the opposite, actually -- that there is a much higher risk of injury, permanent injury or even death for a difficult to prove and verify prevention of UTIs (which are easily controlled through medication anyway) or STDs (which adults can then choose to get circumcised if they decide to engage in risky sexual liaisons).

 

[The Big Dog]

Escherichia coli was isolated in 88% of cases and had a high rate of resistance to ampicillin (71%) and to trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (47%).

Some "trolls"

The dangers of promiscuous use of anti-biotics.....

 

[The Big Dog]

Yes, by all means, it's quite factual and understandable.

The Norsemen, make sure you recommend that he calls them:

"the (American) mutilate-all-boys fan club."

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The Norsemen, make sure you recommend that he calls them:

"the (American) mutilate-all-boys fan club."

This coming from the person that dismisses European medical associations as "authoritarian".

 

[mijopaalmc]

True; in this case, the questioning is quite valid and clearly demonstrates that the supposed medical benefits of routine neonatal circumcision aren't really there. The facts seem to show that it's the opposite, actually -- that there is a much higher risk of injury, permanent injury or even death for a difficult to prove and verify prevention of UTIs (which are easily controlled through medication anyway) or STDs (which adults can then choose to get circumcised if they decide to engage in risky sexual liaisons).

Yeah, let's minimize the medical conditions avoided by neonatal circumcision.

The issue is, and always has been, that, when there are both benefits and drawbacks to a medical procedure, the decision to perfom the procedure lies with the party whom the law invests with the power of making such decisions. In the case of minor individuals, said party is the parents or legal guardian of the minor, not the minor themself. What circumcision opponents are attempting to argue is that circumcision is somehow unique in that suddenly the government has a compelling interest to intervene and curtail the rights that it has granted to the proxies of minor individuals to make decisions about said minors in the way the proxies see fit. In other words, circumcision opponents are making a special pleading against circumcision, which, in light of the fact that they consider their position to be the rational one, should in fact not be accepted.

 

[The Big Dog]

This coming from the person that dismisses European medical associations as "authoritarian".

You think those two things are remotely comparable?

Wow.....

 

[mijopaalmc]

You think those two things are remotely comparable?

Wow.....

Not to mention that you were referring to European goverments' intervention is the rights of parents and legal guardians to make medical decisions about the minors in their care as "authoritarian", not the statements of various European medical associations about the lack of necessity for neonatal circumcision.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

You think those two things are remotely comparable?

Wow.....

No, you're right. Insultingly dismissing outside evaluations out of hand because they are from Europe is much worse than inflammatory language that also accompanied substantive critiques.

 

[Ryokan]

What circumcision opponents are attempting to argue is that circumcision is somehow unique in that suddenly the government has a compelling interest to intervene and curtail the rights that it has granted to the proxies of minor individuals to make decisions about said minors in the way the proxies see fit. In other words, circumcision opponents are making a special pleading against circumcision, which, in light of the fact that they consider their position to be the rational one, should in fact not be accepted.

There is actually nothing unique about it. And I think you know that. Even in the US, there are limits to what you're allowed to do to your kids, medical or not.

 

[Rat]

Yeah, let's minimize the medical conditions avoided by neonatal circumcision.

The issue is, and always has been, that, when there are both benefits and drawbacks to a medical procedure, the decision to perfom the procedure lies with the party whom the law invests with the power of making such decisions. In the case of minor individuals, said party is the parents or legal guardian of the minor, not the minor themself. What circumcision opponents are attempting to argue is that circumcision is somehow unique in that suddenly the government has a compelling interest to intervene and curtail the rights that it has granted to the proxies of minor individuals to make decisions about said minors in the way the proxies see fit. In other words, circumcision opponents are making a special pleading against circumcision, which, in light of the fact that they consider their position to be the rational one, should in fact not be accepted.

See Rolfe's post above.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Not to mention that you were referring to European goverments' intervention is the rights of parents and legal guardians to make medical decisions about the minors in their care as "authoritarian", not the statements of various European medical associations about the lack of necessity for neonatal circumcision.

Except those medical associations called for government bans. So you aren't making a distinction.

 

[The Big Dog]

Except those medical associations called for government bans. So you aren't making a distinction.

Actually I most assuredly was.

In any event, "authoritarian" is certainly a legitimate characterization, even though one might disagree with it.

The mutilate all boys fan club is ridiculous, but is indicative of the type of thing that passes for argument to some people.

 

[ddt]

Not to mention that you were referring to European goverments' intervention is the rights of parents and legal guardians to make medical decisions about the minors in their care as "authoritarian", not the statements of various European medical associations about the lack of necessity for neonatal circumcision.

What "medical" decision? Most American parents aren't even properly informed by their doctor on the pros and cons of neonatal circumcision; it's just done because it's tradition.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Actually I most assuredly was.

I really don't see how that is logically possible.

In any event, "authoritarian" is certainly a legitimate characterization, even though one might disagree with it.

No, banning something you see as child abuse or a human rights violation is not authoritarian.

The mutilate all boys fan club is ridiculous, but is indicative of the type of thing that passes for argument to some people.

Except that wasn't his argument. It was inflammatory rhetoric, but it was just part of much longer are substantial posts that addressed your points.

Your anti-European bias, on the other hand, was not. It was your attempt to paint a false either-or scenario.