Nordic countries may finally ban circumcision.

[Tolls]

"According to a systematic and critical review of the scientific literature, the health benefits of circumcision include lower risks of acquiring HIV, genital herpes, human papilloma virus and syphilis. Circumcision also lowers the risk of penile cancer over a lifetime; reduces the risk of cervical cancer in sexual partners, and lowers the risk of urinary tract infections in the first year of life."

The only one of which that is actually relevant to an infant being the UTI one.
Or are we going to start snipping off bits of infants that may increase the likelihood of (eg) cancer in the future?

 

[The Norseman]

It would also be interesting to know what the AAP would think of circumcision if it wasn't a valuable income stream...

Which is the only thing that 16.5 explicitly agrees with; that the report recommends that insurance pay for these medically unnecessary procedures (as long as the doctor presses the issue, of course).

yes, i agree with this:

"The AAP believes the health benefits are great enough that infant male circumcision should be covered by insurance, which would increase access to the procedure for families who choose it."

​

Even though, in the very same report, the AAP said there wasn't enough evidence to support RNC.

 

[The Big Dog]

Which is the only thing that 16.5 explicitly agrees with; that the report recommends that insurance pay for these medically unnecessary procedures (as long as the doctor presses the issue, of course).

That is not, in fact, completely accurate.

​

Even though, in the very same report, the AAP said there wasn't enough evidence to support RNC.

I am utterly baffled that this statement keeps being made as if it supports anti-circumcision positions. It does absolutely nothing of the sort. Look at what they actually say:

"The medical benefits alone may not outweigh other considerations for individual families. The medical data show that the procedure is safest and offers the most health benefits if performed during the newborn period."

If strengthening the recommendation in favor of circumcision but stopping short of a recommendation for universal circumcision regardless of families choices can be considered a victory, then the "intactivists" have truly lost.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

"According to a systematic and critical review of the scientific literature, the health benefits of circumcision include lower risks of acquiring HIV, genital herpes, human papilloma virus and syphilis. Circumcision also lowers the risk of penile cancer over a lifetime; reduces the risk of cervical cancer in sexual partners, and lowers the risk of urinary tract infections in the first year of life."

And, as has already been pointed out to you, an even better way of tackling all of those things is by washing and using a condom.

 

[The Big Dog]

And, as has already been pointed out to you, an even better way of tackling all of those things is by washing and using a condom.

"a better way"? Again, feel free to take that up with the AAp. I found your previous post on that rather unconvincing.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

"a better way"? Again, feel free to take that up with the AAp. I found your previous post on that rather unconvincing.

What do you find unconvincing about the idea that condoms are effective in the prevention of the spread of STIs? What do you find unconvincing about the idea that genital hygiene is effective in preventing genital infections?

 

[The Big Dog]

What do you find unconvincing about the idea that condoms are effective in the prevention of the spread of STIs? What do you find unconvincing about the idea that genital hygiene is effective in preventing genital infections?

What I found unconvincing was the rather naive assumption that rigorous use of condoms and cleaning would actually be consistently and universally followed in the real world. we all know that isn't true.

 

[Lithrael]

What I found unconvincing was the rather naive assumption that rigorous use of condoms and cleaning would actually be consistently and universally followed in the real world. we all know that isn't true.

This is quite possibly the most reasonable objection you have raised in this whole thread. At least as regards condoms. Cleaning of infants seems, in the US at least, to currently be overzealous if anything (eg the wince-inducing stories of forcible retraction and mothers who think they need to clean beneath the infant foreskin). I don't think it's outrageous to suggest most real-world adults and adolescents like to keep their own knobs clean though (affecting things like penile cancer rates).

 

[sadhatter]

Folks lets define terms.

Authoritarian governments pass laws to ban things, and interfere with the Family relationship, and the right to seek medical advice regarding such decisions.

The family relationship, really?

"hey son you havnt talked to me in a while, is there something wrong? "

" yes there is you monster, you didn't have me circumcised."

Said no child ever.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Apologies, this doesn't follow on directly from your quote but it was the easiest way to direct it at you...

If I understand your position correctly (apologies if not) then you are pro-circumcision because your family doctor recommended it for medical reasons (eg your oft-quoted reduction in UTIs).

If your doctor retired and the new family doctor said that was a rubbish reason for circumcision because the risk of complications from circumcision (2%) outweighed the risk of UTI (1%) and the latter was easily treatable anyway (let's ignore the completely different worry about antibiotics becoming less effective because that's more to do with over prescription) would you change your stance?

If not, why not?

16.5 - you seem to have ignored this post of mine, whilst responding to other, more throwaway ones...

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

What I found unconvincing was the rather naive assumption that rigorous use of condoms and cleaning would actually be consistently and universally followed in the real world. we all know that isn't true.

I suppose that depends on how well you educate your son on such matters.

 

[Wildy]

16.5 - you seem to have ignored this post of mine, whilst responding to other, more throwaway ones...

Because he's choosing the easy posts that allow him to continue trolling. And that's why I think he's a boring troll.

 

[The Big Dog]

I suppose that depends on how well you educate your son on such matters.

I suppose that includes that one has the means and methods to do so, and that the resources are always available, but I do not believe that is a reasonable assumption.

 

[Darat]

The only one of which that is actually relevant to an infant being the UTI one.
Or are we going to start snipping off bits of infants that may increase the likelihood of (eg) cancer in the future?

Actually it isn't - the herpes one is very relevant: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/...wing-circumcision-one-tests-positive-for-hiv/

ETA:

...snip...

In 2000, the city began requiring parents to sign consent forms acknowledging the health risks of this practice following a string of incidents that included 13 cases of herpes, with two resulting in brain damage and two others in death, according to Medical Daily.


...snip...

 

[Darat]

I suppose that includes that one has the means and methods to do so, and that the resources are always available, but I do not believe that is a reasonable assumption.

If a child is not able to regularly wash then I would say whether they are circumcised or not is irrelevant, society needs to step in and help that child.

 

[The Big Dog]

Actually it isn't - the herpes one is very relevant: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/...wing-circumcision-one-tests-positive-for-hiv/

ETA:

Thank you very much for adding the link! That was very helpful in understanding the context of the article.

From your linked article:

"The two boys, members of the city’s ultra-Orthodox Jewish community, were circumcised in the Jewish ritual known as metzitzah b'peh, in which the practitioner, or mohel, places his mouth around the baby’s penis to “cleanse” the wound and suck away blood, Medical Daily reported."

The actual consent form that was discussed specifically refers to the Jewish Ritual regarding oral suction.

here is that link.

http://aapdistrictii.org/pdf/ProviderConsent.pdf

In fact, the AAP also addressed this practice, and CLEARLY stated that in their view circumcision should be practiced in a medical, sterile environment.

I would therefore respectfully submit that this extreme and improper non-medical practice is not relevant to the discussion.

Thanks again for the link!

 

[Darat]

Thank you very much for adding the link! That was very helpful in understanding the context of the article.

From your linked article:

"The two boys, members of the city’s ultra-Orthodox Jewish community, were circumcised in the Jewish ritual known as metzitzah b'peh, in which the practitioner, or mohel, places his mouth around the baby’s penis to “cleanse” the wound and suck away blood, Medical Daily reported."

The actual consent form that was discussed specifically refers to the Jewish Ritual regarding oral suction.

here is that link.

http://aapdistrictii.org/pdf/ProviderConsent.pdf

In fact, the AAP also addressed this practice, and CLEARLY stated that in their view circumcision should be practiced in a medical, sterile environment.

I would therefore respectfully submit that this extreme and improper non-medical practice is not relevant to the discussion.

Thanks again for the link!

That you want to stop Jews practising a traditional genital mutilation because it is not done as you believe it should be does not mean it is not relevant in this thread.

Indeed such events are often the catalyst for people to call for changes to their laws to extend the existing prohibitions on genital mutilation of female children to include male children.

 

[jdp]

Thank you very much for adding the link! That was very helpful in understanding the context of the article.

From your linked article:

"The two boys, members of the city’s ultra-Orthodox Jewish community, were circumcised in the Jewish ritual known as metzitzah b'peh, in which the practitioner, or mohel, places his mouth around the baby’s penis to “cleanse” the wound and suck away blood, Medical Daily reported."

The actual consent form that was discussed specifically refers to the Jewish Ritual regarding oral suction.

here is that link.

http://aapdistrictii.org/pdf/ProviderConsent.pdf

In fact, the AAP also addressed this practice, and CLEARLY stated that in their view circumcision should be practiced in a medical, sterile environment.

I would therefore respectfully submit that this extreme and improper non-medical practice is not relevant to the discussion.

Thanks again for the link!

So then would you support legislative prohibition of Metzitzah B'Peh?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I suppose that includes that one has the means and methods to do so, and that the resources are always available, but I do not believe that is a reasonable assumption.

What means, methods and resources do you believe you're lacking so that you are unable to educate your son about the importance of washing and condom use?

 

[Safe-Keeper]

I suppose that includes that one has the means and methods to do so, and that the resources are always available, but I do not believe that is a reasonable assumption.

Are there always means and methods available to perform circumsicions? If we were this to compare this procedure to having "the talk", or simply mentioning this in health/sex ed classes, I know which comes out on top both in terms of costs and availability.