Is Circumcision Right or Wrong?

[jdp]

The problem is differing interpretations of what it means to provide service.

You are apt in your analogy, except for one little bit. I would have to dispense that drug assuming it is not a controlled substance ( i must clarify i am in school to become a pharmacist, don't want anyone to get the wrong impression.) or otherwise regulated.

I use the qualifier 'controlled substance' purposefully because I think it draws a better analogy with circumcision. Circumcision is (should be) a medical procedure recommended for specific individuals who need it in the same way that controlled drugs are recommended to those who need them. The situation is currently we allow anyone to ask for circumcision (for their child) despite the fact that they don't need it. It would be like allowing one to ask for say controlled anti-biotics for their child from you when no prescription exists.

For example if someone had a life threatening condition and wanted to use a homeopathic remedy for it, i have all rights to say " I am not going to give that medication to you. " but i also have to give them the contact information of a pharmacist who would.

I thought such a situation only applied to things like birth control and abortion pills.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

I never mentioned race. It happens to all of them.

Right, which is my point. If it were done strictly to a female racial minority you would see over-the-top hue and cry about it.

 

[Leumas]

Sometimes that's all a woman wants. Five minutes with Literotica, then back to the game, vs. 3 hours of roleplaying and having to wash the sheets and accoutrements after? I like a man who has his own needs well in hand

Have a look at this video... I think it is hilarious

 

[Leumas]

Also consider this video....hilarious

 

[Humes fork]

If babies could speak:

 

[Naive1000]

Just thought I would add this: Why Circumcision is a Feminist Issue.

 

[LSSBB]

Thread resurrection (in light of a new research report):

http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/Circumcision-can-cut-health-care-costs-3805183.php

Declining rates of circumcision among infants will translate into billions of dollars' worth of unnecessary medical costs in the United States as the boys grow up and become sexually active men, researchers at Johns Hopkins University said.

 

[catsmate]

Thread resurrection (in light of a new research report):

http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/Circumcision-can-cut-health-care-costs-3805183.php

Tobin's claim that "studies have increasingly shown that removing the foreskin of the penis has significant health benefits" contradicts previous research.
I can't currently access the full article but I'll take a look later.

 

[Lithrael]

Declining rates of circumcision among infants will translate into billions of dollars' worth of unnecessary medical costs in the United States as the boys grow up and become sexually active men, researchers at Johns Hopkins University said.

I can imagine, considering how many doctors in the US seem so uninformed about what foreskins are supposed to do and when. Mistaking a normal not-yet-retractile foreskin for a condition needing treatment, for one example. Telling mothers they need to forcibly retract their sons and clean under there, which can lead to any number of complications, for another.

ETA: The article is uncompelling in the extreme... 80% of the 'costs' are their projected additional AIDS cases. I had the impression that the research has never shown circumcision to have a significant effect on the rate of AIDS in any population outside of Africa. :/

Circumcision has got to be the crappiest prophylactic against AIDS I have ever heard of. It sounds like telling a gardener to remove their fingernails to prevent complications from getting stuff stuck under them, instead of telling them to wear gloves. As long as you can GET gloves at the corner store, and as long as you don't hate them so much you are going to 'forget' to use them anyway, they are the FAR superior option... Even without your fingernails you're eventually going to hurt your fingers trying to garden without gloves, anyway.

They're also projecting over 200% increase in UTI incidence? If anyone has access to the full article I'm curious what they're basing their 'simulation' on. I've never seen any research that suggests the kind of numbers they are talking about.

Also I HAVE to be sarky for a moment: They're not figuring in the saved costs of all that lube and hand lotion!

 

[LSSBB]

I can imagine, considering how many doctors in the US seem so uninformed about what foreskins are supposed to do and when. Mistaking a normal not-yet-retractile foreskin for a condition needing treatment, for one example. Telling mothers they need to forcibly retract their sons and clean under there, which can lead to any number of complications, for another.

ETA: The article is uncompelling in the extreme... 80% of the 'costs' are their projected additional AIDS cases. I had the impression that the research has never shown circumcision to have a significant effect on the rate of AIDS in any population outside of Africa. :/

Circumcision has got to be the crappiest prophylactic against AIDS I have ever heard of. It sounds like telling a gardener to remove their fingernails to prevent complications from getting stuff stuck under them, instead of telling them to wear gloves. As long as you can GET gloves at the corner store, and as long as you don't hate them so much you are going to 'forget' to use them anyway, they are the FAR superior option... Even without your fingernails you're eventually going to hurt your fingers trying to garden without gloves, anyway.

They're also projecting over 200% increase in UTI incidence? If anyone has access to the full article I'm curious what they're basing their 'simulation' on. I've never seen any research that suggests the kind of numbers they are talking about.

Also I HAVE to be sarky for a moment: They're not figuring in the saved costs of all that lube and hand lotion!

All good points, they should compare their Circumcision Savings model to options such as improved education.

 

[Stomatopoda]

Arguments in favor of circumcision:
1. No smegma! ...because bathing daily is a chore.
2. Women prefer it! ...yeah, just like you prefer blondes when your blonde girlfriend asks.
3. Other boys won't tease him! ...because comparing penises is totally normal behavior?
4. 0.x% lower chance of contracting HIV! ...when having sex with HIV-positive individuals.
5. Because my parents did it to me and I need to justify it! ...okay, no one actually admits this is their reasoning, even though it usually is.

Arguments against circumcision:
1. Unnecessary cosmetic surgery on a newborn.
2. Unnecessary cosmetic surgery on a newborn.
3. Unnecessary cosmetic surgery on a newborn.

 

[zooterkin]

I can imagine, considering how many doctors in the US seem so uninformed about what foreskins are supposed to do and when. Mistaking a normal not-yet-retractile foreskin for a condition needing treatment, for one example. Telling mothers they need to forcibly retract their sons and clean under there, which can lead to any number of complications, for another.

ETA: The article is uncompelling in the extreme... 80% of the 'costs' are their projected additional AIDS cases. I had the impression that the research has never shown circumcision to have a significant effect on the rate of AIDS in any population outside of Africa. :/

Circumcision has got to be the crappiest prophylactic against AIDS I have ever heard of. It sounds like telling a gardener to remove their fingernails to prevent complications from getting stuff stuck under them, instead of telling them to wear gloves. As long as you can GET gloves at the corner store, and as long as you don't hate them so much you are going to 'forget' to use them anyway, they are the FAR superior option... Even without your fingernails you're eventually going to hurt your fingers trying to garden without gloves, anyway.

They're also projecting over 200% increase in UTI incidence? If anyone has access to the full article I'm curious what they're basing their 'simulation' on. I've never seen any research that suggests the kind of numbers they are talking about.

Also I HAVE to be sarky for a moment: They're not figuring in the saved costs of all that lube and hand lotion!

Why do they need a 'simulation' at all, when there are several other countries they could compare stats with where children are not mutilated as a matter of course.

 

[catsmate]

Why do they need a 'simulation' at all, when there are several other countries they could compare stats with where children are not mutilated as a matter of course.

Because that might give a result they don't want?

 

[Puppycow]

ETA: The article is uncompelling in the extreme... 80% of the 'costs' are their projected additional AIDS cases. I had the impression that the research has never shown circumcision to have a significant effect on the rate of AIDS in any population outside of Africa. :/

Why does it matter if the research was done in Africa? Maybe it doesn't apply elsewhere, but only if you can give some good reasons.

Circumcision has got to be the crappiest prophylactic against AIDS I have ever heard of. It sounds like telling a gardener to remove their fingernails to prevent complications from getting stuff stuck under them, instead of telling them to wear gloves. As long as you can GET gloves at the corner store, and as long as you don't hate them so much you are going to 'forget' to use them anyway, they are the FAR superior option... Even without your fingernails you're eventually going to hurt your fingers trying to garden without gloves, anyway.

Getting AIDS is a lot more serious than getting a splinter.

Here's something kind of similar: When I was in the Navy they removed my wisdom teeth. They weren't causing me any particular problems at the time, but I was considering going on submarine duty (I didn't in the end).

 

[Dave Rogers]

Thread resurrection (in light of a new research report):

http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/Circumcision-can-cut-health-care-costs-3805183.php

I can't access the article, but I suppose somebody should make the obvious response that these billions of dollars' worth of unnecessary healthcare costs are steadfastly refusing to materialise in Britain, where the circumcision rate have been very low since 1948, or indeed anywhere else in western Europe where the rate is also very low. When theoretical predictions disagree with experimental findings, it's traditional in conventional science to re-examine the theory rather than ignore the findings.

Dave

 

[Lithrael]

Why does it matter if the research was done in Africa? Maybe it doesn't apply elsewhere, but only if you can give some good reasons.

I was unclear: There have been studies in several regions. The African studies are the ones which showed enough of an effect to warrant a closer look. As for why that should be, you have factors like poor access to condoms and extremely poor interest in safer sex habits. The areas hardest hit by HIV in Africa tend to have a serious problem with an attitude of fatalism which undermines efforts to improve public health through changing risky behaviour.

 

[jdp]

Why does it matter if the research was done in Africa? Maybe it doesn't apply elsewhere, but only if you can give some good reasons.

I was unclear: There have been studies in several regions. The African studies are the ones which showed enough of an effect to warrant a closer look. As for why that should be, you have factors like poor access to condoms and extremely poor interest in safer sex habits. The areas hardest hit by HIV in Africa tend to have a serious problem with an attitude of fatalism which undermines efforts to improve public health through changing risky behaviour.

In addition to all of this, it's also a question of context. Most organizations note the caveat that the result is only meaningful in hyperendemic areas. If such a ridiculous intervention only changes my lifetime risk by a tiny amount then I, for one, am certainly not interested and it certainly should be no ones choice but the individual. There are more intelligent ways for me to manage an already small risk.

 

[Walabio]

Junk-Science

Thread resurrection (in light of a new research report):

http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/Circumcision-can-cut-health-care-costs-3805183.php

Yes, but that is Junk-Science:

This takes a little history:

Sexual genital mutilation is a cure looking for a disease. It started as a way of preventing masturbation, which religions mutilating and doctors profiting from sexually mutilating genitals claimed cause blindness, incontinence, insanity, hairy palms, et cetera. When people stopped believe that ********, it changed to cancers and venereal diseases. This canard started in the 1980s:

As AIDS entered the news in the 1980s, the sexual genital mutilators looked around the world for cherries to pick. The trouble for them was that the numbers did not back them up:

Sexually mutilated America has a higher rate of AIDS than Europe. In Asia, one cannot find a correlation either way. In Africa, they could not find any correlation —— ¡except in East Africa!:

In East Africa, they noticed the sexually mutilated Muslims had a lower AIDS-Rate than than intact Animists. This is apples to oranges.

Then came the junk-studies.

0 Gather a few thousand intact HIV-Negative men.
1 Sexually mutilate half of them, thus making them incapable of sexual activity for several months.
2 After a few months, test the groups for HIV.
3 Journal-Shop until someone publishes the results.

The HIV-Rate of the sexually mutilated men at 6 months was 40% of the intact men, but look at # 1:

“1 Sexually mutilate half of them, thus making them incapable of sexual activity for several months.”

They could not have sex with months. I could do a study showing that eating an apple-a-day reduces the odds of catching HIV:

0 Collect a few thousand young sexually active HIV-Negative young adults.
1 Lock half of them in a dungeon, 1-to-a-cell, and feed those a healthy diet with 1-apple-a-day in it for a few months.
2 Test both groups for HIV.
3 Journal-Shop until some journal publishes it.

Even if we give them everything, sexually mutilating genitals is not ever effective and cost-ineffective:

They claim, using junk-science, that sexually mutilating genitals reduces the rate of HIV-infection to 40%. Condoms reduce the rate of HIV-infection 95%. Condoms are 8 times more effective at reducing the spread of HIV than sexually mutilating genitals USING THEIR OWN NUMBERS.

A condom costs approximately ~.10 U$D. Sexually mutilating men and boys costs approximately ~100.00 U$D. USING THEIR OWN NUMBERS, condoms are tens of times more cost effective.

About saving money in America, the cost of all the intact men in Europe does not overload their health-systems. This sounds like just another scare-tactic to get more parents to pay them to sexually mutilate the genitals of children.