Is Circumcision Right or Wrong?

[zooterkin]

The answer to this question depends on the State you live in and the insurance you have. 18 or 19 States no longer pay for circumcision through Medicaid (elective that is). Typically in those states commercial insurers follow that lead. And for those in that situation they typically have to pay out of pocket. In other states it is covered by Medicaid but your commercial insurance coverage may vary.

Oh, thanks for that. I don't suppose there's any breakdown on circumcision rates according to who pays?

ETA: It appears there is.

 

[Leumas]

What the **** is up with that? This just goes to show me that many people in this forum have absolutely zero respect for religious beliefs if they do not happen to believe in them.

Nicole,

An atheist is a person who does not believe in God and if the worship of any god calls for RITUALS that can damage people then these CULTIST PRACTICES are abhorred.

Would you RESPECT the right of a person to sacrifice his child to Molech?

By definition an AGNOSTIC should QUESTION and use REASON to reject childhood inculcations.

You want to say that something a father did for his son, that he and his entire family thinks is beautiful is ****** up, you are nothing more than a jerk.

You are so indignant about people not respecting the בְּרִית מִילָה‎ but think about it……. WHY....why does the practice even exist?

I suggest that you watch this documentary made by a Jewish guy.....so there is no disrespect for anything.

I suggest you LISTEN carefully to the words of his father (minute 57:47) (fundamentalist orthodox) at the end.

Also listen to the Rabbi who is also a MOHEL who says that it is a BARBAROUS practice (minute 47:16) but he will continue to do it because he is UNDER OBLIGATION OF THE COVENANT.....also notice how he admits that he is an abuser who does abusive things in the name of the COVENANT with G-d. (minute 48:18)

ALSO...read this article where a poor boy had his penis damaged during one of the many botched circumcisions and watch this BBC documentary on the whole thing.


Even if there was a 0.1% chance of irrevocably destroying the life of your son for the sake of something that is utterly unnecessary….would you do it just because YHWH said so?

If your answer is yes then:

You're not an agnostic.

This next video is part 1 of 5 but it should proceed automatically to the next after one part is finished.

 

[jdp]

Oh, thanks for that. I don't suppose there's any breakdown on circumcision rates according to who pays?

ETA: It appears there is.

I am very skeptical about any source providing such data because the rate of circumcision in the US is really difficult to suss out primarily because of how it's paid for and who actually does it.

On the payment side, it could be privately paid for, through private insurance, or public insurance (like Medicaid). There is no central place where those payment figures are maintained. On the 'who does it' side, the actual procedure may be done in the hospital or at a pediatrician's office. Different regions have different standards. So a hospital may report a low prevalence but that could be because most are done after discharge. This also applies to religious circumcisions which always occur outside of the hospital. In addition to all of that, it is not uncommon for a hospital (where these are done before discharge) to bill every new born boy (sometimes even every new born boy or girl) for a circumcision which inflates the rate.

There is no question though that Medicaid funding has a great impact on the prevalence of circumcision and not just for the obvious reason but also because private insurance often follow that funding trend. We are even now seeing literature pop up in the relevant journals warning of the doom that awaits the US population if Medicaid continues to de-fund the procedure and circumcision rates continue to fall. Often those journal articles cite the influence of activists in this trend of de-funding but the reality is, in most cases, they only maybe put the idea in the head of the relevant director who is often a doctor and MPH. They are quite capable of determining the lack of need and typically do so on their own.

 

[jdp]

ETA: Actually there is at least one study that examined this issue. 'Acceptability of male circumcision for prevention of HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa: a review" By N Westercamp and R C Bailey. Specifically the section 'Potential for Behavioral Disinhibition'
The full text of the study is available here.

I can't remember if I've read that article, there have been so many, but there is one thing that bothers me. Many of the statistics for risk compensation are derived from groups who participated in circumcision trials. In order to participate you were supposed to be HIV free and if you're living in a population where a large percentage of adults are infected and you are not, I wonder if that doesn't tell us something about you personally and risk taking. So for example, those participating in the trial might be more risk adverse than the general population. Indeed in the line you quoted out of one of the studies they say,

Similarly in Swaziland 87% of study participants advocated having only one partner and 94% promoted condom use for circumcised men.

If that was the sentiment of the whole population, there would no problem here, assuming the primary driver of the epidemic is sexual as opposed to say nonsocial infection.

This is why I'd like to see some proper analysis of risk and cost against provable benefits. Surgery is always risky; advocating it as a prophylactic measure in the developing world without analysis of the risks is, in my view, grossly irresponsible.
At the very least:

• estimate the risks of complications for infant circumcision including deaths
• estimate the resource costs of infant circumcision and complications arising from the practice
• estimate the risks of complications for adult circumcision including deaths
• estimate the resource costs of adult circumcision and complications arising from the practice
• estimate the benefits; reduced HIV infection rate et cetera
• estimate the costs of risk compensation
• properly cost alternative health measures: education, condoms, vaccination
• estimate the opportunity costs: what could have been done with the limited health resources used for circumcision

As the risk of sounding like an economist, this is sometime I'd like to see done before advocating circumcision.

I would strike the evaluation on infants and children from the list for ethical reasons. Even if the data they gathered in Africa is accurate, it's a decision that only an adult should make for themselves. I'd add that besides the ethical, there is a practical reason for doing it as an adult. You could actually get them in there to discuss and understand the issue, safe sex practices, and the limitations. Then the decision is an informed one. When you circumcise the infant or child ostensibly as a prophylaxis for an adult problem, at what point are the counciled about such things? The answer is never, the situation remains as it was before except you have a bunch of individual circumcised as children who were likely not to know the limitations of such an approach.

Also, I'd like to see the availability of condoms increased from say less than 10 a year (which is I think what I read for the average man in these regions) to as many as they want.

A quick search shows no record of adult death attributed to circumcision.
In the US ~100-150 infants die each year and most studies say such deaths are under reported.

I wouldn't not hazard a guess as to the figures but I do believe whatever they are both deaths and complications are under reported, especially the latter.

 

[abaddon]

Why has our "agnostic" Nicole vanished?

Could it be that she has no cogent argument to make?

Or perhaps, came here with an agenda?

GM is plain flat out wrong (except when medically advisable).

Why the gender difference?
It's wrong to do it to females, yet "beautiful" when performed on males?
What a crock!

Yet, she thinks it it is "beautiful". And in the same breath claims to be agnostic.

Gimme a break.

 

[Brainache]

Why has our "agnostic" Nicole vanished?

Could it be that she has no cogent argument to make?

Or perhaps, came here with an agenda?

GM is plain flat out wrong (except when medically advisable).

Why the gender difference?
It's wrong to do it to females, yet "beautiful" when performed on males?
What a crock!

Yet, she thinks it it is "beautiful". And in the same breath claims to be agnostic.

Gimme a break.

I found it odd that she called a Bris "beautiful". As far as I know a Bris consists of people getting together socially, hiring a Mohel and standing around watching as the Mohel cuts off the tip of a baby's penis. There is probably chanting involved, but my knowledge of this ritual comes from a Seinfeld episode, so if I'm wrong, blame Jerry!

A Bris doesn't fit any definition of beauty that I ever heard before...

 

[jdp]

I suggest that you watch this documentary made by a Jewish guy.....so there is no disrespect for anything.

I suggest you LISTEN carefully to the words of his father (minute 57:47) (fundamentalist orthodox) at the end.

I know I am repeating myself but I'll add again that the film you reference Leumas is really (I feel) one of the better ones on this subject. As I also noted earlier, the director has been adding a lot of additional comentary during public screenings of the film. And recently did an interview where he expands on his thoughts about the film and the process that he went through in exploring the issues and creating it.


http://youtu.be/13mvKdv65BQ

 

[Naive1000]

Mutilation is mutilation, if you are talking about mutilation.
For everyone saying that FGM and male circumcision is similar, you are simply wrong. The mildest form of FGM, removing the clitoral hood is NOT akin to removing a male's foreskin. Some of you argued that it's the same thing; the penis is nothing more than a larger clitoris. However, that may be true in the womb but not out of it. The clitoris has more nerve endings in a small area than anything else in the human body.

I find your attitude completely sexist. If its male you're all for mutilating his genitals, but its horrible for females? Do you not see the hypocrisy there? I never claimed it was exactly the same, but it is similar. It's a parent deciding to mutilate their child for some amorphous religious or social custom.

As for the person who said I was lying when my doctor said that it is perfectly safe, that is simply BS. Have there been accidents/infections? Of course; any medical procedure always carries a risk. But when you look in the medical literature, the risk, when done PROPERLY is almost zero.

I'd like to see his medical backing for those claims, and I'm sorry even if there was only a 0.0001% possibility of killing a child of mine, for no real medical reason, I'd skip it.

I've said everything I wanted to say. For those of you who really believe that male circumcision is barbaric, rather than just saying so on here, why not campaign politically to stop it? (Though I would hope that you focus on more vital issues first, such as Glass-Steagall legislation to help our economy) However, for my final words on this subject, I will say that there are so many real evils in this world, to focus on male circumcision just makes little sense.

Wat a specious argument. This is the False Alternative fallacy. I can only choose to oppose one evil instead of all. What BS! I can stand up against all wrongs including/especially those which mutilate children. If I went by your argument: domestic violence, rape, and inequality would still be prevalent as at one time they were considered a lesser evil or believed to be non-existent thus not worth worrying about. I can and do speak out about all the things I find abhorrent and immoral.

It seems that many of you have little empathy for people who do not share your opinions. Open your minds a little! Talk to a mohel; see what he has to say. I'm not saying that you will change your mind but minimally you can hopefully become a bit more empathetic as to why millions of people still believe that male circumcision is the best choice for their child.
And yes, he was a jerk- I get that many of you do not have "religious baggage". But that does not give you the right to dismiss a ceremony or ritual as ****** up because you do not understand it.

It seems to me you have little or no empathy for small male children. What it seems to me, is that you are trying to justify yourself. You don't want to feel guilty about your participation in mutilating a child. So, if again I went by your logic: I should feel empathy towards slave owners, those cultures that advocate rape and female mutilation, and even those that believe in honor killings. But, for some reason only your religion deserves empathy.

At one point in time, even your religion, allowed many horrible things, but grew to see them as unacceptable. Why should we at this point in time, with the medical information out there, not push for this horrible practice to be moved into the list of unacceptable activities.

I wonder why you're here if you're not interested in entering into logical debate and viewing things with a skeptical eye. Logic, reason, and facts are the tools of the skeptic. If your please are just to emotion, anecdote, and custom I think you'll find it very hard to move any of your arguments forward or to get anyone to seriously reexamine their positions.

 

[dlorde]

However, for my final words on this subject, I will say that there are so many real evils in this world, to focus on male circumcision just makes little sense.

The existence of great evils doesn't mean we should ignore the lesser evils, or that they are somehow not 'real', nor that discussing them 'makes little sense'.

Regardless, circumcision is what this thread is about, and that alone is sufficient reason for us to discuss it here.

It seems that many of you have little empathy for people who do not share your opinions. Open your minds a little!

Pots & kettles come to mind. On this forum, evidence is given greater weight than opinion. The medical and health evidence strongly indicates infantile circumcision does more harm than good.

 

[pgwenthold]

Why has our "agnostic" Nicole vanished?

Because she ran afoul of Pablo's First Law of Internet Discussion: Regardless the topic, assume someone participating knows more about it than you do.

Come on, she admits that she has never met any circumcised guy who did not want to be circumcised. Clearly, she is pretty limited in her experience facing folks on the other side of the issue, and so when she ran into people who have spent more time on it, with more knowledge about the topic and more experience discussing it, she was completely in over her head.

Of course, nothing that has been said will change her mind, and all she will do the next time the topic arises is to claim how mean all those anti-circ whackos were to her.

 

[catsmate]

Because she ran afoul of Pablo's First Law of Internet Discussion: Regardless the topic, assume someone participating knows more about it than you do.

Well it's been almost two days since her last visit. I doubt she'll be back.

Come on, she admits that she has never met any circumcised guy who did not want to be circumcised. Clearly, she is pretty limited in her experience facing folks on the other side of the issue, and so when she ran into people who have spent more time on it, with more knowledge about the topic and more experience discussing it, she was completely in over her head.

I think she's just limited in her experience. Perhaps she'll mature with time.

Of course, nothing that has been said will change her mind, and all she will do the next time the topic arises is to claim how mean all those anti-circ whackos were to her.

Or maybe she won't.

 

[rocketdodger]

Yet for some reason what should have been a blip in the long history of no routine circumcision became deeply rooted in USA culture, I know for a time in the 40s and 50s we had a similar blip in the UK but it disappeared again very quickly. Wonder what it was that made the USA so different?

Probably the fact that the population of the UK had already learned they weren't smarter than everyone else ( or at least not as *much* smarter as they thought ).

Americans are just now starting to learn that.

I wonder if the UK circumcision blip had occurred during the height of British Imperialism, would it have been as transient?

 

[catsmate]

At the risk of prolonging this thread unnecessarily, beyond it's natural death, here are a couple of studies that rebut the alleged benefits of male circumcision as a HIV preventative in Africa.

How the circumcision solution in Africa will increase HIV infections
Robert S. Van Howe, Michelle R. Storms
Journal of Public Health in Africa April 2011

The World Health Organization and UNAIDS have supported circumcision as a preventive for HIV infections in regions with high rates of heterosexually transmitted HIV; however, the circumcision solution has several fundamental flaws that undermine its potential for success. This article explores, in detail, the data on which this recommendation is based, the difficulty in translating results from high risk adults in a research setting to the general public, the impact of risk compensation, and how circumcision compares to existing alternatives. Based on our analysis it is concluded that the circumcision solution is a wasteful distraction that takes resources away from more effective, less expensive, less invasive alternatives. By diverting attention away from more effective interventions, circumcision programs will likely increase the number of HIV infections.

Article here.

Long-term population effect of male circumcision in generalised HIV epidemics in sub-Saharan Africa
Michel Garenne (Institut Pasteur, Unité d’Epidémiologie des Maladies Emergentes)
African Journal of AIDS Research 2008

This paper examines the complex relationship between male circumcision and HIV prevalence and incidence in sub-Saharan African countries that have generalised epidemics. In South Africa, the mean yearly HIV incidence and an estimate of the net reproduction rate of the epidemic (R0) (in this case, the ratio of the number of HIV-infected persons between 1994 and 2004 to the number of persons infected in 1994 from which they were presumed to have become infected) were computed from antenatal clinic data for the period 1994–2004, and then compared, by province, to prevailing levels of male circumcision (high, medium and low). In South Africa, mean yearly HIV incidence and net reproduction rate of the epidemic were not lower in provinces with higher levels of male circumcision. For thirteen other countries where Demographic and Health Survey data were available, male HIV prevalence in circumcised and non-circumcised groups was compared. A meta-analysis of that data, contrasting male HIV seroprevalence according to circumcision status, showed no difference between the two groups (combined risk ratio [RR] = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.94–1.05). Individual case study analysis of eight of those countries showed no significant difference in seroprevalence in circumcised and uncircumcised groups, while two countries (Kenya and Uganda) showed lower HIV prevalence among circumcised groups, and three countries (Cameroon, Lesotho and Malawi) showed higher HIV prevalence among circumcised groups. In most countries with a complex ethnic fabric, the relationship between men's circumcision status and HIV seroprevalence was not straightforward, with the exception of the Luo in Kenya and a few groups in Uganda. These observations put into question the potential long-term effect of voluntary circumcision programmes in countries with generalised HIV epidemics.

Link.

Particularly interesting is this paragraph from the first of those papers.

Risk compensation will accompany the circumcision solution in Africa. Circumcision has been promoted as a natural condom, and African men have reported having undergone circumcision in order not to have to continually use condoms. Such a message has been adopted by public health researchers. A recent South African study assessing determinants of demand for circumcision listed “It means that men don’t have [to] use a condom” as a circumcision advantage in the materials they presented to the men they surveyed. If circumcision results in lower condom use, the number of HIV infections will increase.

 

[catsmate]

Probably the fact that the population of the UK had already learned they weren't smarter than everyone else ( or at least not as *much* smarter as they thought ).

Americans are just now starting to learn that.

Possibly the lesser obsession with male masturbation in the UK as compared to the USA, and the lack of major promoters of circumcision as a masturbation preventative?

I wonder if the UK circumcision blip had occurred during the height of British Imperialism, would it have been as transient?

That's an interesting point.

 

[sadhatter]

Nice argument from authority. My father, his twin brother, me and my brother are all circumcised - not due to religious and cultural reasons, but severe phimosis. Actually, I was even circumcised twice.

I can't say I've been greatly harmed by it, though I do remember the pain. But of course, I would rather have my foreskin. The surgery reduces sexual pleasure slightly, as well. If I had a choice, I would love to have kept my foreskin and I would have resented my parents for cutting it off was it not a medical necessity.

At any rate, you are either lying or your physician is lying to you. There is NO SUCH THING as a "perfectly safe" surgical procedure. There's always a non-trivial risk of complications - mainly infections. Ask any of the numerous physicians on this board.

Having wisdom teeth removed, and moth my doctor and dentist said the exact same thing ( as well as professors in school.) , flat out " There is no such thing as risk free surgery.".

While i am happy to take the risk to keep from not being able to eat, i can say if i was asked to chop off part of my knob to make someone else happy, as an adult, i would tell them to take their own knob and use it to have sex with themselves.

 

[sadhatter]

But... Burying your foreskin under a tree in the garden!!



(What the **** is up with that, anyway?)

As an answer to the bracketed bit.

If you can get someone to pay for someone to hack off part of their kid's waggler, and not only that, but go through the trouble of burying it , what could you not get them to do?

 

[jdp]

Particularly interesting is this paragraph from the first of those papers.

Risk compensation will accompany the circumcision solution in Africa. Circumcision has been promoted as a natural condom, and African men have reported having undergone circumcision in order not to have to continually use condoms. Such a message has been adopted by public health researchers. A recent South African study assessing determinants of demand for circumcision listed “It means that men don’t have [to] use a condom” as a circumcision advantage in the materials they presented to the men they surveyed. If circumcision results in lower condom use, the number of HIV infections will increase.

I'd say more scary than interesting. Especially in Africa, circumcision has often been presented and promoted as either a natural condom or a vaccine. Even as recently as a month ago in this opinion article (covered by the LA Times and discussed earlier in the thread) a circumcision/vaccine analogy is used. Very Very irresponsible and will lead to over estimation of any potential benefit. I should point out it isn't the news that is drawing the dangerous analogy (though they do that too) but the researchers (who should know better) who wrote the opinion article.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

I have heard no "religious" reason offered other than tradition. That isn't a reason. It does not explain how it became a tradition.

That's why it is so stupid to find it "beautiful". The baby boys shriek and cry when you cut them. Finding beauty in that sounds like sadism to me.

 

[AvalonXQ]

No circumcision = no potential risks.

Increased risks of urinary tract infection, as well as transmission of diseases including both HPV and HIV.

 

[Naive1000]

Increased risks of urinary tract infection, as well as transmission of diseases including both HPV and HIV.

Did you not read the previous posts. These are myths based on bad science. Here's a link with other studies and peer-reviews sited (Link).