Nordic countries may finally ban circumcision.

[TheGoldcountry]

Well to be fair FGM has a bunch of different types ranging from "messing around with the clitoral area" to "cut pretty much everything". You can look at the fancy terms here.

However as I see it the answer to your question is "blatant hypocrisy". We live in a world where ritual nicking of the clitoris in a way that causes no permanent damage is considered more evil and mutilationy than cutting off the foreskin.

I think "no permanent damage" can only be defined by the victim. Since newborn infants can't speak for themselves, I do think society has some responsibility. and no, parents, you don't get to do whatever you want. Your newborn child isn't a possession, he or she is a human being. Act accordingly.

 

[Wildy]

I think "no permanent damage" can only be defined by the victim.

Ok then, "no permanent physical damage". I hope that clears up what I was trying to say.

 

[catsmate]

More than just Jewish men get circumcisions, so I'd ask that you refrain from singling out Jews in these discussions; it's not only factually inaccurate, but also continues the falsehood that anti-neonatal-circumcision laws are antisemitic in nature.

But invoking anti-semitism is such an easy way to demonise your opponent.

For me it also exposes the special pleading being used.

Female genital mutilation is widespread in some cultures and women who aren't mutilated will find that they are deemed unsuitable to be a wife and may even be shunned by their community as not being "real" women. This is just (if not even more firmly entrenched and enforced) as much a tradition in these cultures yet it seems no one argues that female genital mutilation should continue because it is traditional, yet some will argue that male genital mutilation should be allowed to continue because it is a tradition.

This. I've asked supporters of infant circumcision several times, as have others, exactly what the limits are for the justification by "religious freedom".
I'm still waiting for an answer.

There has not been one person in this thread that has argued for the banning of any medical procedures. So I doubt you will get anyone to argue for your strawman.

Indeed.

 

[spin0]

What part of "the patient does not consent to orthodontia" don't you understand?

Okay, I'll bite. Please be more specific. How many patients who do not consent to orthodontia there are in the Nordic countries?

Childhood orthodontia has very good medical justifications such as treatment of malocclusions (improper bites) and a medical diagnosis is the reason it's done to minors in Finland. The severity of the problem is diagnosed on a scale of 1-10, and during childhood the classes 7-10 get treatment in the public healthcare.

Here's the scale (use your preferred medical translator):

Luokka 10: Huuli- ja suulakihalkioihin liittyvät poikkeamat, vaikea-asteiset leukojen ja pään alueen kehityshäiriöt sekä suun alueen vaurioiden jälkitilat
Luokka 9: Usean hampaan puuttumisesta johtuva purennan toiminnan selkeä haitta, purenta, jossa alaleuka ja yläleuka ovat huomattavan virheellisessä asemassa toisiinsa nähden, erittäin vaikea avopurenta, puhkeamatta jäänyt yläetuhammas
Luokka 8: Purenta, jossa alaleuka ja yläleuka ovat virheellisessä asemassa toisiinsa nähden, vaikea avopurenta, syväpurenta, risti- tai saksipurenta, joka aiheuttaa toiminnallista haittaa, huomattava hampaiston ahtaus, menetetyt tai puuttuvat yläetuhampaat, hammastapaturmien jälkitilat, puhkeamatta jääneet hampaat, pysyvien hampaiden ankyloosit (kiinnittyminen luuhun).
Luokka 7: Suuri ylipurenta, syväpurenta, jonka arvioidaan syvenevän, tai avopurenta, selvä hampaiston ahtaus tai aukkoisuus, hampaiston poikkeavuudet ja tilat, joihin liittyy pysyvän hampaan puhkeamatta jäämisen riski.

 

[spin0]

I'm going to guess you completely ignored the phrase "medical emergency". The idea behind "aberrant dentiton" is that it could cause problems in the future; the practioner doesn't know for certain whether it will be problematic at the time at the time the intervention is perofrmed; and there is a calculated risk that the extant condition will get worse.

Or instead of speculating you could, you know, actually ask practicing orthodontists in the Nordic countries what their trade actually is and what kind of regulations are involved.

Similarly, having a foreskin predisposes one to certain emergency medical condintion (e.g., phimosis and paraphimosis), yet circumcision advocate who insist that, in the case of orthodontia, the mere existence of a risk justifies the intervention against the consent of the patient, assert that the emergency medical condition must exist in order of circumcision to be justified during the patient's legal minority.

Phimosis is not a emergency medical condition. In fact it's normal part of the development of male genitalia in childhood. The foreskin is not supposed to be fully retractable during infancy and childhood as it is attached to the glans penis. Ripping it off would be very painful aking to flaying, causes irreversible damage, destroys the protective layer between the foreskin and glans, leaves them vulnerable to infections, and may lead to various conditions such as recurring UTI, paraphimosis or pathological phimosis.

Perhaps you mean pathological phimosis which is rare and very different condition (not a medical emergency). It is diagnosed usually in puberty or adolescence, is most often treatable without any surgery, and rarely warrants a circumcision. Only an idiot would amputate healthy foreskin in infancy for the tiny probability that they later might develop an entirely treatable condition.

And paraphimosis is most often caused by ignorant medical professionals or parents who do not know what a foreskin is or how it works, and fully retract it sometimes even forcibly believing it needs washing underneath, causing irreparable damage and a possible emergency medical condition. Only an idiot would amputate a healthy foreskin in infancy to protect it from the ignorance of medical professionals and parents.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Look, the problem with the legal proscription of circumcision is that, within the context of how it's portrayed in this thread, it constitutes circumcision opponent's determination that prophylactic circumcision during a patient's legal minority is not justified for them to have it performed on their children, so it is not justfied for anyone to have performed on their children...and they are willing to use governmental power to compel those with whom they disagree to adhere to their personal opinions.

Glad you're paying attention.

Well to be fair FGM has a bunch of different types ranging from "messing around with the clitoral area" to "cut pretty much everything". You can look at the fancy terms here.

Yes, but of course I'm not talking about all kinds of genital mutilation -- but 16.5 knows that, of course.

However as I see it the answer to your question is "blatant hypocrisy". We live in a world where ritual nicking of the clitoris in a way that causes no permanent damage is considered more evil and mutilationy than cutting off the foreskin.

^^Exactly.

Their what? Personal national medical association's opinion on human rights?

Is that like a tiny jumbo shrimp with a hot frozen Popsicle?

...aaand you manage to dodge yet another perfectly valid point with a sarcastic remark. Good job.

 

[spin0]

Similarities in Attitudes and Misconceptions toward Infant Male Circumcision in North America and Ritual Female Genital Mutilation in Africa.

Wow, that "comparison" is one of the least scientific things I have ever seen.

The often heard justifications for both FGM and MGM are very unscientific indeed.

For example MGM has been promoted as a cure for various ailments including asthma, bladder inflammation, blindness, cancer of the cervix, cancer of the penis, cancer of the prostate, clubfoot, clumsiness, convulsions, crime, crying, deafness, diabetes, diarrhea, divorce, dumbness, epilepsy, excessive saliva, frequent urination, gangrene, genital warts, gonorrhea, hernia, herpes, HIV, hives, homosexuality, HPV, idiocy, impotence, indigestion, irritability, marital unhappiness, masturbation, mental disease, nervousness, nightmares, nose picking, oversensitive penis, paralysis, passion, promiscuity, rape, restlessness, urine retention, sexual appetite, spinal curvature, swollen feet, syphilis, tuberculosis, urinary tract infections and wet dreams. With supporting "science" of course.

But one thing the quacksalvers have gotten right about their universal cure: it actually does desentize the penis.

 

[spin0]

Yeah because the many-fold reduction in UTI's observed in serval large-sample meta-analyses entails cicrumcision's "being justified by nebulous medical reasons after the fact".

If you honestly believe that could you please explain why the prevalence of childhood UTI is about the same in the US and Finland?

Despite having very different rates and attitudes regarding infant genital mutilation Finland doesn't seem to suffer from an epidemic of UTI among children. Which leads me to suspect that your universal oilment for every ailment doesn't actually work as you claim.

 

[The Big Dog]

Glad you're paying attention.

Yes, but of course I'm not talking about all kinds of genital mutilation -- but 16.5 knows that, of course.

^^Exactly.

...aaand you manage to dodge yet another perfectly valid point with a sarcastic remark. Good job.

Irony!

what is a "personal national medical association"? Seems like an oxymoron. yes?

The AMA and American Pediatric Association have positive views of circumcision, despite was "intactavists" (rolls eyes) say.

 

[The Big Dog]

If you honestly believe that could you please explain why the prevalence of childhood UTI is about the same in the US and Finland?

Despite having very different rates and attitudes regarding infant genital mutilation Finland doesn't seem to suffer from an epidemic of UTI among children. Which leads me to suspect that your universal oilment for every ailment doesn't actually work as you claim.

Basic application of the scientific method would require that you compare circumcised v.s non-circularized in the same population so as to isolate the variable being tested as much as possible.

I've pointed this out before.

You did not do that.

 

[ddt]

Yeah because the many-fold reduction in UTI's observed in serval large-sample meta-analyses entails cicrumcision's "being justified by nebulous medical reasons after the fact".

So could you quote those studies?

This is what 38 European experts write in their response "Cultural Bias in the AAP's 2012 Technical Report and Policy Statement on Male Circumcision" to the AAP's policy recommendation:

According to the literature reviewed, ∼1% of boys will develop a UTI within the first years of life.2 There are no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) linking UTIs to circumcision status.
[...]
UTI incidence does not seem to be lower in the United States, with high circumcision rates compared with Europe with low circumcision rates, and the AAP report suggests it will take ∼100 circumcisions to prevent 1 case of UTI. Using reasonable European estimates cited in the AAP report for the frequency of surgical and postoperative complications (∼2%), for every 100 circumcisions, 1 case of UTI may be prevented at the cost of 2 cases of hemorrhage, infection, or, in rare instances, more severe outcomes or even death.
Circumcision fails to meet the criteria to serve as a preventive measure for UTI, even though this is the only 1 of the AAP report’s 4 most favored arguments that has any relevance before the boy gets old enough to decide for himself.

In other words: you're throwing away the baby with the bathwater.

 

[ddt]

Basic application of the scientific method would require that you compare circumcised v.s non-circularized in the same population so as to isolate the variable being tested as much as possible.

I've pointed this out before.

You did not do that.

And as I've pointed out - which you did not react to - is that this comparison is valid. If there were a positive influence of circumcision on UTIs, it apparently is totally negated by other factor(s) at play in the US. The obvious conclusion is that you should look into those other factor(s), why Americans are unhealthier than Finns or other Europeans.

And as I just happened to post, there are no RCTs that link UTIs to circumcision status. The onus is on the baby mutilators to organize such a trial, or trials, to prove their point. After all, a baby is born with a foreskin, so you need an actual reason to chop it off. Your claim that you need a comparison of UTIs with circumcision status within the same population in order to really prove this, is just an indictment of the baby mutilation fan group that they have been conducting the wrong research all these years.

ETA: of course, in the above it should read "baby boy mutilators", because somehow, they are adamantly in favour of mutilating baby boys but adamantly opposed to mutilating baby girls.

 

[jdp]

Irony!

what is a "personal national medical association"? Seems like an oxymoron. yes?

The AMA and American Pediatric Association have positive views of circumcision, despite was "intactavists" (rolls eyes) say.

And they're pretty much on their own among first world pediatric medical associations, see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9565556&postcount=771

And of course the groups that are recommending a ban in nordic contires.

 

[The Big Dog]

And they're pretty much on their own among first world pediatric medical associations, see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9565556&postcount=771

And of course the groups that are recommending a ban in nordic contires.

fallacious argument to first world popularity?

Really?

 

[spin0]

Basic application of the scientific method would require that you compare circumcised v.s non-circularized in the same population so as to isolate the variable being tested as much as possible.

Could you please answer the actual question and explain why the prevalence of childhood UTI is about the same in the US and Finland?

Male population
US: 151.4 million (of 316.8) with about 79% circumcised, infant circumcision very prevalent for generations
Finland: 2.666 million (of 5.442) with less than 5% circumcised, infant circumcision very rare

If infant genital mutilation would really lead to many-fold reduction in childhood UTI's, it then follows that in a population where it is not done you'd expect an easily observable many-fold rise in the prevalence of childhood UTI. And, as it happens, such difference is not observed when comparing the populations of the US and Finland. So, could you please explain why the prevalence of childhood UTI is about the same in the US and Finland?

 

[The Big Dog]

Could you please answer the actual question and explain why the prevalence of childhood UTI is about the same in the US and Finland?

Male population
US: 151.4 million (of 316.8) with about 79% circumcised, infant circumcision very prevalent for generations
Finland: 2.666 million (of 5.442) with less than 5% circumcised, infant circumcision very rare

If infant genital mutilation would really lead to many-fold reduction in childhood UTI's, it then follows that in a population where it is not done you'd expect an easily observable many-fold rise in the prevalence of childhood UTI. And, as it happens, such difference is not observed when comparing the populations of the US and Finland. So, could you please explain why the prevalence of childhood UTI is about the same in the US and Finland?

No I can't because there are far to many variables to isolate just one. Basic scientific method shows that any such comparison is JUNK SCIENCE.

Can you explain why you don't perform an actual USEFUL analysis comparing circumcised v. non?

 

[jdp]

fallacious argument to first world popularity?

Really?

Well perhaps you would prefer, "similarly situated", and instead address the point.

 

[The Big Dog]

Well perhaps you would prefer, "similarly situated", and instead address the point.

NO. Even I were to accept your claim, it is still imbued with an elitist sentiment.

If the issue is whether circumcision is an efficacious medical procedure, why should I reject the position of "less than first world" medical associations?

Further, I am getting the strong impression that the Nordic medical associations are infested with non-medical considerations, and a pro-governmental authority leanings.

No thanks.

 

[ddt]

Apart from that, in most of the cases of phimosis, circumcision is not indicated. According to this recent article from Aart Klijn, paediatric urologist at the Dutch Wilhelmina Kinderziekenhuis (Children Hospital), only 2 of the last 100 patients they saw required circumcision. The others were served by a combination of corticosteroid creme and stretching (86 cases), or preputioplasty (12 cases).

The above article, from last year, in a general magazine of the Dutch physicians' association KNMG, is interesting for a number of reasons.

First, the author indicates that circumcision is only rarely needed in cases of childhood phimosis. He backs this up with references to the medical literature (refs. 4-10).

Secondly, he signals an apparent lack of awareness of this among the general field. The table shows that around 70% of children who are diagnosed with phimosis are treated with circumcision: around 3,500 out of 5,000 for each of the mentioned years, based on numbers of 2/3rd of the Dutch hospitals. The author himself works at the Wilhelmina Children's Hospital, which is part of Utrecht University.

Thirdly, last week the TV consumer show TROS Radar had an item on circumcision, because it is not covered by the UHC, and so the cost, on average 1,200 Euro, is to be borne by the patient himself.

This situation has existed since 2005, but until now, the insurers have tolerated that medically indicated circumcisions were declared under another DBC (Diagnosis/Treatment Code), like frenulumplasty or preputioplasty. This toleration policy now has stopped. In the show, the chair of the Dutch urology association claims there are about 10,000 medically indicated circumcisions per year (adults and children combined).

The reason the minister gives is that society shouldn't pay for religious circumcision, and that the majority of circumcisions are religiously motivated. With the number of 10,000 per year, that might not be the case (I haven't run the numbers on religious circumcisions), but the article of Aart Klijn cited above indicates that the number of medical circumcisions could be much lower with enough awareness of alternative treatments.

 

[spin0]

No I can't because there are far to many variables to isolate just one. Basic scientific method shows that any such comparison is JUNK SCIENCE.

Very good. And those other variables are?