In regards to new research showing circumcision may prevent prostate cancer...

[nobodyspecial]

here

The research doesn't really prove anything does it? It could have been the circumcised men only had fewer partners or only one partner through life...and then at the end it says the research was observational only - so nothing to back it up with.

So AIBU to think why research like this is published, when there is no substantial evidence to back it up with? Surely it's just scare mongering.....

If a survey "proved" that meddling with a girls genitals reduced her risk of any particular cancer that wouldn't make it ok. My opinion is the same applies for boys.

Removing the uterus would prevent uterine cancer. That doesn't mean we should!

Axe is the best cure for headache.
HTH

Research gets published in scientific journals as that the way that the scientific community speaks to each other, to share results and ideas and from that, to work out what else should be studied. You have to be able to publish preliminary research!

The problem comes when it is published by non-scientific media and pounced upon by non-scientists.

"Axe is the best cure for headache."

Laugh. Amputation prevents frostbite.

The urologist who has just treated my dad for cancer said that in his opinion, there very little lifestyle choice as to why my dad got cancer ....

It sounds like perfectly valid observational research, published in an unsensational way which may, or may not, lead to interesting paths of research in one of the most prevalent cancers in the US/UK. Why exactly should it not be published? Apart from anything else, it may lead to a theory of prostate cancer which improves survival and prevention by means other than circumcision - eg by HPV vaccination of boys.

If you don't think that circumcision of newborns is justified even if it proves to have health benefits then that's a perfectly valid ethical position, and surely the publication of research in the subject won't affect that. However, a lot of people who feel strongly on the subject seem to want to argue that circumcision is morally wrong and that it has no possible health benefits.

I dont see how it's got anything to do with the prostate but genital infections in circumsized men are less because of the lack of smegma that builds up and causes infections. Also, the guys who are circumsized (muslims and jews) have fewer sexual partners, plus muslims are obliged islamically to wash with water when they go to the toilet, making the genitals a cleaner area.

would be interesting to have had more information on this. My theory is that it probably all boils down to hygiene most likely.

This is a US study, where circumcision has been a very majnstream practice in the past, and by definition focussing on older men, so the circumcised group won't be dominated by Muslims and Jews as it would be in the UK.