To approve of a German courts decision re circumcision

[SlipperyNipple]

Apologies if this has already been covered.

I am Jewish by descent but an an agnostic. I think the time has come to say that being religious is not an excuse to carry out mutilation of small boys.

www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/27/circumcision-ruling-germany-muslim-jewish?newsfeed=true

Obviously Female circumcision is already illegal but the same protection should be given to boys.

The risk of penile cancer is extremely low. The risk of the other things (cervical cancer, prostate cancer etc) is relatively high but I don't know enough about the medical evidence on how/whether circumcision lowers the risk to comment.

On the subject of HIV, I think there's always a danger that if you tell somebody that a particular action lowers the risk, then they become more likely to indulge in risky behaviour. So I'm personally fairly sceptical about the HIV arguments.

That was in response to Volauvent, by the way.

crescent - i hate that even more - those who have their boys circumcised for no reason at all - "oh, well, everyone else does it"

All those links can be refuted.

Urinary tract infections can be kept at bay by proper cleaning of the foreskin. Just like women, actually. I am very prone to yest infections/UTIs so I know what I'm talking about in that regard.

All the STD stuff is quite simple: Wear a rubber. That goes for HPV too. The risk of penile cancer is quite low.

I have no religious bias (my father is Jewish) I just don't believe it's okay to justify amputating body parts of little boys for religious or superficial reasons..Or any reason other than medical needs. It's just so cruel and IMO, abusive.

YANBU. I don't agree with the unnecessary removal of any body part, particularly of an infant. (PS am not anti-semitic).

Would you give your daughter the HPV vaccine lurking?

Agree that penile cancer is a bit of a red herring - the risk is minute for heterosexual men and still tiny for gay men.

But given that most people will want to conceive eventually, and condoms do fail even when used perfectly, I think additional protection may be worthwhile in areas with very high HIV prevalence. Interestingly, there's apparently no evidence that circumcision protects gay men against HIV (frankly if it did then there wouldn't have been an epidemic among gay men the the US anyway).

Nope, I condemn white Anglo Saxon americans for circumcising their babies too, no religious or cultural bias here. Anyone who circumcises their child for non medical reasons, no matter what colour, nationality, race, religion is barbaric in my opinion.

All of the above is all well and good (all disputable in any event but there we are) - but why do it WITHOUT ANAESTHETIC??!!!!

WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY????????

How can anyone do it??!!!!!!!!!!

Hear hear gnocci

We're non-religious Canadians. My husband is circumcised and so are my two boys (like most families we know). It's quick and simple, over in about 2 minutes and done in our GPs office with a topical anaesthetic (and there was no blood or "bits amputated" ). I was present while the boys had it done and honestly, it was far easier than taking them to get their baby injections. My personal opinion is that it's more hygienic (see crescents facts above and the fact that a two of our young, non-circumcised extended family members have been hospitalized with penile infections). DH is very happy with his bits and obviously doesn't have any regrets about having been circumcised as a newborn so it wasn't a very tough decision. I'm always surprised at the level of frothing that goes on about this subject on MN as it's a non-issue here. I can't help but think this argument is used as a sly way to persecute the groups that do it for religious reasons.

topical anaesthetic???!!!!!!!!

Oh right yeah cause that will make a HUGE difference. Have you ever had a topical anaesthetic?????! Pathetic.

Persecute for religious reasons?! What planet are you on? I couldnt care less if someone was jewish, muslim, catholic, jedi or atheist. You slice bit off your child without adequate pain relief you are HIDEOUS.

I see it just like any other medical procedure and would weigh up the pros and cons.

As far as I've read, the evidence isnt convincing enough to make me do it at birth, so I won't be. If my little boy develops a condition that means it is necessary, then I will.

Certainly wouldn't just do it based on tradition and I think that's the key here. Medicine should be evidence based, not religion based.

Most men in the UK are uncircumcised. There's no massive outbreak of infections, because it's just part of the hygiene routine to clean it properly. Seems to be mostly people in favour of circumcision who've met someone with an infection of this kind

"refute them means prove it wrong lurking. if you have evidence show it. "

www.paoprod.com/Writings/Trauma.htm

www.paoprod.com/Writings/Trauma.htm

My son was circumcised for medical reasons, it was bloody uncomfortable for weeks after and stung when he weed.

A baby can't tell you if something is painful. I wouldn't want to have it done without a spinal or unless i was under ga.

I just had a look at what the NHS website says about this, and the gist is that medical professionals believe the benefits are far outweighed by the risks.

The one friend I know who had it done to her son was so appalled by how upset he was for a long time afterwards and how nasty the wound looked chose not to do it for her second son.

Actually if a doctor cut a women in labour without any pain relief or without consent everyone would be up in arms, especially if there was no medical reason for it

You see people? There are medical benefits to circumcision. Obviously parents don't have the right to do anything they like to their children, else paedophiles would start a religion where incest was a sacrament to avoid prosecution or s31 care orders. The thing is circumcision is NOT generally harmful and has overall benefits, as shown by those peer reviewed official papers, therefore parents have a right to do it without the child's consent. "Consent" is a red herring in this debate: consent is not needed of a baby to have their vaccinations. I didn't get to pick and choose which vaccines I got as a baby and toddler.

If a man is desperate to be "uncut" there is always the option of surgery . (Which should be private and fully paid-for of course.)

Gnocci, I have to say you are very vocal about something you seem to know nothing about. You are against it, fine, don't have it done to your sons, no one is forcing you. A lot of posters have explained their reasons for having it done, some medical, some religious, some others. They have, by and large, done so in a very calm way. I note your shouting and insults have not convinced anyone on this thread. Maybe you should change your approach as it is very antagonistic not to mention that you are wrong.

"(Which should be private and fully paid-for of course.)"

By his parents?

Having a vaccine is different to cutting some of your skin off

The 'medical benefits of circumcision' don't even come close to using a condom - surely that is a cheaper, better, less traumatic alternative.

Also, most of the benefits are to do with transmission of STDs - if a boy is old enough to be having sex, surely he is old enough to make an informed decision about medical procedures on his own body; why can't he make a decision about it then, instead of his parents making that decision for him as a baby?