What exactly is the advantage of circumcision and why is their such insistence?

[FrigginRexManningDay]

I was watching 'What to expect when you're expecting' last night and one of the male characters was insisting on circumcision for his unborn son,which turned out to be a girl.

One of the reasons he agreed with was making the penis less sensitive. I don't understand the reasons behind it. AFAIK its not healthier or cleaner. I understand it being done for medical reasons of course,but it just seems unnecessary to be so routine in America.

I still think that it would be offered on the NHS if the medical benefits to a boy in the UK were significant. Really you are using the fairly flimsy medical benefits to back up a cultural stance. And if I consider it to be mutilation then I don't see why I shouldn't call it that. I don't see why I should spare your feelings when you are willing to cause harm to newborns.

Breatheslowly, what amazes me is your almighty, unquestioning, one might say almost religious, faith in the NHS.

They do get some things wrong, you know. Like killing 8 patients a day out of poor care. www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jun/21/jeremy-hunt-nhs-errors-patients

Individual care on the NHS may not be perfect (I still have the scars to prove it and have and use private healthcare wherever possible as I want to see a fully trained consultant, not a junior doctor). But on the epidemiology side and with national guidelines I think the NHS is very strong. That is not a religious stance, but an evidence based one. Are there any developed countries that recommend routine circumcision for neonates on a medical basis?

No, I've said there are cultural benefits and I'd guess it's equally balanced between medical benefits and risk with probably more of a lean towards benefits.

If there were medical harm, I wouldn't do it regardless of cultural benefits.

The reason you shouldn't call it mutilation is that you are simply wrong as well as being offensive (which I think you're trying to be). It is not mutilation but a procedure which has medical as well as cultural benefits

I probably wouldn't do it for the medical benefits alone but the fact that it is not harmful and does have some benefit means that I am comfortable giving credence to the cultural importance.

I've linked above to reviews showing the medical benefits. I'm sorry you don't agree with them. I do.

"Breatheslowly, what amazes me is your almighty, unquestioning, one might say almost religious, faith in the NHS."

What a very odd thing to say. Of course the NHSgets things wrong. But the fact that routine circumcision of I f ra isn't even up for discussion suggests that the health benefits are questionBle to say the least.

On the basis of my "research" (reasonably extensive but not, alas, conducted under the most rigorous scientific conditions) I would say uncircumcised penises are much more responsive than circumcised. Don't see how that couldn't be the case, frankly. The notion that you would do something to a child that has this effect without clear medical indications boggles my mind. The fact it is still legal only shows how fucked up we are about religion.

Not quite, cost comes into it as well with the NHS. For example, the chickenpox vaccine has excellent health benefits but cost prevents the NHS rolling it out.

Some PCTs do offer it though.

Also, I don't think the health benefits are so great that it's an issue for the NHS - just that the benefits DO outweigh the risks. But there are many things for which such a statement is true whcih might not be funded.

I'm not religous KArlos and I will still circumcise my sons if I have. Based on empirical scientific research that it is not harmful.

And your 'research' is just conjecture and opinion. Not 'research'.

There is no reason for it not to be legal. It is not harmful because the health benefits outweigh the risk. It's a personal decision, thankfully.

Kungfutea - I think your reading of the medical benefits may suffer slightly from affirmation bias.

Really, how so?

There is quite a vocal anti-circumcision lobby comprised of men who feel that they have been damaged by the procedure, actually. I used to have a job which, rather oddly, involved fielding quite a lot of correspondence from such people, and they were jolly upset about it I can tell you. As would I be, if my sexual responsiveness had been adversely affected by a wholly unnecessary procedure.
it's the old "first do no harm" principle. Surgical intervention should only take place where there is a clear benefit to be secured. in the vast majority of cases there is no medical need for this procedure. So, you don't do it. Really don't get why people find this hard to grasp.

Actually I have paid for the chicken pox vaccine for my DD as it isn't provided on the NHS. It is a routine vaccination in some other countries. Where are the people in the UK who have no cultural or religious reason to circumcise, but see the health benefits alone and choose to have it done privately? Where are the developed countries which recommend routine circumcision for medical reasons only? I think the chicken pox vaccine is a poor analogy.

It's an example of the NHS not funding something because of cost, I think the benefits of the chicken pox vaccine are far greater than circumcision!

You may a snide comment about affirmation bias but haven't yet explained it. Why should I be subject to affirmation bias any more than you, for example?

You really want the medical benefits to be sufficient to justify your cultural decision to circumcise. So your reading of those benefits appear to give them more weight than for those without your cultural background.

None of the men in my life feel like that, Karlos. It may be anecdotal but all of them (who have mentioned it!! it's not a common topic of discussion) are pleased they were done.

You have to make a decision either way, you hope you make the right one. You may get it wrong but you plump for the scenario which you think will be in the best interest of your child and the adult he will become.

If you had a baby girl with a hugr disfiguring birthmark (but not medically harmful) whihc could be removed very easily as a newborn but with a more complex and difficult procedure later, would you do it? Or would you stick to your principles - only when medically necessary!

And you, breatheslowly, equally want there not to be medical benefits to justify your cultural decision not to circumcise.

BTW, I haven't circumcised anyone as it happens. SInce I don't have boys, it wasn't an issue. But it was one I considered with an open mind when I was pregnant.

But if the only thing stopping the NHS from providing routine circumcision was the cost and the medical benefits were considered to be significant then doctors would encourage it privately and people would have it done, regardless of their cultural background. The reason the NHS does not provide the CP vaccine is not only cost, it is a balancing act between the risks of CP and the risks of shingles in the older population. It is an epidemiological issue, not just an individual one.

A foreskin is not equivalent to disfigurement. You are not helping your argument by drawing such silly analogies.
In the vast majority of cases, there is no medical need for this procedure, which deprives the penis of numerous nerve endings, which play a role in sexual enjoyment. it is an unnecessary and unfair thing to do to a child and of course people daft enough to think it's good idea should be prevented from doing it by law.

"If you had a baby girl with a hugr disfiguring birthmark (but not medically harmful) whihc could be removed very easily as a newborn but with a more complex and difficult procedure later, would you do it? Or would you stick to your principles - only when medically necessary"

Are you really comparing a foreskin with.a huge and disfiguring birthmark? Really?

Breathe - absolutely agree with your last post. I'd also like to ask what is wrong with the term mutilate???

It stems from the 16th century Latin 'mutilat', which means 'maimed, mutilated, lopped off' according to the OED. Which is exactly what happens when a defenceless child is pinned down and a piece of his anatomy is removed at the will of others and before he is of an appropriate age to give informed consent.

Kungfu - are you one of those people who would also call beating a child 'just a tap'? It's rather interesting that you can't bear the practice you're so in favour of being called by its real name...

Ah, so you would do a non medically necessary procedure on a baby for cultural benefits.

Ok, good to know.

No, not really. I can appreciate that the medical benefits exist and in less developed countries they are significant enough to make it a valid preventative measure. However the mitigation factors int the UK are sufficient to make the risks and importance of respecting a child's autonomy over their body outweigh the risks of routine circumcision.

In the UK, unless you come from a culture where circumcision is routine, there is no choice to make. There is no leaflet in the bounty pack giving the pros and cons along with contact details of doctors who will whip your newborn's foreskin off for you. I am not looking for a justification of my position because the medical profession have effectively made it for me by not offering this service beyond those cultural groups where it is a norm. Getting DD a chicken pox vaccine was really easy, a quick google and I found a provider. Finding circumcision providers would probably be possible if I contacted my religious members, but to those outside those groups it isn't really considered.

What is and isn't disfiguring is a cultural construct.

Wibbly, it has a name - it is called circumcision. You are the one with taxonomy issues.

Are you seriously accusing Kungfu of being a child beater now?