WTF? "Half of all uncircumcised males will, over the course of their lifetime, develop some kind of medical issue related to their foreskin."

[missingwelliesinsd]

Question as a Brit in the USA. I just read this news article on the never-ending debate (in the USA at least) of whether it's better to circumcise male babies. Some paper just issued by the Mayo Clinic concluded that the benefits out weigh the risks 100-1 and it would be unethical to not circumcise a male baby just it it would be if you don't get immunizations for your child. WTF?

I know that circumcising can help reduce STD transmissions - but hey, just use a condom! What I can't believe is that "50% of non-circumcised males have medical issues with their foreskins." That would make 50% of most of the male population of Europe having foreskin issues at some point. Can this be right? I tend to think it's just American prejudice against foreskins after decades of snipping. I'm TTC and if I do and we have a boy, no way am I snipping the poor thing.

Here's the article:
jezebel.com/circumcision-rates-decline-in-the-u-s-1557539810

You're very rude, caruthers but I guess that's par for the course.

No, I haven't seen any evidence supporting removing other body parts at birth. Therefore, I wouldn't support it. If there were evidence, i'd consider it.

It wasn't much of a debate, more mud slinging with a lot of confirmation bias. I didn't see any solid critical analysis of the AAP report by anyone on this thread.

Really so the links refuting that assertion didn't happen then?

Shakshuka The fact of the matter is there are numerous body parts we could chose to remove to prevent risks later on, but we don't. We leave them be because the method of removal is painful, invasive and is NOT needed at that stage.

You say it lowers the risk of STD's.. why would a person even CONSIDER this at the birth of their child? Why wouldn't you think, when he's old enough to have sex he'll be able to make his own mind up about what sort of protection he uses. Instead of removing his body part.

thebody

You haven't told us what the medical benefits of having your daughter self mutilate pierce her ears are? Was there a medical problem with her ear lobes that required piercing?

I think the issue highlights the differences between the US and Europe.

When we get told something by the UK government or another UK authority group, we then look at a range of similar countries and see what they have said.

So if there is a dental treatment or am educational method, we can look at how Sweden or Italy have carried out research reviews of the same research and either come to the same or different conclusions, and that changes our level of confidence about what we are told in the UK.

The US attitude across multiple issues seems to be their experts decide, even if every other similar nation isarguing the contrary, they are still right, because their interpretation of research/science/society/international human rights is better than everyone else's.

shak yes those bloody men who arnt happy being circumcised are obviously mentally ill arnt they?

Dear dear God.

I'll take the "You're very rude" as a compliment and confirmation that the baby mutilating fraternity don't want me in their club.

And i'm out because I don't want to upset anyones sensibilities.

In which case nursery the costs would outweight the benefits. There are no other cases I know of where benefits outweigh costs. Removing the appendix is, for example, a full blown operation. If it were on the end of your finger and you coudl just snip it off, then it may, for example, be something worth doing. But that's hypothetical.

It's not just STIs, there are other issues which are reduced or avoided. Read the AAP technical report.

shak no medical benefits at all just for earrings.

No medical benefits to ds having a tatoo.

again it's about consent of the individual

Is that really so so hard to understand.

I don't think that's true almondcake.

I've lived in the US and in Europe and that's not been my experiene at all.

thebody

A 9 year old is not capable of giving fully informed consent. That's why YOU signed the form.

So you allowed your daughter to mutilate herself and exposed her to risk of infection just to wear earrings. No medical benefit whatsoever. How is THAT not child abuse (by your standard, not mine)?

Caruthers

Actually I think rudeness and personal insults are a sign that you're on shaky ground and that is your only resort.

You can't refute the research so you just go down to the level of insults.

The evidence of increased or decreased sexual satisfation is mixed corus. I haven't been convinced either way.

"There are no other cases I know of where benefits outweigh costs."

What are the benefits?

A new born's penis is healthy isn't it?

Oh so now it's the financial side Shakshuka well we really are clutching at straws here aren't we.

Read the report for all the benefits animation.

It's all there plus the research and evidence supporting it.

I know sifting through scientific evidence is a pain but it's the best way to reach an evidence based conclusion.

almond excellent post.

shaks just snip it off comment just about sums up the whole attitude to this.

No consent, no research based evidence worth it's salt, no empathy or care for those mutilated either during the procedure or if an man dares to say that he feels violated that it occurred.

Again it's on a par with FGM, witch burning,feet binding etc.

It's about time we called it what it is, child abuse.

Out of the thread now.

I never mentioned money.

No thebody most certainly not.

What sums up my opinion is 'evidence, evidence, evidence'. If the evidence changes, I'll change my opinion.

Actually I think rudeness and personal insults are a sign that you're on shaky ground and that is your only resort.

Your arrogance and failings are here for everyone to see.

And they have indeed pointed that out.

When a person without a foreskin (Or penis) tells a person with a foreskin that they are on shaky ground on the subject of circumcision.

That really is the definition of deluded.

What about the medical bodies whose scientific research finds no need for routine circumcision?

How do you know I don't have a penis caruthers?