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

misspixie

I repeat, I haven't seen a good summary of the evidence to the contrary. Not all evidence is created equal.

nursey

why do you think a tonsillectomy on a newborn will be the same as a circumcision?

What a strange assertion to make

Trouble is though you can't ask the baby if it's ok or if it's hurting or agonising can you?

Babies can't tell you.

Shakshuka Why do you think they'd be different? A tonsillectomy is a very very simple procedure.

No prima. A local is but some don't even recommend that do they? What with it being a simple op and it will only hurt the poor sod for a minute. UncleT you're preaching to the choir here but if you have any evidence to contrary you're simply not knowledgable :)

squoosh and cory

If you don't like the conclusins of the AAP, you can look at the research on whcih it is based and reach your own conclusions.

I actually researched this mostly prior to 2012 before the AAP tehcnical report.

thebody actually a tonsillectomy can go terribly wrong. Just like circumcision can. :)

misspixie

there is a debate in the literature as to whether administering a local anaesthetic is actually more painful to the baby than the circumcision itself. I went to a circumcision once where it was done without an anesthetic, the baby didn't even wake up.

Yes I can read thanks. Why do you keep asking people to provide evidence to the AAP report and when they do, declare it as bias?

Circumcisions and tonsillectomies are very different. The complications from tonsillectomies are much greater and, as far as I know, it can only be done under a general anaesthetic. It is NOT a simpler and easier procedure when done as a newborn, in fact quite the opposite, hence no reason to do it as a newborn.

Your analogies simply don't work and they're not particularly clever.

Shakshuka How do you know they can only be done under general? I don't think anyone has ever tried one on a baby have they... because religious folk didn't think of that one. Who knows, the results may have been the exact same as a circumcision. You don't know.

Do what you want from a cultural standpoint but don't justify it with medical propaganda.
Proof is only required when necessity is questioned.

miss wonder what actually happens when these living room procedures do go horribly wrong?

A baby girl died recently died in a London following a FGM performed by an 'elder'.

Wonder if the adult male who suffer from medical problems linked to this can sue?

And Shakshuka I'm being purposely obtuse to show how ridiculous an argument for an invasive, unneeded procedure at birth is.

I suppose they could sue both their parents for not protecting them and the perpetrator too.

NICE (National Institute of Clinical Excellence) guidance for the NHS, is written by independent experts and they consider the best
available medical evidence on condition and treatments, the views of patients and carers and the experiences of doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals working in the field.

These guidelines do not recommend routine circumcision.

I can't think of any other surgical procedure where people would be told to disregatd the medical opinion of most doctors and the legal opinion of most governments in the developed world in order to make your own mind up about a procedure that is going to be carried out on somebody else, based on evidence from a field you are not trained in.

Not going to stick around as I got waaaay too involved in a previous version of this thread a few years back and it took a long time to recover my faith in MN.

So performing the thread equivalent of a hit-and-run...bad form, and I apologise, but you can't expect decent behaviour from those of us who support male circumcision, can you?

NICE base their decisions on whether an intervention is financially cost effective. The AAP are in a different position since they don't need to consider costs (one of the problems of the US system). But fair enough not to do it routinely. Doesn't mean they said it's harmful or that there aren't benefits.

Judging by the experience of my American friends with uncircumcised boys, many many pediatricians in the US are clueless about what to do with an uncircumcised penis. I have heard so many stories of pediatricians forcibly retracting the foreskin (or trying to do so) on babies or toddlers and TBH it's not wonder if those boys go on to have problems.

NHS evidence based advice reads -

'Most healthcare professionals now agree that the risks associated with routine circumcision, such as infection and excessive bleeding, outweigh any potential benefits.'

Fillybuster that's not the case at all. Most on this thread are opposed to circs done for cultural reasons because the reasons given are well? Bollocks. Haven't seen one vehemently opposed to it for religious or medical reasons. shakshuka you've answered your own question on your 'not all evidence is equal post'. What you really mean is it is only equal if it agrees with the AAP. Right. Glad we got that as clear as mud then. thebody that's terrible bless her. Not suprising though. Funnily enough most women that are cut are cut because a) it stops her from 'straying' (hate that word) and b) the same bollocks about it stopping the risk of sexually transmitted diseases and infections. Yet it's fine to use these reasons on a male apparently.

Animation there really is no point. That was posted about ten pages ago and readily dismissed as bollocks. UBecause of course the NHS hasn't got a clue what its talking about.

DebbieofMaddox I'm not suprised.