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

My son had a tight/still fused foreskin - he couldn't pull it back aged 2/3, I told the health visitor I was concerned, she made an appointment with the hospital consultant.
At the appointment, the consultant said he would give him a general anaesthetic , try to pull it back, if not it would likely need to be circumcised there and then.
I went home and researched myself. I found that a good percentage of boys can't pull it back at that age, the % reducing each year, but till much older.
So I said no to the procedure. He is 16 now, and has no problem, I'm very glad I didn't take him back to that consultant!
I wonder if this is the sort of ( non) problem they are talking about?

Even if it is 50% medical conditions can be treated as and when necessary.

No cutting bits of babies. Why is this so bloody hard to understand? And I don't give a fuck if it is your religion or culture I want it made illegal in Australia it is just fucking wrong.

I'm shocked that the circumcision rate was 77% in 2010 in the USA. I thought it would be happening to a small minority of babies born to religious parents

Ticklishy - my DS is 3 and I haven't seen him pull his foreskin back, I assumed that generally came later. Scary that the consultant was so quick to recommend operating!

If you cut off your little finger you won't have any medical issues related to it. If you don't, when you trap your hand in the door, it will get hurt. A lot of people catch their foreskin in their zip trap their hands in doors.

In a country where circumcision is considered the norm and those who have health insurance will have frequent (paid) check ups as children, it would be interesting to see how many of those 'medical issue(s)' are before the age of 8 and are things that in the UK would be treated with a 'wait and see' approach.

Half of all circumcised men have an issue with their glans penis at some point in their lives.

Disclaimer: I made that up.
But it could be true.

Just use condoms and

Remember that in the US, the docs charge handsomely for performing a circumcision. One of my family members had a little boy in the US, and were charged $500 for a circumcision, when he wasn't even circumcised. It's so routine, and parents then feel pressured to get their boys snipped so that they don't look like the odd one out. (as if they walk around naked!)

If the doctors had to do it for free/$10, I bet the circumcision rate would plummet. I can't prove it though.

Mumminio, maybe if the NHS offered it for free, the rate in the UK would drastically increase?

I'm not sure what point this makes TBH.

90% of white Americans, 80% of blacks and 42% of Hispanics are circumcised. My hunch is that this captures the vast majority of Americans who have insurance.

if I see an article published by the American Academy of Pediatrics, I can't help asking myself "do they make any money out of this?"

I keep getting cold sores on my nose. I'm not going to chop it off, though.

btw I have had five problems with my legs. Would stats like mine indicate that 500% of people with legs have leg problems? What would the American Academy of Pediatrics recommend as a way to avoid having leg problems?

To the poster saying this is driven by profit, and there's no money in leaving them intact - actually the evidence is that the costs of treating all the infections, cancers and other conditions that are avoided by circumcision, are significantly higher than the cost of circumcising all boys. So it would be more profitable for doctors to lobby against circumcision, and treat the resulting medical conditions instead.

Shit, I've got a headache, let me get the chainsaw out......no, wait

I'm a nurse and I've seen a lot of foreskins in my time and very few of them caused their owners much trouble.

It's easy money for the surgeons

So a procedure that paediatricians get paid for has legitimacy!! By research??

Wow amazing!

Gid bless America ( health insurance)

Bollocks to the immunisation comparison. That doesn't include any mutilation of body parts.

Ds1&2 both had trouble with their foreskins, we were told you should able to retract the foreskin by the time they are 8.

Ds1 couldnt and had his removed at 9, ds2 luckily could so didnt need it taking off.

It wasnt a nice procedure, ds1 was in a lot of pain after for some time.

I cannot believe the number of posters who say things along the lines of 'well I've never seen anyone with foreskin issues, ergo the scientists who report and treat these conditions must be lying for money.'

I don't know anyone who is autistic, but you won't see me go on ASD threads and deny that the condition exist .

Very odd comparison to make Prima.

if 50% of the people with foreskins had "problems" with them, beyond catching them in a zip, I would know.

Has someone told you that 50% of the population is autistic?

Meditrina: Thanks for your follow up article, I'll read as well.

Having read the Mayo Clinic article I must say that it did come across as being partisan, the conclusion/argument from the start was that circumcision is good and the data and analysis was structured to support this argument. The article seems to suggest that having a foreskin in the first place IS a medical condition to be treated, as the authors noted that they find it strange that parents who would medically treat a tied-tongue or cleft lip wouldn't consider circumcision despite the alleged risks of keeping the foreskin.

My great uncle was uncircumcised, and died of syphilis contracted during WWI. Circumcised men are more likely to contract STDs and HIV. Their wives and girlfriends are less likely to have cervical cancer. I think it's a win, and would have a son done if I had one.

My great uncle was uncircumcised, and didn't die of syphilis.

So that proves, umm.....

I had many great uncles, all uncircumcised, all had sex, none died of syphilis.

A true masterclass of specious reasoning.