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

Is there anybody who seriously asserts that cutting off a highly sensitive part of the body does not reduce sensation?

primaface you ignore all evidence you don't like and call it biased. Fair enough.

However just one little thing here.

Do you honestly really think it makes commem sense or is decent to routinely lop off bits from a make child's penis?

Do you honestly and sensibly think this widespread practise is either acceptable or needed.

Surely you can see that this is quite ridiculous on the most basic level, and in a higher level a fearful mutilation and grevious bodily harm on a child who has no day in this, no consent so no chance to refuse.

Honestly can't you see how dreadful this is?

Corus, sorry my post was not clear. I didn't specify European, because not all non North American developed countries are in Europe. Australia, for example has similar medical and legal opinion on circumcision as Europe.

PigletJohn and CorusKate, there have been a lot of studies on pleasure and yes, as far as I am aware the most up to date research concludes that circumcision has no overall impact on pleasure. I can't post links right now - but honestly, even if I did, would you read them? Because I don't think anyone has read any of the links I have posted upthread.

thebody - You are against it and you think it is vile. I get it. Let me ask you a question. What type of evidence would it take to make you change your mind on circumcision? Let's say, for the sake of the argument, that the NHS changes its position and endorses the AAP's position. Would you stop considering it child abuse? What if studies showed that the risk of having prostate cancer increases 1000% in non-circumcised men? What if it was shown to increase life expectancy by 20 years? What if you had relatives who had died prematurely of conditions which circumcision is shown to offer a degree of protection against? Do you think that might weigh in the picture? At what stage would your risk/benefit analysis change?

Now consider that we all make different risk/benefit choices. That is one of the reasons why we are not all the same and that we parent differently. We live in different communities, with different cultures, different histories. You do not know the risk factors that different posters are considering, you do not know how they have made their decisions. The Mayo study states that the health benefits outweigh the risks 100 to 1. For some parents, this may be sufficient, don't you think?

I think the problem with that argument is that no such example exists in real life. There is no body part, that if removed from the average person would increase life expectancy for twenty years or that if not removed would increase your risk of cancer by 1000%.

If such risks were claimed to exist, I would expect the world to act on them, and for collective statements by human rights bodies and world medical organisations. I certainly would not think that my country acting alone was being accurate about such risks or that I could weigh up such risks contrary to statements of the WHO and other similar bodies.

And there is no such a global decision being made for the current level of risk. The World Health Organisation is not advocating circumcision in developed countries, and even in cases where it is to be carried out on children, they say it must be done under local anaesthetic. So the arguments on here are not just contrary to what the UK say, but are considered inappropriate by the WHO.

Ok Corus. I will post links late tonight.

Primafacie There's also evidence that if you cut off a female child's genitals and sew up what's left it makes them less likely to have sex, with all the resultant risks of STDs. So you are on firm ground there with the general principle.

Certainly there are plenty of people on your side. Maybe not the people you'd really want on your side, but at least there are some.

Is intactivist supposed to be a derogatory term for people who don't think children are what razors blades were invented for?

What if studies showed that the risk of having prostate cancer increases 1000% in non-circumcised men? What if it was shown to increase life expectancy by 20 years?

Then we'd all be in favour of it of course. It's precisely because there is no such benefit that MGM is seen to be just an unnecessary act to satisfy the whim of the parents.

If the US reports are correct, the disease levels in Europe and particularly in Scandinavia where circumcision is almost unknown, must be far higher than in the US.

Can those who use the US report to justify cutting their children, provide any figures at all to show the relative disease levels?

it is possible to protect against various other diseases, for example breast cancer and testicular cancer, by amputating the relevant part in advance of a problem occurring. Very rarely, people choose to do such things. I have only ever heard of adults choosing to do it for themselves, after a great deal of thought, and some people at risk may decide not to. Perhaps parents also make this decision for their children, I don't know.

From Johns Hopkins:

According to the team’s analysis, if U.S. male circumcision rates among men born in the same year dropped to European rates, there would be an expected 12 percent increase in men infected with HIV (or 4,843); 29 percent more men infected with human papillomavirus (57,124); a 19 percent increase in men infected with herpes simplex virus (124,767); and a 211 percent jump in the number of infant male urinary tract infections (26,876). Among their female sex partners, there would be 50 percent more cases each of bacterial vaginosis (538,865) and trichomoniasis (64,585). The number of new infections with the high-risk form of human papillomavirus, which is closely linked to cervical cancer in women, would increase by 18 percent (33,148 more infections).

link here

can you see that as a rate-per-million? I can't but perhaps I have missed it. Presumably the assertion is supported by a table showing disease rates in the comparator countries, but I can't see that either.

I am looking in the "additional information" links.

I don't, but my back of the napkin calculation, taking the population (300 million) and dividing into halves for men/boys - women/girls -

HIV:32 per million
HPV: 38 per million
Herpes: 831 per million
UTI: 179 per million

women:
BV: 3,592 per million
tricho: 430 per million
HPV: 220 per million

I have had a bit of a keyword search, and there are some other articles listed,several in fact but I haven't found the evidence I was looking for. Perhaps you need to be a registered user to see it.

Some interesting replies to that analysis
archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1568558&resultClick=3
archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=383654&resultClick=3

There would be 285 newborns circumcised to prevent one case of HIV transmission - what about stopping abstinence-only sex ed programs and teach people to use condoms instead?

Aren't there cultural objections to that?

does the pattern show up here and here?

I think you'll find the Americans who advocate abstinence only education are in the minority. But that's a bit of a red herring, don't you think? Circumcision in the US predates the abstinence-only programs.

Y'know what, even if it came to it that foreskin removal 100% prevented the risk of STI's and HIV, I still wouldn't do it.

Do you know why?

Because it isn't my decision to make.

If my son decides when he's at the age of having sex, that he wants to have his foreskin removed - then okay, his choice.

There are no benefits to it being done as a child except this codswallop about it being simpler and them not remembering.

Prima trouble is no such studies exist do they quite the contrary.

Are there mass outbreaks of HIV papilloma virus and other diseases in non circumcisions Europe? Of course not.

It's absolute nonsense.

piglet excellent point.

OK, thebody, is that your tipping point then? If there were mass outbreaks of HIV, HPV and other diseases in countries with low circumcision rates, would you change your view on the risk/benefit analysis?

if circumcision does lead to a significant reduction in such diseases, the evidence will have been published to support the argument.

Circumcision rates are widely available, and so (in developed nations) are disease statistics, so the research has doubtless already been done. All we have to do is look at it.