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

"From John 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..."

so surely, they backed up that statement with the evidence of the rates from those European countries. It must be in their document. Can somebody find and copy it please.

prima no it wouldn't as for me it's far too big a decision for me to take for my child without their consent.

It's not an immunisation. Not all adults have a sexual relationship do they? If the stats were there I would exist them to choose as adults.

I wouldn't dream of making this decision for my kids.

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...

So what is so different in the US that makes them more sensitive to these diseases than other developed countries?

Clearly this doesn't apply to e.g. Europe or Australia, or we would all be having outbreaks of these diseases and at least some of their health services would be recommending circumcision to prevent them. Are they all blind to these outbreaks, or biased against preventing them?

Or could it just possibly be that the US is the odd one out and seeks to justify its preference to circumcision?

I know which I would believe.

I am an atheist and I didn't circumcise my two DSs, but I did inflict pain and mutilation on both my younger DC when they were too young to consent fully- they had to have surgery when they were small. In one case, removal of a pre-cancerous growth and relocation of the testes; in the other, grommets. I would circumcise if I thought there was a sound medical reason.

What is it that circumcision promises me? the World Health Organisation recommends it specifically for prevention of HIV, alongside condoms and fewer sexual partners. It doesn't say if just condoms and sexual restraint works just as well. My DC are at lower risk of HIV as we don't live in a high risk area. Mmm, pass.

Studies show less risk of STIs. Mmm, possibly worth it. But surely better to use a condom and/or be faithful and wash a bit? Pass.

Studies show less risk of UTIs. Mmmm, a bit trivial, they can take antibiotics. Pass.

Studies show less less risk of penile cancer. Mmm, interesting. How common is penile cancer, and what's the reduction in risk? Ah. You say it is incredibly rare, CRUK? 550 men a year, usually over 60, in the UK, you say? and that smoking is a bigger risk factor than circumcision, as is HPV infection? And that Israeli Jews get 1/3 the rate that British men do- so circumcision only reduces risk, it doesn't eliminate it? hmmm, pass on the whole I think.

Doesn't quite reach the necessary standard for surgery to babies, not for me, I'm afraid.

"So what is so different in the US that makes them more sensitive to these diseases than other developed countries?"

money.

The private healthcare system in America gets more money for doing completely unnecessary operations on penises.

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?
I certainly would, if that were the case.
But it isn't.

The latter Sally :)

The study I posted didn't claim that circumcision was standing between good health & an outbreak.

And that Israeli Jews get 1/3 the rate that British men do- so circumcision only reduces risk

but where is the evidence that this is anything to do with circumcision?
You'd have to do a controlled trial to establish that. It could just as easily be due to diet or climate or pollution or some other effect.

"circumcision is minor and does not impact on pleasure or function". Absolute crap. How would someone without it know?? Having had life with it, there's no way in hell I'd be without it. Asking someone who hasn't had the opportunity to make that decision for themself where it's been made for them as an infant is a nonsense, someone who basically has no way of knowing. Let the individual choose. It's THEIR body.

Haven't read the whole thread so someone might have already mentioned this. I know several blokes (my brother & boyfriend included) who have trapped their foreskin in zips before. Not quite a medical issue, but they certainly ended up in hospital.

Sarah can I just ask with you saying that does it mean your for or against circumcision or are you just offering insight?

On another note, I love it when people say circumcision is minor. It's being played down because the people having it done to them are babies are unable to complain. I'm sure it wouldn't be 'minor' if a grown man had his removed in the same way a baby does.

Just insight really. Incidentally, my boyfriend has been circumcised (but still managed to get his willy caught when younger) as he has a genetic 'thing' which I'm not sure how to describe, but basically his willy was too big for his foreskin so it had to be removed when he was a toddler. This also happened to his dad, grandad, uncle and recently his nephew. I'm expecting our first boy so am having to consider circumcising our son prior to the possibility of him having the same issue. It's interesting to read people's opinions about whether doing this apparently helps to ward of illnesses - I have heard a lot of similar stories from circumcised men that they feel cleaner etc. Who knows.

Circumcised men almost always (not exclusively I realise) lack knowledge of living with a foreskin, so how would they know it 'feels cleaner'?

Sarah I have stubbed my toe numerous times but I would draw the line at having it removed.

No one here is saying circumcision is needed in some cases based in strict medical need but in some countries it seems to be done as a routine/normal op.

It's not routine and it shouldn't be normal practise.

It's amazing how private health care systems invent the need forsurgery.

I suggest many vets act the same because of the uptake of pet plan.

That's a sensible approach Sarah - no doubt your doctors will be able to advise you, and the surgeon will do it under an anaesthetic if it's required.
In the same way, some women with a strong family history of breast cancer have chosen breast removal. But no-one in their right mind would recommend it for everyone 'just in case'.

sally I think you can get to the evidence on the rate of penile cancer in Israel from th CRUK (cancer research UK) website. I didn't bother reading the study, because CRUK tends to be fairly sane. They weren't recommending circumcision, btw, and nor was I....

Sarah it really does not ward off illness no matter how Many times the same bollocks is trotted out. If it did it would be readily available on the NHS...like vaccines are :)

YY! Sally!

UncleT they don't. They are just told so.

A few months ago I was reading and (posting) on a thread about circumcision on another forum. One poor guy had definitely suffered a 'loss of pleasure or function' as a result of being circumcised as a baby.I think he would have quite a lot to say about that.

Arriving late to this thread as I've been at work. If the "benefits" of circumcision were so great, it would be recommended practice by NICE, which it isn't. There is no major leading healthcare organisation in the world which actually promotes it, the strongest proponent in any case is the AAP which has since been accused of massive cultural bias by other health organisations. If the evidence was that clear cut then circumcision would be recommended as best practice. It is not. Quite aside from the pain involved and the ethical consideration of making such a huge lifelong decision for another human being. Circumcision for non medical reasons appalls me.

"From John 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..."

Has nobody found their table of comparative statistics by country and disease yet? Surely they must have had one, unless they were just making it up?

Beast I know you weren't. I was just pointing out that even that point was false.