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

Cote if the "vast majority of scientific evidence" pointed in that direction then the vast majority of health organisations worldwide would recommend it. They do not. I couldn't make you see on the last circumcision thread that if the evidence base was that strong it would be routinely recommended practice, which again, it is not.

Cote
But there IS doubt about the benefits !
If the "science was settled" then every health organisation in the world would recommend it.
Most don't.
Really that tells you all you need to know.
It obviously cannot be proven for a fact. If it could, then there would also be lawsuits stacking up all around the world for the failure of these health organisations to introduce mass circumcision.
As Sallyingforth says, there are SOME studies that allegedly prove cutting will save you and your family from a horrible foreskin related death, but there are others that prove the opposite. Its propaganda, from both sides really. If you take a step back and look at it objectively, that means the case CANNOT be proven scientifically. The big indicator of that, as I said, is the lack of recommendation from health bodies, and indeed the lack of lawsuits. Even in the U.S., which by all accounts is very litigious, people who have not been circumcised are not suing MDs or health organisations because their foreskins are killing them.
Honestly, if an Alien came down and listened to this debate about cutting a bit of skin of the end of penises he would roll his (multiple) eyes, take off and nuke the planet from orbit (Its the only way to be sure!) :-)

ElleBellyBeeblebrox

Great minds think alike !

lol
:-)

They do recommend routine circumcision for areas like Africa where risk of infection is so high.

Check out what WHO says on this subject:

Male circumcision for HIV prevention
There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Three randomized controlled trials have shown that male circumcision provided by well trained health professionals in properly equipped settings is safe. WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence.

In the Western world, as I said before, it is up to parents to make this risk assessment because these life-threatening diseases are not widespread enough to warrant routine circumcision.

cote

Why should I post them? just so you can post that they are untrue?
based on flawed information?

but FYI your South African research is in a country where HIV is rife, so is the information equally as relevant to the UK? or USA? or Sweden? to name a few countries where HIV is not rife.

If your information was so one sided then why do other Drs in the same field not agree with it?

Again for me the primary fact is
A baby cannot consent to having a healthy piece of skin removed.

The bold has gone a bit mad on my quote from the World Health Organisation link.

This is their recommendation, from the WHO website:

Male circumcision for HIV prevention
There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Three randomized controlled trials have shown that male circumcision provided by well trained health professionals in properly equipped settings is safe. WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence.

Davros
Cote you've said it yourself, the WHO recommends it in those specific areas to combat what is a very specific problem. Nowhere else.

So circumcision gives a 48% drop in HIV infection.

What % drop does using a condom get you?

Let me guess, the men in the Ugandan study didn't and wont use condoms.

This is why circumcision is recommended by the WHO in parts of Africa as better than nothing.

Of course the men in question and their partners (male or female) would be much better off just practising safe sex. Which is what is recommended.

Cote the study you are quoting is relevant to the countries they were done in. Not to us here or in America.

Yes, Elle, I'm saying it myself that WHO recommends it in areas of high infection rates and not in the EU, for example, where the risk assessment & choice of circumcision is something to be done by the parents.

And I said that because you said (and davros quickly agreed) "if the "vast majority of scientific evidence" pointed in that direction then the vast majority of health organisations worldwide would recommend it. They do not."

My point was that you are wrong on both counts:
(1) Scientific evidence does show that circumcision provides health benefits (see WHO link)
(2) WHO & UNAIDS do recommend it (see WHO link)

Please try to keep up. It will be impossible to talk on this subject if you are going to go with such a short attention span.

Person - You are not saying anything I haven't already said.

I'm not saying you must circumcise. I am saying that there is overwhelming evidence that circumcision has health benefits (which some on here were denying) and that the risk assessment and eventual decision is something that parents must make on their own.

Same with HPV vaccine. If you believe your DD will always use the condom and that condom will never break, and if not she will religiously do her smear tests and any cervical cancer will be caught & treated before real danger, then she doesn't need the vaccine.

My DS isn't circumcised, btw. I have no dog in this fight.

Condoms don't prevent HPV as it's spread by skin to skin contact not bodily fluids.

Depends on what strain you are talking about.

HPV strains that cause cancer need to get to the cervix to start the process, which means that condoms prevent them.

HPV strains that cause genital warts are indeed transmitted by contact with them.

I'm guessing it doesnt scare Boney Cote. Just people probably thinking its pointless to post contrasting evidence on this thread when doing so on the first 10pages was as effective as nailing jelly to the wall.

Elle - Run away if you don't want to "engage" with me.

If you think I am wrong, point out where and back up your claims with some facts. Without resorting to personal attacks and insults, if at all possible.

there is overwhelming evidence that circumcision has health benefits

People are denying this because they don't believe it is applicable to men in this country, although in certain places the risks may outweigh the benefits.

there is overwhelming evidence that removal of the appendix has health benefits

Obviously not, only for certain people but no one would make such a ridiculous claim without qualifying it.

For anyone who's interested the American study found an increased rate of 2.4% (HIV transmission in intact men)

I've pointed out to you endlessly the most basic of facts that routine circumcision is not recommended by any leading health organisation worldwide. (Apart from in certain areas of Africa for very specific reasons) This can only be because the EXPERTS don't consider the evidence base strong enough to do so. You won't accept that, and refuse to see my point, so I'm hiding the thread as you are infuriating. Not running away, just choosing not to enter into something that will raise my blood pressure.

Of course teenage girls are deemed old enough to consent (or not)on the HPV vaccine.

Baby boys don't get the choice.

Which brings us right back to consent.

I wonder how many 14 year old boys would consent to a quick circumcision...

"People are denying this (health benefits) because they don't believe it is applicable to men in this country"

The health benefits are real. They do exist. People denying them were saying things like "Other studies show different stuff" (Boney) or "People with vested interests put out those studies so they are basically lies" (davros). Those are both wrong.

"there is overwhelming evidence that removal of the appendix has health benefits"

I see what you are getting at there, but it is not entirely reasonable to compare major abdominal surgery with the removal of foreskin.

"For anyone who's interested the American study found an increased rate of 2.4% (HIV transmission in intact men)"

I am interested. Which American study and what does "increased rate of 2.4% mean? Increased from what, since intact men have the higher transmission rates anyway?

This is the study mentioned in the article that this thread is about

www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(14)00036-6/abstract

increased compared to circumcised men.

"routine circumcision is not recommended by any leading health organisation worldwide. (Apart from in certain areas of Africa for very specific reasons) This can only be because the EXPERTS don't consider the evidence base strong enough to do so"

Not at all. You are wrong there.

WHO (= World Health Organization. "EXPERTS", in other words) very clearly state that there is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection. Here is the link, again, just for you. Please read it and try to understand it. It is written in plain English.

WHO limits its recommendation to places where HIV is widespread, because "EXPERTS" know (as do we all) that the probability of being exposed to HIV is quite low in many parts of the world, so this is not as pressing an issue. And the risk assessment as well as choice is left up to parents.

As others have said, its starting to feel like nailing Jelly to a wall.
Anyway. Using you own words:
"there is overwhelming evidence that circumcision has health benefits"
This is hiding behind a technicality to justify your position.
Some (American) studies (and the WHO, which is based in.. America) show that it reduces HIV transmission by a MASSIVE 2.4 % !!!! among a sample (how big, under what conditions) in a specific country where HIV is rife (and, as I read some time ago, Heterosexual anal sex is very common as a form of contraception, as the men will not wear condoms).
This does not extrapolate to the rest of the world. (Is that %age benefit statistically sound ?)
When a respected governmental health organisation from a country WITHOUT a history of circumcision can categorically prove a MAJOR benefit and recommend infant circumcision as a standard practice then I will listen.
Until that day, the practice of routine infant circumcision is not proven on health grounds. let alone moral grounds (the right to choose etc).

Person - Sorry but I can't see any mention of how much HIV transmission rose in that link. All numbers there are about rising or falling circumcision rates.