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

If I wasn't clear...

The 2.4% increase (in HIV transmission) was in intact American men.

In Africa the increase was much, much higher. I've seen figures between 48 and 60%.

What I'd still like to know, is, are men in traditionally uncut countries (for eg here or in Europe) suffering the astonishing number of problems that American men are reporting? ie 1 in 2 men

davros - re "Some (American) studies (and the WHO, which is based in.. America)"

Are you seriously trying to discredit World Health Organization?

WHO is part of the UN, by the way. it most certainly is not based in America. Its address is:

World Health Organization
Avenue Appia 20
1211 Geneva 27
Switzerland

"show that it reduces HIV transmission by a MASSIVE 2.4 % !!!! among a sample (how big, under what conditions)"

Try searching scholar.google.com to answer your questions.

Maybe start with these studies:

Orange Farm study, South Africa - 3,273 men - stopped for ethical reasons after preliminary results showed 60% decrease in infection among circumcised men.

Kenya study - 3,000 men - showed 53% decrease in HIV infection among circumcised men

Uganda trial - 5,000 men - showed 48% reduction in HIV infection among circumcised men

If you know of any comparable studies, done with so many thousands of people, please do share.

"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."

No, you probably will find some other excuse to dismiss that, too.

On the 'full text' tab under the heading 'Risk-Benefit'.

Person - re "The 2.4% increase (in HIV transmission) was in intact American men. In Africa the increase was much, much higher. I've seen figures between 48 and 60%."

What you meant wasn't clear because those figures were not increases but decreases in the Africa studies. Uncircumcised men already have the highest rates of incidence. You don't increase those rates by making cut men uncut again, you decrease them by circumcising men.

And as I said before, there was no mention of a 2.4% figure, or indeed of any increase in HIV transmission in the link you posted. So where is that figure coming from?

Ah. Are you looking at that table where it has the figure 2.4 next to "HIV (acquired heterosexually)"?

Have you seen your error or do you need me to point it out to you?

The who actually recommends circumcision for adult males for prevention of HIV infection in certain communities.

Doesn't stop people using it as evidence to support routine circumcision for infants though.

Wait, SoulJacker. Let's first get to the bottom of this "only 2.4% reduction in HIV transmission risk" claim.

Person

Is that the source that was used to supportt the statement we saw, long, long ago, that if US circumcision rates dropped to European circumcision rates, US rates for various diseases would increase by x%?

I was hoping we could find the comparative rates for circumcision and disease for US and European countries so we could see the supporting data. Do you know where to find it?

Parts of Africa do have alarming rates for other reasons.

Did I really say 'The 2.4% increase' when I should have said

'The 2.4% risk increase'

which is exactly as it is presented in the article? [gasp]

OK, in Person's absence, I will tell you where she went wrong.

In the table she looked at, the figures are not in percentages.

Table 4. Comprehensive Risk-Benefit Analysis of Infant Male Circumcisiona

Condition ..................... ................. Fold increase in risk
HIV (acquired heterosexually)............ 2.4 (1.8-3.2)

Note that this is a 2.4-fold increase, not 2.4% increase as Person thought it was.

The rest of those conditions whose risks increase 2, 3, or over 20-fold in uncircumcised men are also sobering reads. All can be found in the link that Person provided. (Click on the Full Text tab)

I don't even know if that data exists piglet. (doubt it)

Not sure who said that ? a poster but yes this is the research that the article linked in the OP was based on.

Person

I don't understand that.

Surely the rates of circumcision in the US, and in various European countries, are known. Surely the rates if infection of various diseases in the US, and in various European countries are known?

BTW I think note d applies in that table.

I bet the rates of disease and circumcision are know but whether or not they've been put together in the way this article has I don't know.

Not sure why anyone would have bothered?

Person - Are you going to acknowledge your error re "2.4% increase" or are you waiting for my post to drop from the page and hoping nobody notices?

Cote

Your arguments are only relevant to the areas of the world in which they are researched in?
We are not in an area of the world where there are high levels of HIV.

How can you relate this to the UK? or USA? or any other country that has a completely different set up?
You can't its like trying to compare apples to oranges, it is different and it is spurious.

Why do I not produce research to back my claims up, my claim is that a baby cannot consent to having a healthy part of its body removed, Do you dispute this?

I can agree that there are some health benefits to circumcision. Just like there are benefits to removing, say, little toes at birth. Would certainly help against athlete's foot. This is not done though, as generally the benefit is not seen as outweighing the drawbacks and risks of this surgery.

WHO states, based in their studies in Africa: male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV.

So they find that in certain regions, to contain the epidemic, circumcision benefits outweigh drawbacks and risks. But they do not outweigh the risks in other areas, therefore WHO is not recommending circumcising all male babies all over the world.

yes, it's left to parents, but I have a hard time believing that someone would really, seriously, circumcise in the UK genuinely because they want to lower the risk of HIV (instead of teaching the boy to use condoms), or penile cancer (annual incidence 1 in 100 000 in the US and interestingly, lower in Denmark, where almost no men are circumcised), and not mainly because of their culture and that it has always been done and that they want the baby to look like daddy. I might be just cynical, of course.

Should we really be removing parts of a child to stop a disease that can and is prevented through other means?

I admit, in countries like Nigeria where they're not too hot on protection there may be a benefit if those stats are true, but that doesn't apply to the western world were we are more educated and contraception is neither condemned or difficult to get hold of.

In places like England and US, the HIV point is a ridiculous one. We shouldn't routinely remove foreskin of babies to prevent it, but no-one actually does, do they? They may use that as one of the points for circumcision but it's not the full thought process behind it which is what bothers me.

davros - Before you move on to other stuff, it would be great if you could acknowledge your errors on "WHO is American, based in America" and "circumcision only reduces HIV transmission by 2.4%".

It would help raise the standards of debate significantly here if we could acknowledge a point when it is made before we move on.

I love the fact that people who liken circs as effective as vaccines are telling others to raise the standards in a debate.

Are you hiding, Person? Please don't feel so bad about it. We all make mistakes.

It is important to acknowledge that you were wrong at the "2.4% increase", though and note that the increase is 2.4-fold.

That is 140% increase. Rather more significant than a 2.4% increase, I'd say.

Cote it would help if you lowered the tone a bit and also read the first umpteen pages where all the several contrasting points you keep waiting for people to post are there. Several times.

cote
I don't think anyone will dispute that in the countries you mentioned, where rates of HIV are extremely high and men refuse to use condoms, it's likely that any alternative measure will show some benefit. Washing the penis with an alcohol handwash before and after sex might be equally effective. Circumcision at birth is already common in those countries and as an accidental side effect it has been found to reduce HIV transmission. It's a poor substitute for condoms, but better than nothing.

But you cannot extrapolate those extreme cases to developed countries where there are many fewer cases of HIV and condom use is common.

The health authorities in European countries are in an easier and more straightforward position. They have only to consider the medical effects of circumcision and do not have to take religious or customary practices into account. In that more open environment they have all, independently, decided that there is no case for mass circumcision.

I am very happy to accept the unbiased advice of all those independent authorities. If you cannot, that's fine for you. But do not expect to convince others with more open minds that they should cut the foreskins off their babies for no good reason.

Misspixie - People against you in a debate are not automatically low standard. They are not even automatically wrong.

Read the thread and you will see that I was not the one doing the badmouthed personal attacks, for example.