Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

WTF? "Half of all uncircumcised males will, over the course of their lifetime, develop some kind of medical issue related to their foreskin."

903 replies

missingwelliesinsd · 04/04/2014 21:11

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

OP posts:
CoteDAzur · 10/04/2014 12:42

Sally - I haven't extrapolated anything and said all that myself several times. Please take a look at my previous posts.

Misspixietrix · 10/04/2014 12:43

I'm not the one that needs to read the thread. If I was. I wouldn't know about the contrasting evidence. Like I said. It is there. Several times. Try again.

CoteDAzur · 10/04/2014 12:45

Is it so hard to admit that the 2.4% figure people on here were using was based on a misreading of that table?

Why can't just one of you say "Yes, Cote, you are right. Person was wrong. Davos was wrong. Uncircumcised men don't have 2.4% higher risk of HIV infection. They have 2.4-fold higher risk of HIV infection"?

PigletJohn · 10/04/2014 12:45

Are HIV transmission rates from heterosexual sex really 2.4 times as high in non-circumcising Sweden as they are in high-circumcising U.S?

PersonOfInterest · 10/04/2014 12:48

Piglet I did find this which is a little dated but does make interesting reading even though its not quite the same as the American data.

adc.bmj.com/content/77/3/258.full

cote
You are correct I confused fold and %.

I hope my mistake is clear, I don't want to cause anymore confusion.

I've been trying to get my head round appendix d. I bet you could explain it in real terms.

I think it is important you acknowledge you were wrong in comparing circumcision to HPV vaccine as the latter doesn't involve removing a healthy body part and does involve informed consent.

Lets all raise the standard of debate eh?

BoneyBackJefferson · 10/04/2014 12:50

"Why can't just one of you say "Yes, Cote, you are right. Person was wrong. Davos was wrong. Uncircumcised men don't have 2.4% higher risk of HIV infection. They have 2.4-fold higher risk of HIV infection"?"

Because you are missed out in which countries it applies to.

CoteDAzur · 10/04/2014 12:51

Piglet - The studies where those figures are taken from are on the right of the figures on that table. Read them if you like and tell us what you think.

HIV infection isn't the only condition with higher risk.

Urinary track infection - 3.4-fold (9.9-fold between ages 0-1)
Herpes - 1.4-fold
Penile cancer - over 20-fold
... and many others on that table.

Great source of information, btw. Thanks, Person Smile

CoteDAzur · 10/04/2014 12:52

Boney - "What countries it applies to"? Do you even understand what that table is saying? Hmm

Misspixietrix · 10/04/2014 12:53

Person pfft! You haven't grovelled clearly enough! Grin.

CoteDAzur · 10/04/2014 12:56

Grovelled? I'd be perfectly happy with admitted her mistake, if that ever happens.

Others here who have quoted her 2.4% figure are equally silent.

Hello? Anyone there?

Seriously. Is it that hard to admit to one little mistake?

NurseyWursey · 10/04/2014 12:57

Cote for the love of god, they don't all have to line up to apologise to you. One person has admitted it, we've read that and accepted that it was wrong. Job done.

Misspixietrix · 10/04/2014 13:00

I'd be perfectly happy if people wanting a raised standard in a debate weren't so twattishly condescending to others to be honest (don't count me in that think water duck back and all that jazz). Hth.

PersonOfInterest · 10/04/2014 13:01

rtft

CoteDAzur · 10/04/2014 13:04

Nursey - Where is that one person? I haven't seen anyone say "Point taken, yes it wasn't 2.4%" or anything remotely similar.

NurseyWursey · 10/04/2014 13:06

PersonOfInterest Thu 10-Apr-14 12:48:10

CoteDAzur · 10/04/2014 13:08

"Twattishly condescending"?

Like this, you mean:

PersonOfInterest Thu 10-Apr-14 12:07:01
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]

Yes, twattishly condescending and wrong. An unfortunate combination.

But you see, I didn't even point that out because it didn't matter.

Facts matter.

Misspixietrix · 10/04/2014 13:08

Then you clearly haven't read Persons latest post Cote. .

BoneyBackJefferson · 10/04/2014 13:09

Cote

Most of what you are posting is from research done in Africa, your numbers are only relevant to those in those conditions.

Misspixietrix · 10/04/2014 13:09

Yes you are cote. That isn't being condescending. That's being midly polite sarcastic .

CoteDAzur · 10/04/2014 13:10

Thanks Nursey. I had not seen that post at all while rushing to reply to the ones I did.

I have a bit of RL to attend to but will be back later.

Misspixietrix · 10/04/2014 13:12

No you didn't see it but jumped on her anyway. Ergo condescending. Hth.

PersonOfInterest · 10/04/2014 13:14

Re-reading my earlier post it occurs to me it may not be adequate for you Cote.

I'm not going to repeat it though. I think your abrasive manner may be bringing out the worst in me. It's certainly not conducive to discussion.

And yes you definitely confused sarcasm with being twattishly condescending. Easy mistake, don't feel bad.

davrostheholy · 10/04/2014 13:19

Cote
you seem to be getting more "strident" and demanding people admit they are wrong. That seems to me to be the behaviour of someone who is losing the argument as they cannot win on the facts.
Yes the WHO head office is registered in Switzerland not New York. Is the WHO predominantly Swiss ? Or US? What is the makeup of the panel that decided policy? Where did they get the figures from? Are you suggesting anyway that the WHO is infallible ?
The 2.4% figure I quoted from another poster.
Anyway the WHO do not recommend a blanket programme of infant circumcision worldwide. If they did, it would be different.
Our NHS and others do not recommend circumcision. There are no clear benefits to us obviously.
Then there is the moral issue of performing the op on an infant. Consent etc.
I note you said that you have a DS who is not circumcised.
What is your stance on him then ? Will you advise him to do it when he is older (Consent) or do you wish you had had it done when he was an infant.
If its neither of those things then I can only conclude you are arguing for the sake of it.

PigletJohn · 10/04/2014 13:39

Çote

Thanks, I found and read the link to the African trials. I looked at quite a number of the other references but they have no links.

There was a commentary on Finland, but the circumcision:disease documents for some reason seem not to mention European vs. US rates.

davrostheholy · 10/04/2014 14:06

Cote
I saw that report, and it said there is a 20 fold increase in Penile cancer if you have a foreskin.
Really ? REALLY ? TWENTY TIMES ?
If that is really true, I will sue the NHS tomorrow.