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

AIDS statistics for the UK show that the US have a higher infection rate per head of population than the UK.

CRUK say nothing of the kind about penile cancer.

"Penile cancer is a rare cancer in Western countries. Around 550 men are diagnosed each year in the UK. That means that only 3 out of every 1,000 cancers diagnosed in men in the UK are penile cancer. It is more common in men who live in Asia, Africa or South America.

The exact cause of penile cancer is not known but there are several risk factors"

here is the full link.

They say that HPV warts are a major risk factor, as is smoking. Circumcision, which reduces the chances of HPV, therefore also reduces peniloe cancer, but much less than using a condom does. Circumcision doesn't prevent it altogether. "However, it is important to remember that circumcision is only one risk factor for this type of cancer. Other risk factors such as smoking and HPV infection are more important."

Isn't there an HPV innoculation for boys?

Why don't boys have it?

If only there was some way of preventing or reducing HPV infection.

Something like a vaccine, maybe.

Caruthers
"AIDS statistics for the UK show that the US have a higher infection rate per head of population than the UK."

How can this be ? We in the UK are mostly uncircumcised....This must be a mistake, surely.

To clarify: I was talking about the Mayo clinic article.
www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(14)00036-6/fulltext

Cote also quoted the 20 times figure.

Here is a site that makes counter arguments:
www.circumstitions.com/Mayo.html

Very interesting reading.

Chopping off bits from non consenting babies for non medical reasons and on dodgy research is always going to be wrong.

Davros maybe Amercian men don't use condoms because they perceive they don't need to as they are circumcised...

I do think that telling men in Africa to get circumcised because it will reduce their risk of contracting HIV will lead to an increase in risky behaviour and thus an increase in HIV rates.

Just a few points from me, if I may.

First of all CorusKate, sorry I didn't post a link to the 'pleasure studies' but Côte beat me to it, and now the debate as moved on (I think!).

Second, I understand Côte's frustration because it is very difficult to have a reasoned debate on scientific evidence when some of the posters do not read, or do not understand, the scientific evidence they are debating.

Third, Misspixie you really shouldn't be giving lessons over posting etiquette. You have been very aggressive/arsey towards me and others on this thread. What makes it more infuriating is that you still don't understand some of the basic points of the debate such as:

• the difference between real science and pseudo-science propaganda;

-what bias means, and how it is measured;

-the necessity to back up your claims, not just shout the same stuff over and over again in a mocking tone, as you did with me earlier; and

-the difference between routine and non routine circumcision.

Finally, can we please move on from the consent point? Babies cannot consent to anything. Does that mean parents should not make parenting decisions? Of course not. There are a million things which we decide as parents and which have a much more or equally significant, lasting, potentially irreversible impact on children than circumcision. Where we live, whether we are married, what we feed them, the amount of TV time we allow, how many hours they sleep, how many books we have in the house, whether we teach them deferred gratification, all these things are shown to affect children in very profound ways. Yet we accept that different ways of parenting are acceptable, that not everyone is the same.

Even when we judge other parents' parenting, we don't say 'how dare you [live in Glasgow/feed your kid formula/send your child to state school/let her watch Ben 10/put him in that car seat], he/she can't even CONSENT'. Because that would be a stupid argument. Likewise here.

One more quick thing: QueenStromba, sadly I think you are right, circumcision does encourage some men in Africa to take more risks with condoms.

Prima I'm really not going to get into a who was arsier than who thread..especially after the Africa comment. Like I said several pages back stick to the facts. Second of all. If it bothers you that much report it. Thirdly I have repeatedly stated that assuming others have no knowledge of the subject is ignorant. If that is what you call arsey then to paraphrase you 'you need to harden up a bit'. You repeatedly stated that any link with contrasting evidence was biased/not equal/not recognised - delete as appropriate. My issue is withthe cultural side of it. Which incidentally is one of the very reasons given for why many cultures choose it is to prevent infections etc. Evidently I find condoms just as effective as preventing these infections.

Nursey I hear you. Just wanted to reassure you your efforts are not in vain :)

Misspixie your logic is so flawed that I don't have to assume you are ignorant- it is plain for all to see.

You repeatedly stated that any link with contrasting evidence was biased/not equal/not recognised - delete as appropriate.

No I haven't. What I have done is refute the low quality 'evidence' you want to rely on. I have explained why in each case. I have also invited you to give your reasons if you disagree. If you can find good science that supports your argument, then just post it so we can see it.

My issue is withthe cultural side of it. Which incidentally is one of the very reasons given for why many cultures choose it is to prevent infections etc

How can you be okay with it for religious reasons and not cultural reasons? I am genuinely curious as to why one of them is morally wrong but the other is not.

Finally, can we please move on from the consent point?

Not really, comparing circumcision to the areas that you do is silly, none of which remove a healthy piece of skin from a child.

Posters have posted links to groups and research that contain the scientific information that you want but they are either ignored, belittled or compared to the African trials.

"Isn't there an HPV innoculation for boys? Why don't boys have it?"

I assume that the reason why boys are not offered the HPV vaccine is cost.

To summarise, we have agreed that circumcision provides health benefits. We have also seen that this is not propaganda pushed by people with vested interests, but a fact recognised by the scientific community and international health organisations.

Now we are on to consent.

This is actually an easy one. Parents have the right and the duty to make health decisions for their children until they reach the age when they can give consent. Once you realise that circumcision has various health benefits, you have to acknowledge that parents are perfectly within their rights to take this decision for their children.

Some of you say "If the child wants to do it later in life, he can do it himself", but quite a few of those benefits affect children as well. By not circumcising, risk of urinary tract infection for a baby (age 0-1) will increase 9.9-fold. Urinary tract infection (age 1-16 y) will increase by 6.6-fold. Kidney infection in infants will increase by 10-fold. Parents who circumcise their babies are making a health decision as is their right and duty.

You may not make the same decision, and I have not either, but we have to recognise that consent is not an issue here.

Yes you're absolutely right Prima. You have indeed 'refuted' low quality evidence like err? The NHS comment for instance and you say my logic is flawed? Ifont i I've explained why. Medical - Necessity. Religion - Personal choice. Cultural - is a preference not a faith. It is not the same as a faith as I have illustrated. No Cote we haven't all agreed on anything.

'Per

MissPixie - If you haven't yet understand why the rest of the thread has agreed that there are clear medical benefits to circumcision re significantly reduced rates of infection & penile cancer after all of us poring over the table Person linked to yesterday, then you will have to study some more on your own. I am not going back to discussing something that everyone here understood.

I don't need to understand anything. Person was being sarcastic. I also don't need to repeatedly state that I don't need to link anything because plenty have already done so and as Boney said been rubbished. Oh and Davros didn't agree with you but it that's what you mean by the 'rest of the thread'. Okay then.

Cote you clearly haven't understood people who have clearly explained to you that those 'reduced rates' were in a specified area but please continue...