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 you don't need to understand anything, enjoy your ignorance.

And have a good life.

"those 'reduced rates' were in a specified area"

Do you think there is something in the air of Africa that makes circumcision reduce rates of infection, which does not translate to anywhere else in the world?

Studies involving thousands of people are done in areas where infection rates are high. Those results are then used to understand the realities of that disease and are used everywhere in the world. They certainly don't mean that they are only valid for the country of each particular study.

Circumcision decreases risk of infection. That is true for everywhere. In Europe, we don't have rampant AIDS so arguably don't have to worry about it as much, but if your DS has unprotected sex with an HIV-positive woman in the UK, he will still be at higher risk of catching it than he would be if he were circumcised.

And that is the last I want to say on that subject because if you don't want to understand, I don't want to waste my time with you.

Back to consent, if anyone wants to talk about that.

Don't worry Cote. I will :)

Thats good then. I likely don't want to waste my time with likening circ as effective as vaccines neither. If it was. The NHS would do it routinely but they don't. Of course babies can't consent but there's a lot of things babies can't consent too. Also consent wasn't my argument I believe.

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.

Cote, I am not sure that we have in fact agreed on that. But I can agree that if you did accept that data, then the rest of the argument would be easy.

I'm not sure that "if it were legitimate, the NHS would do it" is a sound argument.

Consider the chicken pox vaccination. Routinely carried out in the US, not offered on the NHS.

Right. had a catch up on the thread and to be honest I'm out now.
How can you have a debate with someone who comes back into a debate and declares that everyone agrees that they are right when clearly that is not the case, and they are in the minority ?
Breathtaking arrogance.
BTW, I would not normally announce my departure as it smacks of "Flouncing out" but yesterday I had some RL to attend to and Cote took that as a sign of my defeat and bowing to the her superior intellect.
Just to be clear Cote, you haven't won, you did not convince me and I'm sure many others.
I have better things to do than waste my time.

Truffle that's your opinion. I disagree with likening it to vaccines. Vaccines have a much higher success rate for the purpose they were intended to. To prevent death as a result of childhood illnesses. It can't be likened with the success rate of circs in my lowly opinion
:) Davros exactly. It stinks of someone childishly just wanting to have the last word on the matter.

Misspixie

Thats good then. I likely don't want to waste my time with likening circ as effective as vaccines neither. If it was. The NHS would do it routinely but they don't.

Truffle that's not what I meant and that is clear for all to see. I disagree with people claiming circ to be as effective as vaccines in preventing infections. Condoms do the job just as well.

1. Consent is a massive issue. We're not talking about feeding, or where they live or other ridiculous comparisons that have been made. We're talking about removing a part of their genitals, for no medical reason. The fact that prima has even compared those silly examples shows she does not realise the significant difference between a body part and a town

1. I do not think removing something is a 'health benefit'. That's likening it to exercise or eating well - yay do this and you'll be healthier. Removal of a body part as a baby to reduce a risk of something in adulthood especially isn't a benefit. You don't gain anything. Especially as this can be reduced in a non invasive way by education and condoms. Or they can decide themselves when they are of age.

"I can agree that if you did accept that data"

What is it you can't agree with? "Data" is the factual basis, not something to be agreed or disagreed with. That you can only do with the interpretation of data.

"then the rest of the argument would be easy"

Yes, I think so, too.

davros - I realise that you have an emotional approach to this issue, but still...

"How can you have a debate with someone who comes back into a debate and declares that everyone agrees"

Well, we did all look at the figures yesterday, as generously provided by Person, and I thought we all understood what they meant. You can go back and check it again, if memory fails you.

Can we at least agree that WHO is an international organisation based in Switzerland (not an American organisation based in America, as you were claiming yesterday), that uncircumcised men are at a 2.4-fold more risk of HIV infection (not 2.4% as you were saying yesterday), and that health benefits of circumcision are widely accepted in the scientific community and acknowledged by international organisations (not just peddled by people with vested interests, like you were claiming yesterday)?

If we can't agree on points that were proven to be correct, no debate can move forward.

"I likely don't want to waste my time with likening circ as effective as vaccines neither. If it was. The NHS would do it routinely but they don't"

"If circumcision was effective in reducing risk of infection than NHS would cover it" is a false argument. NHS doesn't cover all effective treatments/procedures. There are perfectly effective vaccines that are not offered on the NHS, like chicken pox which Truffle already mentioned. There are also very effective cancer drugs that NHS does not pay for.

You seem to think that effectiveness is the only criterion in NHS decisions. There is also cost, for example.

cote I would start with the penile cancer data. Cancer research UK say that it is a rare cancer and that the main risk factors are HPV and smoking. HPV is commoner among uncircumcised men, so being circumcised is a way to reduce both HPV and its consequences, including but not limited to penile cancer.

Recognising then that we have a small reduction among an already rare cancer, from reduction in HPV rates: is circumcision the best way to reduce that? alternatives are a virus for males, and condom use. The public health argument here would be that a reduction in a very rare cancer would not justify a programme of mass surgical intervention in infants. Especially whwen the alternative (vaccines for HPV and condom use) have wider benefits.

The HIV argument is different. If we can reduce HIV rates (clearly a good public health objective) by either of circumcision or condom use, which ought to be the focus? there's an argument for circumcision, because compliance thereafter is obviously going to be 100%, whereas compliance with condom use is poor, especially in some communities. If I lived in an African country, I would probably circumcise my son because the balance of evidence would favour that.

As I live in the UK, I don't think I would. That's because compliance with condom use is higher in the UK, and the HIV risk is lower. I think the same is probably true of the US.

Of course costs are a factor. It is simply not cost effective to introduce it. :)

Beast - I agree with you. My DS is not circumcised, partly because I don't see the probability of him contracting these diseases is very high in Western Europe, and know that there are other ways of reducing risk (condoms, HPV vaccine).

The point I am making is the general one of "consent":

Given that (1) circumcision does indeed provide health benefits including reduced risk for some infections in the early years, and (2) parents have the right & duty to consent for their children's treatments with expected health benefits, there is no problem with parents giving consent to have their children circumcised.

We all make our own risk assessment regarding our children and give consent to various procedures accordingly. Parents who circumcise are entirely within their rights and there is no problem with consent here, because of the above.

MissPixie - If you understand that cost is a factor in the NHS's decision whether or not to offer a procedure free of charge, do you now understand why it was wrong to say "If it was effective, NHS would offer it to everyone"?

Agree, Cote. as i said upthread, I have inflicted lots of pain on my DC before they had any chance of consenting, as they had surgery as infants. And DS2 will never be able to give consent, due to his learning disability, so anything he needs in future, I will decide for him. I have no problem doing that as long as I have formed a careful view on whether the thing is needed.

With DC who can never consent, we parents also have to decide on contraception choices when they are adults. With girls it's easier, they can have a jab. With a boy, I might well authorise a contraceptive implant, if that exists for men, but not a vasectomy, because it can't be reversed.

If I had known that DS2 was to be so disabled, and if I had known specifically that he will never be competent to use a condom or wash himself reliably, I might have considered circumcision for him to reduce HPV and suchlike later. But not for his brother, who has no disability.

I thought that when you said that if something were effective, the NHS would cover it that it might be relevant to point out that there are all kinds of things the NHS might sensibly cover but doesn't. But now I'm crossing posts with Cote.

The thing is, Cote none of what we are discussing seems to me to justify a mass programme of routine infant circumcision on the US.

Cote it appears quite evident that you want nothing else but to have the last word. I'm not playing. No Truffle it was in reponse to what they were all saying and was as an argument against it.

MissPixie - We are not playing here. Adults are having a debate.

You claimed that circumcision can't be effective in reducing infection risk, because if it was, NHS would be offering it to everyone.

(1) You said this despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, against the word of international health organisations like WHO

(2) Truffle and I gave you examples of very effective treatments that are not offered on the NHS. You also said you know that cost is also a factor in the decision of the NHS on whether or not to offer a procedure free to everyone.

This is not about "playing" or having the last word. If you want to be taken seriously in a debate between adults, you need to acknowledge a point when it is made and accept the error of an argument when it is shown.

Beast - "none of what we are discussing seems to me to justify a mass programme of routine infant circumcision on the US."

I don't claim to understand much of why US does what it does, however...

My understanding is that circumcision is optional in the US and it is not even covered by Medicaid in many states. It is hardly a "mass programme".

MissPixie your posts are coming across slightly fragmented and dismissive. I particularly do not understand your attempt at distinguishing between religion and culture as influences. I think this has probably run its course, in any case.