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

Wouldn't it be more fair to say, the WHO advice re: HiV is more relevant to those countries with higher rates of HIV? As in, the relevance is perhaps commensurate with the rates of HIV? In which case, it's still relevant?

A condom is obviously the best thing going, but what if my children grow into stupid men who refuse to wear them?

There is an argument for doing it on an individual scale, so it is hard to argue against it when it is done by large portions of the population.

Not at all. My arguments for doing it for an individual are: that individual is too disabled to use condoms or wash, but may want to have a sexual life. That isn't rlevant to the whole of the US.

Similarly, I might argue, "This individual lives in an African country, HIV risk is very high and he may resist condom use when he is older". That also does not apply to the whole of the US.

Public health policy is not based on specific individual choices, otherwise we'd all have preventative mastectomies like Angelina Jolie.

What if my boys turn into stupid men who refuse to wear them? There's probably a lot of Parents worrying about that Truffle! . Just comes back round to Education I suppose.

What if my boys turn into stupid men who refuse to wear them?

Threaten to chop their foreskin off. No anaesthetic, you know, the proper way. Either way, job done.

I am worried about this, frankly - I find it hard to imagine that every man who doesn't wear a condom didn't hear the drumbeat of "wear a condom" his whole life.

My boys are already circumcised. I have no further leverage with their foreskin.

"Circumcision does reduce the risk of UTI, but the risk of a UTI is low anyway and there are risks associated with the procedure."

Risks associated with the procedure are very very low. In fact, the Mayo Clinic paper OP's link was quoting says "A risk-benefit analysis of conditions that neonatal circumcision protects against revealed that benefits exceed risks by at least 100 to 1"

Not just UTI, by the way. Take a look at that table again. Circumcision significantly reduces the risk of UTIs (from age 0 onwards), kidney infection (Pyelonephritis), candida, prostate cancer, balanitis, high-risk HPV infection, herpes simplex, syphilis, HIV infection, and quite a few others.

Which "very low" risk is to be given more importance? That is where individual risk assessments come into play, obviously. I gave more importance to the low risk of disease and didn't circumcise DS. Others may give more importance to the reduced risk across all of those diseases and circumcise their children. My point is that both are perfectly valid choices.

"My arguments for doing it for an individual are: that individual is too disabled to use condoms or wash"

I wish it were that simple and that all NT adults could be trusted to wear a condom all the time, with no exceptions. Girls could do away with the pill and would not need the HPV vaccine to protect them against cervical cancer.

That is unfortunately not the case.

Truffle I think this is where we need to still drum it into our children as they get older. Sex Education wasn't done in our school for fear of offending. It was done in College. When obviously most are already sexually active. I will be drilling it in to mine from an early age (teenagewise).

But many US parents dont do it for that at all. A pp said that you had to live on North America to get this, really.

Some ppl do it for faith. Some cos they have thought about it and made a judgement.

But huge numbers do it on auto-pilot: its just "what you do" They are the ones who ought to take a step back and rethink, because if they lived in the UK they almost certainly would not do it. Our autopilot being set the opposite way.

Maybe actually giving the boys the vaccine would help Cote?

TruffleOil, I would read their advice how it is intended:

"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."

Much of the argument for circumcision seems to assume a starting point of 'it doesn't make a difference whether you have a foreskin or not', and as such if there are any benefits, why not just do it? The starting point should be 'Do the benefits justify an intrusive medical procedure (with its associated risks), and outweigh long term dis-benefits?'

True, cote, but my own reason for doing it would be that DS2 would be in that category.

I think I draw the line at cutting an infant in case he is too clueless to wear a condom later. Apart from anything else, you can still catch all sorts from unsafe sex, cut or not.

Precisely Beast.

"But many US parents dont do it for that at all. Some ppl do it for faith. Some cos they have thought about it and made a judgement."

Much of what we do is because it is the norm, though, isn't it. At some point, some health authority in America must have looked at the evidence and decided that it is a good thing. And people took that advice and circumcised.

If they all examined the evidence by themselves, given that there is a proven reduction in various diseases, it is not impossible that many would come to that conclusions themselves. So I'd say yes, there is a case to be made on an individual level.

"Maybe actually giving the boys the vaccine would help Cote?"

I intend to give HPV vaccine to both DD and DS, yes.

There is no vaccine for HIV, though. I'll just have to hope that he will practice safe sex when the time comes for all that.

Cutting bits off children is just wrong.

I'm amazed that it's even open for discussion and is deemed acceptable.

Yes, I think that individuals should be able to decide about it. But we do know that following the norm is easier; and if they are presented with heavily sponsored "research" then they will need considerable strength to be different.

I am 50:50. For one of my DC, cutting him probably would have been a good idea and I should have had it done while he was under general anaesthetic for other reasons. But I didn't think of it. For the other, not necessary at all.

"There is no vaccine for HIV, though. I'll just have to hope that he will practice safe sex when the time comes for all that."

He could of course decide for himself to be circumcised. Funny how even though the benefits supposedly outweigh the risks 100 to 1, there aren't massive queues of men waiting to be snipped.

There is no vaccine for HIV, though. I'll just have to hope that he will practice safe sex when the time comes for all that.

you dont want to rely on being cut to prevent HIV. It won't. It only reduces risk.

Really, if we could prevent HIV by circumcision then I would be keen on seeing it done. Sadly for many ppl living in African countries, it doesn't prevent it.

*Cutting bits off children is just wrong.

I'm amazed that it's even open for discussion and is deemed acceptable.*

Be fair, Carruthers. I have had bits cut of my children when they were too young to consent. OK, they were pre-cancerous, but still. No consent. Not at 10 weeks, you can't expect it, really. If being cut would, say, guarantee no HIV ever, that might well be a good enough reason. I don't think that the reasons quoted reach the necessary standard for surgery to infants, but I dont think no surgery on infants is ever justified.

Beastofburden

I didn't say necessary surgery this thread is about circumcision.

There are some warped people/countries/cultures out there who still think FGM is a good thing.

Should we listen to them too?

No, not at all

As I say, I didn't do either of my DS and with one, that was right. With the other, given his disability, cutting him might have been a good idea. Likewise, if I lived in an African country, I might do it.

All I meant was, I can see in theory that cutting children could be acceptable if there was sufficient cause. If it is properly thought through and done for a good reason appropriate to the child, well, OK. Not happy with it being done for faith, but then I am an atheist so I have no sympathy.

But nothing that cote and others have posted here seems to me to justify the fact that cutting is the norm in the US.

Cote
"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)."

So you don't believe that the African research is relevant to "western Europe"?

Boney the point about research is that it tells you what the relevant risk is.

Angelina Jolie had a preventative mastectomy. I didn't. That's not because I don't believe the research. Its because I am not susceptible to breast cancer as she is, because she has the relevant genetic mutation and I don't.

If I lived in an African country then I'd be living in a country where the HIV risk is high enough to change the balance of risk and benefit.

Beast

Hence the irrelevance of African research being used to justify circumcision in Western Europe.

A point that I have being trying to get Cote to agree to.