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

I think she almost did, back a little bit

What do you mean by "relevant"?

It is relevant in the sense that risk is multiplied in uncircumcised men, whether in EU or Africa.

Because we have low prevalence of HIV in Europe, I think that we still end up with an acceptable risk (to me). That is also obviously how you think. But this is not how everybody has to think. That is the point I've been trying to make for umpteen pages here - that other people can easily make different choices, and theirs is also valid.

There are clear benefits, therefore it is not all about culture & religion, and it is definitely not for "no good reason", as was repeatedly said downthread.

Relevant as in the situation in Africa is substantially different and WHO etc. are talking about the voluntary circumcision of adult males.

Not everybody has to think the same way but their are better methods of preventing HIV and other diseases than circumcision.

Cote
Can you find any documented case in the UK where a man has contracted HIV, and either he or his doctor has attributed it to not being circumcised?
Just one single case would be of interest.

"Can you find any documented case in the UK where a man has contracted HIV, and either he or his doctor has attributed it to not being circumcised? "

So you want me to break into a hospital and get hold of a confidential patient file? I'd rather not.

There are many new cases of HIV+ people in the UK every year. Many of them are men. Most of those are uncircumcised. Knowing that circumcision decreases risk of being infected with HIV, it doesn't take much imagination to say that number would be less if they were all circumcised.

Let's calculate:

There were 6,280 new cases of HIV in the UK in 2011. 6,360 new cases were diagnosed in 2012, 72% of whom were men. That means 4,579 men were newly diagnosed with HIV in 2012.

Taking the ratio of circumcised men in the UK as about 14% (from here), and knowing that uncircumcised men run a risk of infection that is 2.4x that of circumcised men, how many of the 4,579 infected men in one year would not have caught it if they were circumcised?

Interesting math problem. Would anyone like to take a crack at it? In any case, the answer will be much more than 1, I hope you agree.

Interesting use of "math", cote. In the interests of declaring any possible bias, can you tell us if you are from the US, or have spent significant time there?

We say "maths" in the UK....

BeastofBurden spot on regarding centralised risk. Also Breast Cancer gene a hell of a lot different to circ used for 'preventative measures' based on the balance of probabilities. As a side note I'm very glad Beast that that leaching corporate company failed to bloody patent the gene!

So we are back to taking numbers from sources that are not relevant to the UK to make up an answer that suits your theory.

I wonder how many of those men would not have caught it if they simply wore a bloody condom!

So you want me to break into a hospital and get hold of a confidential patient file?

If that's the best you can do then I'm afraid you really have lost the argument.

Try looking at HIV case reports on line - there are many. You may find cases where either the patient or the consultant has regretted the absence of a condom, but I challenge you to find one which regrets the presence of a foreskin.

But it's easier isn't it to keep repeating the same irrelevant statistics.

Best I can do? You asked me to give an example. How on earth can anyone do that, given that there are no patient details publicly available on any of those thousands of men who get infected by HIV in the UK every day? How the hell am I supposed to know who among them are uncircumcised?

Ffs MN is getting stranger every day.

Every year.

Hello, cote, as you are here could you answer my question please?

cote
Again, you are avoiding the issue with a non-relevant comment - I haven't asked for confidential data.

Please try answering my actual question, if you can.

Here's a hint.
Try searching on "personal account of HIV". Plenty of cases there.

So, to use cotes technique of summarising, we know that cote is either American or has spent significant time there, enough to have absorbed cultural norms such as saying "math" rather than "maths". However, she does not think this forms sufficient bias when it comes to circumcision for her to disclose it.

Sally, that is exactly why the large scale African studies were done - to test the hypothesis that circumcision could reduce HIV infection, and if so, to measure how many new infection cases could be avoided through circumcision. The answer was, iirc, between 60 and 75%, depending on the study.

Misspixie, you have mentioned Nigeria several times. Did you know that in African countries where circumcision is highly prevalent (such as Nigeria) the HIV+ rate is up to 12 times lower than in countries where circumcision is not widespread?

In Botswana and Zimbabwe, where there is no circumcision culture, 1 in 4 of the total population is HIV+. In Nigeria, where over 80% men are circumcised, 1 in 25 is HIV+.

If circumcision does not play a causal role in reducing HIV transmission in Nigeria, what, in your view, explains this difference?

This table sets out the rates, country by country. Although it is very sobering, it still does not give a full picture of the severity of the HIV epidemic - such as the fact that nearly one in three women of childbearing age in Botswana is HIV+, or the fact that in the 6 years up to 2005, 17% of health care professionals in Botswana were lost to HIV.

But as has been repeated here ad nauseam, these studies were carried out in an area with totally different social and physical behaviour, and environmental influences.

When European health authorities accept that they are relevant to us, I will accept them. But this has not happened.

Prima I and others have stated several times that the studies are centralised and do not reflect the view of the UK. Also comparing 1 in 4 to 1 in 25 is always going to produce different results.

I agree Sally.

Oh and practicing safe sex.

Also comparing 1 in 4 to 1 in 25 is always going to produce different results.

What do you mean, Misspixie?

Never mind Prima.

It's still wrong though isn't it.

It's wrong to carry out a procedure on another human without a bloody good medical reason and without consent.

It's just wrong. However you dress it up. It's wrong.