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

This reference from the Mayo clinic study explains the ethnic differences in circumcision rates "Morris BJ, Bailis SA, Waskett JH, et al. Medicaid coverage of newborn circumcision: a health parity right of the poor. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(6):969–971".
Being circumcised just means your parents could afford it making it a status symbol. So USA.

I don't need to make anything up primafacie, since the case stands by itself.
Simply, if the US scare stories were correct, health services across Europe would be demanding mass circumcision to fight the widespread outbreaks of all the diseases that result from its absence. We all know that isn't the case.
Quoting UKIP just shows the weakness of your case :(

Primafacie, please do explain why cutting off a young child's foreskin has any effect on prostrate cancer, a disease of old age in an area of the body not attached to the foreskin.

Please also let us know your medical, virological and epidemiological background so we can judge if you do indeed know more about the spread of herpes and HPV than sallyingforth

fisher I have no training in any of those areas, so it's entirely possible that primafacie has vastly more knowledge.

But if she believes that the US requires surgery to be performed on all male children in order to prevent diseases that strangely enough are not epidemic in Europe without it, then I do claim a greater degree of common sense.

So circumcision is supposed to help against prostate cancer? About 1 man in 7 will be diagnosed with prostate cancer during his lifetime in the US.(source: cancer.org) In the UK, 1 in 8. (source: cancer research UK).

Hazle, are those results based on identical research methods?

I have had thrush numerous times in my life.

Doesn't mean I am not fairly attached to my foo foo.

Primafacie "The foreskin has no 'purpose'"

Wow, such ignorance. The foreskin does have a purpose, look it up.

But Sally, my point is that you don't know - you don't have any data at all on the prevalence of various diseases in various parts of the world. I am not a scientist, but I understand the difference between personal experience, anecdote and data. You may claim a 'greater degree of common sense', but several studies of a very high standard have found lower prostate cancer, HIV, herpes, etc incidence among circumcised men. Unless you have actual data to back up your 'it's not true' blanket rebuttal, then I'm afraid I don't find it particularly compelling. Common sense can be very misleading.

You have decided that all US scientists who conclude that circumcision is beneficial, do it as a result of bias - because they make money out of it. But do you know this to be the case? Can you accept the possibility that they may not be biased? because if not, this argument is pointless - I can't prove the non-existence of bias. But how do you refute the Johns Hopkins health economists' conclusions that declining circumcision rates actually increase the costs to the healthcare system, as treating of the conditions it lowers the risk of, is vastly more expensive than circumcision itself?

You clearly think that you can trust whatever the NHS decrees as health policy. I don't. I think the NHS is often shortsighted, and does not systematically puts the well being and health of patients at the heart of its decision making. I also think that a u-turn on their circumcision policy would not be a good PR move. This thread illustrates why.

No need for the sad face by the way. I thought using the words 'joke intended' would make it reasonably clear I was joking. Evidently not. And I was not 'quoting UKIP'. Please. I take it you didn't watch the second debate?

Chopping bits off babies unless it's for a specific and case by case medical need is just wierd really isn't it.

There is no sensible argument here.

It's popular in countries that produce research to support paediatricians earning shed loads more money.

Grateful to be a Brit here.

Primaface - in the case then should we remove breasts to reduce the risk of breast cancer? Should we remove vulvas to remove the chance of vulva cancer?

No we wouldn't.

I find it absolutely sickening, even in my line of work, that people feel the need to remove a part of their child's genitals. I don't even know why they would think of it. There's no condoning it, unless for medical reasons. Just no way.

sugarandspite

Certainly not recent as 8 years ago now. The skin didn't have much feeling, the glands underneath is much more sensitive and so having more exposed makes it more sensitive

I do feel fir any bloke who, like my husband, has had to be circumsised for medical reasons and reads some if the comments on this thread.

I wouldn't advocate routine circumcision but it certainly can be seen to have benefits as much as negatives. It's certainly nothing to be ashamed or worried about.

And there are many many men who are angry and bitter that they were circumsised. Some had had counselling, some are seeking methods to get a 'new' forskin like stretching the skin etc.

I'd say there'd be a lot of bias in that report since the authors are likely to have been circumcised themselves and will be trying to persuade themselves that they weren't mutilated for no good reason.

When the ex wanted our ds done. It was £80 to be done privately in 2009 as the NHS will only do it on medical grounds but yes they don't do it for the money and purely for health and prevention of sti reasons.

I'd say there'd be a lot of bias in that report since the authors are likely to have been circumcised themselves and will be trying to persuade themselves that they weren't mutilated for no good reason.

That is one of the lowest argument I have ever read.

Pardon the typos, damn you iPad.

So, are people saying that if you're circumcised you don't have to wear a condom to prevent STIs?

Circumcision is a funny thing isn't it? It started out as a religious ceremony and people now try and justify it on medical grounds.

I just can't think of another example like it.

I thought doctors were supposed to 'first do no harm' how does cutting bits off fit in with this?

Are there any other examples where parts are removed preventatively as it were?

Like other people said different parts can give us all trouble-we don't need them removed- just in case. 'tis weird to me.

Lots of babies get conjunctivitis don't they?

I think that the reason this research incites such anger is because it's about circumcision. People have already decided it's barbaric, mutilation, should be illegal etc and don't like research which challenges and undermines their prejudices. If it were research on tonsils or adenoids no-one would be getting so excited.

We don't remove tonsils and adenoids at birth for no reason though do we? We remove them when they become a problem - as we should with foreskin.

It is barbaric, it is mutilation. It's body modification. Modifying a child's genitals to suit your own agenda.

Abbie, I don't think anyone is saying that. It reduces, but does not completely eliminate the risk. Think of it as malaria prevention: in order to get maximum protection, you would take chloroquine, and also wear long sleeves and spray yourself with mosquito repellent. But if your clothes got stolen, or you didn't have any bug spray left, then your risk would still be lower because you've taken the chloroquine.

According to some large scale studies, circumcision is roughly as effective a form of protection against HIV, as the BCG vaccine is effective against TB. Neither gives complete protection. The BCG jab also leaves a pretty nasty and visible scar. But because of the seriousness of the condition it seeks to prevent, it is generally accepted that the benefit outweighs the risk (and scarring).

Oh my word am I actually reading circumcision being compared to vaccines?

Could you source that information Primafacie.

But if research showed that, actually, the long tern benefits of removing at birth outweighed the risks, then it'd certainly be something to consider and a valid choice to make. The refusal to admit that there could be health benefits to male circumcision at birth is quite astonishing to me and I think it's because people are prejudiced.

Also lets be honest here, no-one is circumcising to prevent HIV are they? It may be helpful in somewhere like Uganda etc, but surely they can make that choice once they're older and ready to have sex. Not mutilating a baby.