Circumcision Could Prevent HPV

[keptwoman]

Can someone explain to me why this is a reason for routine infant circumcision? Why not just wait and see? Considering the chances of ever needing to be circumcised are SOOOO small it seems so odd to me to amputate a valuable organ on every boy, just to prevent a treatable infection. And yes, there are rare cases where the problem does require circumcision, but boys who are circumcised as infants sometimes require additional surgery later on to correct adhesions. So doing it as an infant doesn't guarantee that future surgery won't be needed. So I'm totally missing the logic here.:confused:

I don't understand either. It's very, very rare for a person to need to be circed in countries where they are used to intact foreskins. It's all about doctors understanding how to deal with the default setting.

Both my boys have had one infection, they still have their foreskins and have had none since. An infected foreskin is like an infected toe, painful but treatable and I don't chop off the end of my big toe because I keep getting a hangnail.

[SonshineLearner]

I don't understand either. It's very, very rare for a person to need to be circed in countries where they are used to intact foreskins. It's all about doctors understanding how to deal with the default setting.

Both my boys have had one infection, they still have their foreskins and have had none since. An infected foreskin is like an infected toe, painful but treatable and I don't chop off the end of my big toe because I keep getting a hangnail.

 

Oh yes, it's not like it's always been perfect. There has been one infection, which thankfully I figured out how to "fix" as the Dr didn't know about uncirc'ed boys. (I point blank asked him when he got back, why he told me to do what he did... It was wrong.. oh well) Anyway, it oozed green... nasty!!!! But, three days of meds... applied... (without doing any pulling away of the skin...) and then once more, when he had been too long without a bath... after he "could clean" it... he needed one day of some med for it... EASY! Surely not worth cutting it off. I think he will thank me... his wife will thank him..... and his kids won't be the "first in the family" going back to the tradition of leaving it alone. If DRs were able to be educated... it wouldn't be a problem.

 

YES, I know that when older men are in nursing homes... there are some problems with hygiene. I'd be interested to know how other cultures deal with this. BUT, I don't hear of women getting things cut off so they can be clean... Heck... when I volunteered at a nursing home.. women's nails needed cleaned... They cleaned them.. instead of ripping them off... Novel.

 

When I helped to make my best friend's g-pa comfortable... I helped make his whole body... comfortable... it was kinda gross... cuz I knew him... but that's just life.... And... he was old... (I just had to powder him... but still...)

(He was dying.... and it was an all over powder that she was suppose to do for him)

[StephanieZ]

Mastectomy can prevent breast cancer.

[Corraleno]

I hadn't given much thought to circumcision, and really had no idea of what was involved or what the issues were, until I saw a UK documentary called "It's a Boy." I was very glad I saw it before DS was conceived; half way through the program DH and I looked at each other and said "no way." Here is a summary of some of the issues:

Journal of Urology (Baltimore), vol 153, no 3 part I (March 1995: pp 778-779) states that the rate of accidents is from 1.5% to 15%.

Read the article "Newborn Penile Glans Amputation during Circumcision .." note that the doctor who operated had already performed the operation more than 300 times - so much for experience.

 

The programme, "It's a Boy," to be screened on Channel 4 this month, includes graphic footage of a circumcision in the Midlands that went disastrously wrong. The 8-day-old baby, circumcised without anaesthetic by a rabbi who is not a doctor, is seen bloodied and screaming in agony during the operation. When it was clear things were going wrong, the rabbi demanded the crew stop filming, but they secretly recorded what followed. The boy developed an infection and ended up in intensive care being pumped with antibiotics and kept alive by oxygen and drips.

 

The film -- the work of Victor Schoenfeld, the Jewish father of a circumcised son -- also presents details of 2 babies who died as a result of circumcision, and contains an interview with the mother of a third who almost bled to death. It reveals cases of permanent genital disfigurement, claiming that, at a conservative estimate one in 50 circumcisions leads to serious complications.

 

--The Observer, London, 3 Sept 1995

The Journal of Urology estimates a rate of accidents during circumcision somewhere between 1 in 70 and 1 in 7, and the film (which interviewed various doctors and urologists as well) estimated the rate of "serious complications" at 1 in 50. So let's look at the numbers:

Risk of penile cancer: 0.001%

Risk of contracting HIV: 0.05%

Risk of accidents during circumcision: 1.5%-15%

Risk of serious complications, including permanent disfigurement: 2%

Risk of reduced sensitivity: 100%

 

I don't understand performing an operation which includes risks of disfigurement and even death, in order to slightly reduce the risks of diseases which are themselves much much rarer than the risk of complications! :confused:

 

http://www.filmakers.com/index.php?a=filmDetail&filmID=672

http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/horror/horror.shtml

http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102231288.html

http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/PenileCancer/DetailedGuide/penile-cancer-key-statistics

 

Jackie

[kokotg]

This is what becomes clear to me whenever these threads happen: for those of us for whom letting our babies keep all their body parts is the default position, the "medical benefits" of circumcision sound ludicrous. Obviously we would require a much, much higher risk/benefit ratio to start removing any other body parts as a precautionary measure. Had we never heard of circumcision before and someone presented these reasons to it for us, it would sound just as patently absurd as suggesting routine appendectomies or mastectomies, if not more so. When I start (as I do) from the position that of course I'm not going to cut off part of my baby's penis, the arguments in favor of circumcision sound ridiculous. For them to make any sense at all, one has to come at it from the position that keeping a foreskin or cutting it off is pretty much a toss up to start with. And in countries where circumcision is unheard of for infants, later circumcision for "medical reasons" is also incredibly rare.

[Spy Car]

I hadn't given much thought to circumcision, and really had no idea of what was involved or what the issues were, until I saw a UK documentary called "It's a Boy." I was very glad I saw it before DS was conceived; half way through the program DH and I looked at each other and said "no way."

 

 

The problem with "documentaries" like this, and the tactics employed by radical anti-cerc websites, is that they unscrupulously warp the truth about circumcision. It is true that "logic" rarely comes into play when circumcision is discussed, and it is because of shameless propagandists who seek to inflame passions eater than discuss the real risks vs rewards. It is a shame, because many male children will miss out on a lifetime of benefits due to the mindless hysteria and misrepresentation of the truth.

 

Bill

[mommaduck]

The problem with "documentaries" like this, and the tactics employed by radical anti-cerc websites, is that they unscrupulously warp the truth about circumcision. It is true that "logic" rarely comes into play when circumcision is discussed, and it is because of shameless propagandists who seek to inflame passions eater than discuss the real risks vs rewards. It is a shame, because many male children will miss out on a lifetime of benefits due to the mindless hysteria and misrepresentation of the truth.

 

Bill

So you are saying that the video tape lies. That what happened to this baby on film did not really happen? That there are no risks ever with circ? That there are no deaths ever related to circ?

[lamamaloca]

Bill, you didn't reply to my request for info from the WHO. All the information I've seen from the WHO has been recommending circ as an anti-HIV measure is specific populations where HIV is pandemic, not as a universal measure for all men/boys, everywhere. Have you seen other information from them? Can you link to it or quote it?

[Spy Car]

So you are saying that the video tape lies. That what happened to this baby on film did not really happen? That there are no risks ever with circ? That there are no deaths ever related to circ?

 

I'm saying that one could make an anti-dentistry video featuring a Dr Mengele-type drilling teeth without novocain and a victim wailing in pain, and present that as the picture of modern dentistry. It would be as false as these anti-circ videos.

 

There is a small degree of risk with circumcision. There are also risks of not doing circumcisions. These could be honesty discussed. But that is not what happens.

 

The major studies on circumcision mortality found zero deaths in 500,000 circumcisions in the King study and zero deaths in 300,000 cases in the US Army study. Yet, time and again, anti-circers trot out the "Lost Boys" figures (which have been shown to be completely deceptive) as "evidence."

 

People can have honest disagreements over the benefits and risks of doing a circumcision vs not doing one. But is would be nice if the discussion remained in the realm of reason and logic. Such is rarely the case these days.

 

Bill

[RoundAbout]

It is a shame, because many male children will miss out on a lifetime of benefits due to the mindless hysteria and misrepresentation of the truth.

 

 

It goes both ways - increased sensitivity is also a lifetime benefit.

 

I agree there may be some benefits to circ, especially in areas where HIV is pandemic and safer sex practices are less common. However, as someone else pointed out, for me there must be a very high benefit threshold to consider removal of a sensitive body part. That simply does not exist in modern America today. Although I will admit to some bias as the men in my family have been uncirced for decades with zero problems or complications, and are very grateful for their "condition." *shrug*

[Spy Car]

Bill, you didn't reply to my request for info from the WHO. All the information I've seen from the WHO has been recommending circ as an anti-HIV measure is specific populations where HIV is pandemic, not as a universal measure for all men/boys, everywhere. Have you seen other information from them? Can you link to it or quote it?

 

My understanding is that you are correct in saying the WHO is recommending circumcision for areas (like Africa) where HIV/AIDS is in a "pandemic" stage.

 

Parents have to decide for themselves if they will give their sons the same potential reduction of risk in contracting HIV/ AIDS as those boys in Africa, or not.

 

We don't know what the rate of HIV will be 10, 20, or 30 years from now. Those who want to gamble their son's future's are free to do so.

 

I just know that my parents would have had no possible idea that a deadly disease like AIDS might have hit during my most vulnerable years. And we don't know for sure what the future may bring. Even with the known risks, the benefits of circumcision far outweigh the risks in my mind (given the availability of a highly-competent physician to perform the procedure).

 

Bill

[KatieH]

Originally Posted by Spy Car

It is a shame, because many male children will miss out on a lifetime of benefits due to the mindless hysteria and misrepresentation of the truth.

 

 

That is absolutely absurd. If the benefits to circumcision are so overwhelming, then they can choose to have it done as adults.

[Spy Car]

It goes both ways - increased sensitivity is also a lifetime benefit.

 

I agree there may be some benefits to circ, especially in areas where HIV is pandemic and safer sex practices are less common. However, as someone else pointed out, for me there must be a very high benefit threshold to consider removal of a sensitive body part. That simply does not exist in modern America today. Although I will admit to some bias as the men in my family have been uncirced for decades with zero problems or complications, and are very grateful for their "condition." *shrug*

 

The studies show men who are circumcised enjoy better and more varied sex lives and in terms of pleasure and sensation the studies range from circumcised men having slightly better sensation, to being virtual no difference, to a slight edge to the uncircumcised. Bottom line, there seems to be little if any real difference between enjoyment of sex, and if there is a slight difference it breaks in favor of the men who are circumcised.

 

Bill

[Haiku]

Those who want to gamble their son's future's are free to do so.

 

 

 

Oh good grief.

 

Tara

[Spy Car]

That is absolutely absurd. If the benefits to circumcision are so overwhelming, then they can choose to have it done as adults.

 

Then one amplifies the risks (as circumcision in adulthood is a more likely to come with complicated than it is with newborns) and one reduces the benefits of avoiding infantile and childhood UTI (much more common in the uncircumcised) and issues with retraction and adhesions.

 

So we need to take the responsibility as parents. Reasonable people can make different choices. I just wish there was honest discussion of the risk and rewards rather than the inflamed atmosphere that crowds out clear-headed thinking and discussion on the topic.

 

Bill

[Haiku]

the inflamed atmosphere

 

Such as stating that those who choose not to circ their boys are gambling with their sons' futures?

 

I think my son would be far more at risk eating McDonald's food than he would be by being uncirced.

 

Tara

[kiana]

So we need to take the responsibility as parents. Reasonable people can make different choices. I just wish there was honest discussion of the risk and rewards rather than the inflamed atmosphere that crowds out clear-headed thinking and discussion on the topic.

 

Bill

 

And you don't consider that 'Those who wish to gamble their son's futures' is at all inflammatory?

[Lovedtodeath]

Known this for years, but thought to share for anyone who's interested.

I appreciate your willingness to share. :)

[RoundAbout]

I just wish there was honest discussion of the risk and rewards rather than the inflamed atmosphere that crowds out clear-headed thinking and discussion on the topic.

 

I agree, but you seem to be guilty as well - assuming that everyone who doesn't circ just doesn't have all of the right facts and using phrases like "gambling with their future" (taken literally this phrase doesn't necessarily mean anything, but certainly comes across as inflammatory). Though perhaps I'm rare in that I'm not an "intactivist" by any means. If people ask my opinion I share my experiences as the wife of an uncirced man, and mother of an uncirced son, and having spent significant time living in countries where infant circumcision is nearly non-existant. I really don't care all that much what people do with their kids' penises, most of the time its fine either way.

 

There are indeed benefits to circumcision, but the benefits to being uncut are significant as well. Benefits which are not readily apparent to someone who has no experience with it, not easily explained by scientific analysis of sensitivity vs. pleasure, and probably far too explicit to discuss on this forum. It's not surprising that a lot of circed men aren't eager to give much weight to those benefits.

Edited January 11, 2011 by RoundAbout

[Spy Car]

A parent who decides in favor of a circumcision tales a risk that there might be a complication with the procedure. This makes it well-advised to know what the risks are ( the real ones, not the ones of "invention") and they need to know the risks that come with not circumcising. The latter does come with a greater chance of contracting HIV/AIDS through heterosexual intercourse.

 

It is a good idea to make an informed decision.

 

Bill

[Saille]

one reduces the benefits of avoiding infantile and childhood UTI (much more common in the uncircumcised) and issues with retraction and adhesions.

 

I've got to tell you, Bill, speaking strictly from personal experience, this laundry list is all smoke and no fire. I've got to wonder what other factors are at play here, such as:

 

•use of bath soaps that are irritants, which can also cause UTIs in girls

•at the other end of the scale, issues with personal hygiene, or parental discomfort with giving related instruction/checking hygiene

•proneness to UTIs in any given family

•forcible retraction of the foreskin at an early age *by pediatricians or at their behest* (I had to interpose my hands between my eldest son and his first pediatrician. We left the practice.)

 

Naturally, you are far more likely to get irritants between the foreskin and penis if it's forcibly retracted at an early age, especially before potty-training. It serves a purpose, and the subversion of that purpose will have consequences. I don't agree that it's better to remove the foreskin than to properly care for it, and that seems to me to be the argument.

[Lovedtodeath]

I hadn't given much thought to circumcision, and really had no idea of what was involved or what the issues were, until I saw a UK documentary called "It's a Boy." I was very glad I saw it before DS was conceived; half way through the program DH and I looked at each other and said "no way." Here is a summary of some of the issues:

 

The Journal of Urology estimates a rate of accidents during circumcision somewhere between 1 in 70 and 1 in 7, and the film (which interviewed various doctors and urologists as well) estimated the rate of "serious complications" at 1 in 50. So let's look at the numbers:

Risk of penile cancer: 0.001%

Risk of contracting HIV: 0.05%

Risk of accidents during circumcision: 1.5%-15%

Risk of serious complications, including permanent disfigurement: 2%

Risk of reduced sensitivity: 100%

 

I don't understand performing an operation which includes risks of disfigurement and even death, in order to slightly reduce the risks of diseases which are themselves much much rarer than the risk of complications! :confused:

 

http://www.filmakers.com/index.php?a=filmDetail&filmID=672

http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/horror/horror.shtml

http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102231288.html

http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/PenileCancer/DetailedGuide/penile-cancer-key-statistics

 

Jackie

Very informative. Good post.

[Spy Car]

I agree, but you seem to be guilty as well - assuming that everyone who doesn't circ just doesn't have all of the right facts and using phrases like "gambling with their future" (taken literally this phrase doesn't necessarily mean anything, but certainly comes across as inflammatory). Though perhaps I'm rare in that I'm not an "intactivist" by any means. If people ask my opinion I share my experiences as the wife of an uncirced man, and mother of an uncirced son, and having spent significant time living in countries where infant circumcision is nearly non-existant. I really don't care all that much what people do with their kids' penises, most of the times its fine either way.

 

There are indeed benefits to circumcision, but the benefits to being uncut are significant as well. Benefits which are not readily apparent to someone who has no experience with it, not easily explained by scientific analysis of sensitivity vs. pleasure, and probably far too explicit to discuss on this forum. It's not surprising that a lot of circed men aren't eager to give much weight to those benefits.

 

It is important to get the right facts because only then can a parent make an informed decision. When demonstrably untruthful "studies" like the "Lost Boys" article are cited it clouds the truth.

 

With an accurate look at the risks and rewards a parent might come down on either side I suppose. But one does take risks with not circumcising, just as one takes risks with doing the procedure. But there is an inflamed atmosphere around this topic that crowds out reason, and there are people who spread misinformation on the topic in their zeal. You must surely be aware of this.

 

Bill

[mommaduck]

I've got to tell you, Bill, speaking strictly from personal experience, this laundry list is all smoke and no fire. I've got to wonder what other factors are at play here, such as:

 

•use of bath soaps that are irritants, which can also cause UTIs in girls

•at the other end of the scale, issues with personal hygiene, or parental discomfort with giving related instruction/checking hygiene

•proneness to UTIs in any given family

•forcible retraction of the foreskin at an early age *by pediatricians or at their behest* (I had to interpose my hands between my eldest son and his first pediatrician. We left the practice.)

 

Naturally, you are far more likely to get irritants between the foreskin and penis if it's forcibly retracted at an early age, especially before potty-training. It serves a purpose, and the subversion of that purpose will have consequences. I don't agree that it's better to remove the foreskin than to properly care for it, and that seems to me to be the argument.

We learned this when my eldest daughter kept getting UTI's. She's extremely sensitive to soaps. Her ped informed us that it's a self cleaning area, just use water and a cloth. No problems since. Same with penises. Proper care...which does not include retraction.

Edited January 11, 2011 by mommaduck

[Lovedtodeath]

I don't want to invalidate anyone's feelings on the matter, but my son went into shock from a hospital visit where they used a suppository and then he was also hurt while nursing because he was naked and the adhesive holding a heart monitor on him pulled away while nursing. He wouldn't eat for a long time and it was terrible. I am still traumatized by the memory.

 

The circumcision, performed on day 8 did not cause any problems that I am aware of.

[Spy Car]

I've got to tell you, Bill, speaking strictly from personal experience, this laundry list is all smoke and no fire. I've got to wonder what other factors are at play here, such as:

 

•use of bath soaps that are irritants, which can also cause UTIs in girls

•at the other end of the scale, issues with personal hygiene, or parental discomfort with giving related instruction/checking hygiene

•proneness to UTIs in any given family

•forcible retraction of the foreskin at an early age *by pediatricians or at their behest* (I had to interpose my hands between my eldest son and his first pediatrician. We left the practice.)

 

Naturally, you are far more likely to get irritants between the foreskin and penis if it's forcibly retracted at an early age, especially before potty-training. It serves a purpose, and the subversion of that purpose will have consequences. I don't agree that it's better to remove the foreskin than to properly care for it, and that seems to me to be the argument.

 

Some of the problems associated with uncircumcised boys could be reduced through better education. That is true.

 

It remains that the mucous membranes of the foreskin are a prime entry point for sexually transmitted diseases, and that the warm moist environment under the foreskin is a perfect environment for bacteria and viruses to multiply.

 

There are real issues with hygiene due to the interaction of smegma and bacteria under the foreskin of uncircumcised men. Can it be mitigated against with due attention? Yes, kind of. Does it need to be? Unquestionably.

 

Circumcision reduces (but does not eliminate) the risks of contracting a number of diseases including HIV and HPV, and improves hygiene. When done properly there is no pain, and there is little risk of complication. If one does not have access to a highly competent physician to do the procedure in a painless humane fashion the nature of the equation (to my mind) would change in favor or not doing the procedure. But a safe and sane circumcision does not involve wailing babies and trauma. I've witnessed what really happens. Not a wince. And for me the lifelong benefits far outweighs the risks.

 

Bill

Edited January 11, 2011 by Spy Car

[mommaduck]

Some of the problems associated with uncircumcised boys could be reduced through better education. That is true.

 

It remains that the mucous membranes of the foreskin are a prime entry point for sexually transmitted diseases, and that the warm moist environment under the foreskin is a perfect environment for bacteria and viruses to multiply.

 

There are real issues with hygiene due to the interaction of smegma and bacteria under the foreskin of uncircumcised men. Can it be mitigated against with due attention? Yes, kind of. Does it need to be? Unquestionably.

 

Circumcision reduces (but does not eliminate) the risks of contracting a number of diseases including HIV and HPV, and improves hygiene. When done properly there is no pain, and there is little risk of complication. If one does not have access to a highly competent physician to do the procedure in a painless humane fashion the nature of the equation (tony mind) would change in favor or not doing the procedure. But a safe and sane circumcision does not involve wailing babies and trauma. I've witnessed what really happens. Not a wince. And for me the lifelong benefits far outweigh the risks.

 

Bill

Then women should likewise go have all their labia removed?

[RoundAbout]

But there is an inflamed atmosphere around this topic that crowds out reason, and there are people who spread misinformation on the topic in their zeal. You must surely be aware of this.

 

Bill

 

I agree, and I find it frustrating myself as a scientist. I have a friend who works at the CDC and spends a lot of time in Africa and so, even though I'm not a fan of routine infant circumcision in most cases, it bothers me a great deal when anti-circumcision support crosses the line into denial of the benefits for certain African populations. Places where HIV infection is so grave that almost no measure is too extreme and where any reduction (if proper procedures are taken afterward) in female-to-male heterosexual transmission can save entire populations.

 

I think some of the zeal on the anti-circ front comes from being newly converted or because they had to battle with their partners over the issue. I never had either of those problems and feel like I approached my decision pretty rationally with of course, some biases against the irreversible and based on my own experiences.

 

One thing that I haven't seen yet in this discussion is that there are different styles of circumcision, some of which leave more of the foreskin intact conferring some benefits of both condition. I have no experience but it intrigues me and I think would be an interesting addition to the debate.

[lamamaloca]

My understanding is that you are correct in saying the WHO is recommending circumcision for areas (like Africa) where HIV/AIDS is in a "pandemic" stage.

 

Parents have to decide for themselves if they will give their sons the same potential reduction of risk in contracting HIV/ AIDS as those boys in Africa, or not.

 

If the likelihood of receiving a benefit (HIV protection) changes, then the whole risk-benefit analysis changes. There aren't the same strong benefits to justify the risk. You can't take health data out of context, IMO.

[Spy Car]

If the likelihood of receiving a benefit (HIV protection) changes, then the whole risk-benefit analysis changes. There aren't the same strong benefits to justify the risk. You can't take health data out of context, IMO.

 

It is true that the risk vs reward analysis can change with circumstances. It is also true that we can't fully predict those future circumstances. How could have predicted HIV/AIDS? Any reduction in risk of contracting AIDS or any other sexually transmitted disease is something I hold as a very high benefit.

 

All we can do as parents is make the best intentioned choices for our children. Reasonable people can come down on opposite sides of the circumcision decision.

 

Bill

[Snowfall]

It is true that the risk vs reward analysis can change with circumstances. It is also true that we can't fully predict those future circumstances. How could have predicted HIV/AIDS? Any reduction in risk of contracting AIDS or any other sexually transmitted disease is something I hold as a very high benefit.

 

All we can do as parents is make the best intentioned choices for our children. Reasonable people can come down on opposite sides of the circumcision decision.

 

 

Two things: First, you also cannot predict that some new disease won't arise that selectively infects keratinized epithilium, so using some possible future risk as justification is logically flawed. The point of your argument is that no one knows what will happen. That means...no one knows what will happen, and you cannot justify EITHER course based on the future, which is unpredictable.

 

Second, reasonable people can come down on opposite sides, but the problem in America is that so many people make the decision first, then spend time attempting to justify it, and no amount of evidence will ever convince them that they don't hold THE key and have THE answer. No matter how many times people tell you that circumcising females can prevent the spread of disease (there HAS been research on this) you will never, ever think it's okay. No matter how many people tell you the UTI risk is still small (basically, girls still get them more often, and I've had 2 girls and no UTIs, despite them being at what you consider some ridiculously high risk) and the benefit doesn't persist past one year of age, you will still think it's some huge benefit. No matter how many people tell you that the research does not overwhelmingly show that circ significantly reduces disease transmission (there are studies showing it doesn't, but you are ignoring them) you will still think the risk reduction is huge and the evidence is inarguable. No matter how many people tell you it's not painless and their sons cried, you will insist that it is painless and not traumatic, even though that anesthetic wears off and the evidence does show that circumcised infant boys do NOT act "normal" for days afterwards. (To what would you credit their odd behavior? Pride in their new look?) No matter how many people tell you personal stories of intense suffering as a result of circumcision, you will blow it off as rare and unimportant. You have made a decision and you will not be dissuaded, no matter what. You have a lot invested in this decision, for whatever reason - enough to accuse others of risking their kids' futures over it, apparently.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

One thing that I haven't seen yet in this discussion is that there are different styles of circumcision, some of which leave more of the foreskin intact conferring some benefits of both condition. I have no experience but it intrigues me and I think would be an interesting addition to the debate.

:iagree:

[mommaduck]

 

One thing that I haven't seen yet in this discussion is that there are different styles of circumcision, some of which leave more of the foreskin intact conferring some benefits of both condition. I have no experience but it intrigues me and I think would be an interesting addition to the debate.

I've brought it up. If anything, this is the type that caused us the most problems. The son that is intact, no problems. The son that is fully circ'd maybe had one infection. The son that was partially circ'd is medically considered uncirc'd by pediatricians, but he suffered constant infections from the retraction and cutting and leaving enough to cover and breed bacteria. The mix is what caused the issue. Either leave it all alone so nothing gets in or do it "right" (aka full circ) so that there isn't a place for stuff to get in and cause problems.

 

Like I said, I've been on both sides of this issue. I do see both arguments. My experience has me coming down on one side though (not-circing), but above all, it has me against THIS type of circ (partial with retraction).

[Mrs Mungo]

Some of the problems associated with uncircumcised boys could be reduced through better education. That is true.

 

It remains that the mucous membranes of the foreskin are a prime entry point for sexually transmitted diseases, and that the warm moist environment under the foreskin is a perfect environment for bacteria and viruses to multiply.

 

Should we also remove eyelids? They are the prime point of entry for many colds, viruses and other such illnesses for the exact same reason.

 

improves hygiene.

 

It doesn't improve hygiene any more than removing labia on a girl improves hygiene. They are the same type of environment before you mess with them.

 

When done properly there is no pain, and there is little risk of complication.

 

There is little risk of complication for lots of things, but complications happen. In this case, the outcome of complications can be quite devastating.

 

And for me the lifelong benefits far outweighs the risks.

 

 

That's a fine way to put it. I also agree with this:

So we need to take the responsibility as parents. Reasonable people can make different choices. I just wish there was honest discussion of the risk and rewards rather than the inflamed atmosphere that crowds out clear-headed thinking and discussion on the topic.

 

The problem is you keep saying things like this:

 

Circumcision is better on every front. Less risk of disease, and more hygienic.

 

 

It is a shame, because many male children will miss out on a lifetime of benefits due to the mindless hysteria and misrepresentation of the truth.

 

 

A parent who decides in favor of a circumcision tales a risk that there might be a complication with the procedure. This makes it well-advised to know what the risks are ( the real ones, not the ones of "invention") and they need to know the risks that come with not circumcising. The latter does come with a greater chance of contracting HIV/AIDS through heterosexual intercourse.

 

It is a good idea to make an informed decision.

 

 

and yet then you say this:

The transmission rates among heterosexuals in the US is very low. The multiple studies that show reduced HIV contraction were for heterosexual transmission. And they do show a greatly reduced chance of contracting HIV in this way among circumcised men.

 

You take WHO recommendations for a third world country with a pandemic level HIV/AIDS problem and try to apply those recommendations to a first world country in which HIV transmission is mostly among IV drug users, the extremely promiscuous and homosexuals.To quote the WHO: "WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics..."

 

 

 

 

It is also true that we can't fully predict those future circumstances.

 

In this statement you pretend that my choice for my son is as irreversible as the choice you made for your son. It's not.

 

Don't you think it's YOU misrepresenting the truth in those two cases?

 

All we can do as parents is make the best intentioned choices for our children. Reasonable people can come down on opposite sides of the circumcision decision.

 

I believe that is true. I don't believe you are portraying it to be true in your other posts.

[Spy Car]

Two things: First, you also cannot predict that some new disease won't arise that selectively infects keratinized epithilium, so using some possible future risk as justification is logically flawed. The point of your argument is that no one knows what will happen. That means...no one knows what will happen, and you cannot justify EITHER course based on the future, which is unpredictable.

 

In the history of mankind there has been no known disease that strikes circumcised men at a higher rate than uncircumcised men, but many diseases are transmitted at higher rates in the uncircumcised. It is a matter of basic biology. The mucus membranes and environment under the foreskin are a good environment for spreading contagion.

 

Were the history of human heath to reverse course suddenly, so would my views. For now a circumcised child has better (but far from perfect) protection against disease than his uncircumcised counterpart. And, I as a Father, want that protection for my child.

 

 

Second, reasonable people can come down on opposite sides, but the problem in America is that so many people make the decision first, then spend time attempting to justify it, and no amount of evidence will ever convince them that they don't hold THE key and have THE answer. No matter how many times people tell you that circumcising females can prevent the spread of disease (there HAS been research on this) you will never, ever think it's okay. No matter how many people tell you the UTI risk is still small (basically, girls still get them more often, and I've had 2 girls and no UTIs, despite them being at what you consider some ridiculously high risk) and the benefit doesn't persist past one year of age, you will still think it's some huge benefit. No matter how many people tell you that the research does not overwhelmingly show that circ significantly reduces disease transmission (there are studies showing it doesn't, but you are ignoring them) you will still think the risk reduction is huge and the evidence is inarguable. No matter how many people tell you it's not painless and their sons cried, you will insist that it is painless and not traumatic, even though that anesthetic wears off and the evidence does show that circumcised infant boys do NOT act "normal" for days afterwards. (To what would you credit their odd behavior? Pride in their new look?) No matter how many people tell you personal stories of intense suffering as a result of circumcision, you will blow it off as rare and unimportant. You have made a decision and you will not be dissuaded, no matter what. You have a lot invested in this decision, for whatever reason - enough to accuse others of risking their kids' futures over it, apparently.

 

I have been to a bris (ritual Jewish circumcision) where a boy was cut without anesthesia, and he cried. I don't support such things when there are pain-free methods available. I also know a circumcision can be pain-free. I have witnessed it.

 

Uncircumcised boys can get UTIs in infancy and it can be serious. This rarely happens with circumcised boys.

 

Uncircumcised boys do have problems with retractions and adhesions. Yes, these problems could (and should) be reduced through better education, but there are issues.

 

The reduction of risk with disease contagion is too well established to argue the point.

 

And there is a hygiene issue.

 

So people have to weigh the risks vs benefits in their own minds, and made the best decision they can. For that they need accurate information.

 

Bill

[Lovedtodeath]

 

I believe that is true. I don't believe you are portraying it to be true in your other posts.

:thumbup1:

[Mrs Mungo]

In the history of mankind there has been no known disease that strikes circumcised men at a higher rate than uncircumcised men, but many diseases are transmitted at higher rates in the uncircumcised. It is a matter of basic biology. The mucus membranes and environment under the foreskin are a good environment for spreading contagion.

 

Were the history of human heath to reverse course suddenly, so would my views. For now a circumcised child has better (but far from perfect) protection against disease than his uncircumcised counterpart. And, I as a Father, want that protection for my child.

 

So, would you remove the labia from a girl since it would provide some protection, especially considering that girls are at FAR more risk for UTIs than boys (both my dds have had UTIs, my intact son never has)? Would you not want that protection for them as a father?

 

Uncircumcised boys can get UTIs in infancy and it can be serious. This rarely happens with circumcised boys.

 

This is also true for girls. And it rarely happens in intact boys whose foreskins are left alone.

 

Uncircumcised boys do have problems with retractions and adhesions. Yes, these problems could (and should) be reduced through better education, but there are issues.

 

This is *purely* an education issue. It almost never happens that boys have this issue when their foreskins are left alone and not forcibly retracted.

 

The reduction of risk with disease contagion is too well established to argue the point.

 

Except that NO medical organization agrees with you on the risks/benefits for boys who live in first world countries.

 

So people have to weigh the risks vs benefits in their own minds, and made the best decision they can. For that they need accurate information.

 

I agree, except, you aren't being honest and providing it.

[Snowfall]

Hopefully no one started responding to my post in particular before I decided I'd edit this whole thing. I just don't want to argue.

 

I'm new around here, but I've been reading her for a couple years and I really like your posts, Bill. I disagree with your certainty on this topic, but I think you're pretty cool. :) I certainly don't want to argue, as I really think good parents make all kinds of choices I may or may not agree with. I don't want to argue with everyone about all of them.

Edited January 11, 2011 by Snowfall

[RoundAbout]

I've brought it up. If anything, this is the type that caused us the most problems. The son that is intact, no problems. The son that is fully circ'd maybe had one infection. The son that was partially circ'd is medically considered uncirc'd by pediatricians, but he suffered constant infections from the retraction and cutting and leaving enough to cover and breed bacteria. The mix is what caused the issue. Either leave it all alone so nothing gets in or do it "right" (aka full circ) so that there isn't a place for stuff to get in and cause problems.

 

 

 

Thank you. This is really interesting and make a lot of sense the way you describe it.

[Spy Car]

Hopefully no one started responding to my post in particular before I decided I'd edit this whole thing. I just don't want to argue.

 

I'm new around here, but I've been reading her for a couple years and I really like your posts, Bill. I disagree with your certainty on this topic, but I think you're pretty cool. :) I certainly don't want to argue, as I really think good parents make all kinds of choices I may or may not agree with. I don't want to argue with everyone about all of them.

 

Thank you for the kind words. This is an issue where I think reasonable people can have a honest difference of opinion.

 

Bill

[Lovedtodeath]

I thought that UTIs were more common in girls simply due to having a shorter urethra.

[mommaduck]

I thought that UTIs were more common in girls simply due to having a shorter urethra.

And the clitoral hood. And teaching them how to properly wipe themselves, etc.

[Mrs Mungo]

I thought that UTIs were more common in girls simply due to having a shorter urethra.

 

Professionals do believe that is the main reason. However, the argument about mucous membranes used by spycar would apply to girls as much as it would apply to intact boys. That was my only point. FWIW, breastfeeding and not giving birth in a hospital are two things that also protect against UTIs in babies.

[snipsnsnailsx5]

I would never circumcise to prevent HPV, however I was surprised that the HPV vaccination can be given to boys now.

I wasn't sure my stance on it to begin with, since its so new, but then at my 11 yr old son's check-up they asked me and it took me off guard, I said yes. I'm a vaccinate on schedule kind of person anyway so I don't really have convictions against vaccines.

 

My sons are all un-circed' though (with the exception of my 8 yr old who was circ'ed a couple months ago due to medical reasons *sniff*), and if I can help at all by having them get the HPV vaccination-then I'll go for it.

[Slartibartfast]

A parent who decides in favor of a circumcision tales a risk that there might be a complication with the procedure. This makes it well-advised to know what the risks are ( the real ones, not the ones of "invention") and they need to know the risks that come with not circumcising. The latter does come with a greater chance of contracting HIV/AIDS through heterosexual intercourse.

 

It is a good idea to make an informed decision.

 

Bill

 

There is NO study that shows that circumcision will help reduce contraction of HIV/AIDS among heterosexuals in an industrialized nation.

 

Europe has HALF the rates that the US does.

 

There is NO study that shows what you are saying is true. None.

Edited January 11, 2011 by Sis

[Spy Car]

There is NO study that shows that circumcision will help reduce contraction of HIV/AIDS in an industrialized nation.

 

Is there something biologically different in the foreskins of men in industrialized countries? I don't think so.

 

Bill

[Mrs Mungo]

Is there something biologically different in the foreskins of men in industrialized countries? I don't think so.

 

Bill

 

Do you also have your child immunized for diseases not prevalent in the US?

[Spy Car]

Do you also have your child immunized for diseases not prevalent in the US?

 

Are you saying HIV is not prevalent here?

 

There is no difference between the biology of men in Africa and men in the USA.

 

Bill

[Mrs Mungo]

Are you saying HIV is not prevalent here?

 

I am saying that the heterosexual transmission rates in the US are minuscule compared to the countries for which the WHO's recommendations apply.

 

There is no difference between the biology of men in Africa and men in the USA.

 

 

Neither is there a difference in biology when it comes to other communicable diseases. Did you immunize your child for smallpox? Rabies? Typhoid? It stands to reason you would if you are only taking biology into account instead of also considering environment and disease prevalence.

[Tarreymere]

I'm curious why people believe that there is no pain associated with male circumcision. As a nurse who has assisted at numerous circs, my personal experience has been otherwise. Usually the newborn was given some tylenol beforehand, and some injections of lidocaine during. It didn't seem to do much, and those boys were certainly in a signifigant amount of pain.

 

I think we are born with the parts we need, generally, and that we should not go about chopping things off or trying to redesign the human body on the off chance that some body parts may cause problems down the road. I'm keeping all my parts, thank you, even the ones that medical science tells me are most likely to go bad and try to kill me, like my breasts, cervix, and uterus. We are horrified at the thought of prophylactic hysterectomy today but those were pretty common not too many years ago. I'm not going to authorize chopping off body parts of any of my kids either, they can make that choice themselves.