Slashdot Mirror
US Doctors Back Circumcision
ananyo writes "On 27 August, a report by the American Academy of Pediatrics concludes for the first time that, overall, boys will be healthier if circumcised. The report says that although the choice is ultimately up to parents, medical insurance should pay for the procedure. The recommendation, coming from such an influential body, could boost U.S. circumcision rates, which, at 55%, are already higher than much of the developed world. The researchers estimate that each circumcision that is not performed costs the U.S. health-care system $313."
We were made this way for very good reasons, even if we don't understand them.
Imagine if somebody proposed the same thing for female infants. What would be the reaction?
Leave all minors alone. Let them decide when they turn 18.
We reserve the right to serve refuse to anyone. -management
$313 is a small price to pay to not have one's privates butchered.
DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'
Just practice good hygiene. How about we don't mutilate anyone's private parts against their will?
...is that they harp on the issues of UTIs and STDs/STIs. Those are things that are easily avoidable, and not at all the fault of having a foreskin. If baby gets a UTI, mommy and daddy need to do a better job cleaning baby up and cleaning baby sooner. If, as a man, the person has issues with STDs/STIs, well gee stop being a moron having unprotected/risky sex Einstein.
Trying to lump the added medical costs is the same. The costs brought on are not due to the foreskin, they are due to the creators of the baby, and/or the owner of the penis.
I'm not American, and I can't quite understand where does the custom in the US comes from. Is it religious in origin? I know muslims, jews and americans practice it, but that's about it. Does anyone know? As far as I know, it's not common at all on other countries.
The problem is sex education in this country. How about leaving the foreskin and teaching boys how to take care of themselves and what to avoid?
As a man that suffers from sever penile insensitivity, presumably from my circumcision (which became infected due to poor practices at the hospital), I believe it is a useless, barbaric practice, almost akin to clitordectomies. Clitordectomies, by the way, are also known as female circumcisions. Coincidence?
If you want some of the truth about what a circumcision actually does I suggest reading the following:
http://www.norm.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin_restoration
Silence is a state of mime.
Pediatrics - Only concerned with the health of kids, not adults.
You may be physically healthier, on average, without your foreskin. Only if you're not taught about how to properly take care of it. (So the data, framed in this way, will say that circumcised boys are healthier because improperly cared for un-circumcised boys)
The real problem is a social phobia about teaching little boys how they are supposed to wash and care for their penis. Instead, we just cut off the foreskin so we don't have to deal with it. Touching your "penis" is bad, after all.
Later in life it leads to abnormal masturbation, reduced sexual pleasure, and reduced pleasure of your female partner. - This study conveniently ignores these issues because they're not about children.
The article is also very light on numbers. It mentions a reduction in STIs and whatnot, but provides absolutely no quantitative data. How much are these infections and disorders decreased by? Are we talking a couple percentage points? Or dozens of percentage points? Furthermore, I don't see any definitive causes described. What I see is a correlation with some hypothesizing as to the cause but nothing which has actually been verified by scientific inquiry.
Which studies? Proponents of circumcision continuously invent a new reason circumcision is useful whenever the previous one is debunked. First it was to fight masturbation, then it was because it prevented penile cancer, then it was to prevent genital cancer among women, then it was because men would be too stupid to clean themselves if they were uncut, then it was to protect against AIDS. What will be the next reason, who knows but I'm sure they will invent one then say "prove me wrong".
I decided STDs weren't likely to be a significant threat to my infant son. If he wants to have part of himself chopped off when he turns sixteen, I'll give him all the info and support his choice. I think I can predict how it'll turn out, but I'm not kidding--I'll drive him to the hospital myself.
(And before anyone starts, the entire rest of the pro-circumcision argument revolves around an additional 9-per-thousand UTI infection rate. Yawn.)
The real problem is a social phobia about teaching little boys how they are supposed to wash and care for their penis. Instead, we just cut off the foreskin so we don't have to deal with it. Touching your "penis" is bad, after all.
Later in life it leads to abnormal masturbation, reduced sexual pleasure, and reduced pleasure of your female partner. - This study conveniently ignores these issues because they're not about children.
From TFA:
Perhaps the most powerful evidence in favour of circumcision comes from randomized controlled trials in South Africa, Kenya and Uganda. These found that, for men who have sex with women, circumcision reduced the risk of infection with HIV. (No protection was observed for men who have sex with men.) The South African and Ugandan trials also found that circumcision reduced infection rates for human papillomavirus (HPV) and herpes. The World Health Organization has already made circumcision part of its HIV-prevention strategy in sub-Saharan Africa, with a goal to circumcise 20 million men by 2015.
The AAP found that, in addition to preventing sexually transmitted infections, circumcision could reduce the rates of urinary tract infections and penile cancer, probably because the foreskin harbours infectious microbes as well as the immune cells targeted by HIV.... The task force also found no strong evidence that circumcised babies grew up with more urinary difficulties or sexual problems.
So... yeah. Reduced infection rates in children and adults, and no strong evidence of sexual problems at all. It doesn't matter if you could stop infection through education on how to properly clean the penis. Hell, HIV could be stopped dead in a few generations if people stopped having sex with multiple partners and/or used condoms. But guess what? The world doesn't work like that, and a measure that can help prevent disease with very few side effects can and should be used to help stop disease. Hence, the recommendation.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
US healthcare will pay for religious mutilation, but not for planned parenthood.
I think we've identified the core of what is wrong here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision
Read down to the female preference and response section. 79% to 89% prefer circumcised based on the research quoted.
So yes, they actually do.
in Georgia and Iowa (US)...not exactly a widespread study
Mutilation of children's bodies is generally considered to be harmful, yes.
When you're talking about physically cutting into a baby's body, the burden of proof lies with those who would cut, not those who would not. Quoting from an above post:
The British Medical Association said it had no policy on the issue because of the “absence of unambiguously clear and consistent medical data on the implications of the intervention."
As far as I'm concerned if the evidence is so ambiguous after all this time then there's no necessity for the operation. Look at it this way if it prevents the spread of HIV then why is the infection level in the UK a third of that in the US in percentage terms yet circumcision in the UK is very tiny
In the UK, there is no financial incentive for doctors to mutilate children. I tend to trust their version of affairs, rather than those with a financial incentive (the doctor is paid for his time, and the hospital sells the tissue).
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
Just because there isn't a proven causal relationship, doesn't mean that there isn't one.
More to the point... has circumcision ever been shown to be linked to something harmful?
Yes.
Circumcision is an unnecessary and mainly cosmetic surgery picked by parents because of tradition and/or religion. Recent attempts to find medical justification for its existence are both new and almost laughable. It's a penile "nose job" for a baby so the baby isn't potentially made fun of for being "different" later on.
Unfortunately, circumcision is a surgical procedure. And no matter how "routine" and "minor" a surgical procedure is, it's only "routine" and "minor" until something inevitably goes wrong. Rare, but horrible when it happens.
Promoting circumcisions to prevent STD transmission is the worst sort of self-serving justification. Why not promote mastectomies at puberty for girls to avoid the 1 in 7 chance of getting breast cancer during their lifetime? Or appendectomies for everyone? If your STD prevention strategy consists of promoting circumcision, instead of promoting safe sex education and prophylactic barrier distribution, your priorities are wildly skewed.
You really want your baby circumcised? Wait until he's 18, and give him the choice.
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Yep, one problem with the major African studies was the variation in follow-up support given. Another problem is the difficultly of doing randomized trials (anyone who can be convinced to have his penis surgically modified can probably also be convinced to follow your safe-sex directions.) Thirdly, double-blind trials concerning STDs are a little difficult to do when circumcision is visible to all.
The US studies have similar problems: when a circumcision has an average cost of around $350, the parents opting for the child's surgery tend to be richer and more able/willing to spend on health care for the child. You would expect circumcision to be correlated with benefits to every treatable medical condition.
>>>my circumcised penis has been greeted with relief by a partner who found the natural look repulsive.
Interesting. If my "partner" said that my natural penis was repulsive, I would tell her that I'll circumcize my dick if she trims those ugly lips off her pussy (female circumcision). Fucking bitch. If the penis didn't need a foreskin, evolution would not have put it there.
For that matter why does God make his followers cut it off? Did God make a mistake when he put the foreskin on the male? Hmmm. But he's supposed to be flawless.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
The science is out on that. There is research, and I look forward to the results. But it is a hypothesis at this point, nothing more.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
THE STUPID. IT HURTS!
You mean the same “studies” that called the spleen or even the tonsils “useless” for decades, just because they didn't know the use? Until they realized that the spleen is the standing army (!) of the immune system. (And the tonsils are your front entry guards.)
The place where white blood cells reside, that learned to defend your body against past threats.
Yeeeah, totally useless. Let's remove it. We're totally not arrogant dicks with a god complex for acting like that...
Hell, how stupid do you have to be, to not see that obviously, there’s a reason we have the foreskin, since otherwise those without it would have long won natural selection.
All the arguments here are complete bullshit.
The "disease hazard" one: How the hell is it expecting to much, to pull back your foreskin and wash your dick once, every 1-2 days?? How is that a disease hazard and a justification in the first place?? And how, going by that logic, don't they also recommend removing your asshole, bowels, mouth and nose? Those are even more prone to be full of bad germs.
The uselessness one: I guess you never had one, and weren’t even given a choice to experience it. Because otherwise you'd know, that at least 1. it keep the glans lightly humid... which is its natural healthy state, and 2. protects it.
It's the same thing as a vagina, which also has a special humid fauna/climate as the normal state. Hell, it even is the same damn fucking tissue! What's so hard about this??
What kind of fucked up mind do you have to have, to go: "Well, considering it's a integral part of your body, evolved over millions of years, it clearly must be completely useless."?
So shut the fuck up with your blatant thought-terminating chlichees, if you can't even bring up actual arguments! Only idiots life FOX news pound on "facts" and "fair and balanced". Because he has no fucking idea of the difference between a observation, a hypothesis, a theory, and communication of bullshit.
I wish your whole damn backwards wasteland would just go ahead, and cut the Internet, so you can live your dream of The Dark Ages 2.0!
Is there some evidence that Muslim and Christian men are less promiscuous? I would be very surprised to learn if that were true.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Tonsils are not necessary part of the body either. Neither is the gall bladder. Hell, you can go on quite fine with one lung and no stomach either.
That do NOT mean you remove things.
Hell, you can cut transmission of STDs by just cutting everyone's dicks off. They are 100% not necessary for anything. We can bypass natural insemination with a syringe and tube, you know, like cattle and other farm animals. Would you pay the price??
The recommendations are retarded. 1 in 1,000,000 vs. 3 in 1,000,000 chance of cancer. They are saying uncircumcised result in $300+ extra costs per person, that means each penile cancer costs $150,000,000 dollars in costs. I'm sorry, but someone can't count. Or maybe they hope no one else does either.
I am a parent. Holding my newborn daughter in the hospital room, singing to her some of the songs we had played for her when she was in my wife's belly, trying unsuccessfully to choke back the tears of joy and amazement as I gazed into her eyes -- it was without a doubt the most amazing experience of my life. The idea of subjecting that beautiful, fragile, and innocent baby to the kind of trauma and pain that circumcision entails is something I could never dream of doing. Honestly, I'd rather walk into traffic or jump off a building.
And that's not even touching the logical arguments against circumcision, which are pretty much airtight.
In fact good sex ed works: Europe has lower HIV infection rates than the US.
This whole thing is basically "genital mutilation of children is fine because we can cut on education". Amusing fact: female circumcision will similarly risk rates. Will you support it?
The benefits are tiny (and only for adults), and the risks significant (for the kids). Also, what about the right of children to bodily integrity? If an adult wants to be circumcised, this is fine, of course, but this decision, so soon on the back of the German court decision? That reeks of religious lobbying.
how many infants agreed to be circumsised?
i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
Uh, washing anyone? Those of you without foreskins seem to be desperately defending circumcision to justify the decision your parents or their pediatrician made, but the foreskin is just a bit of skin. It is not some impenetrable barrier! It's like saying, I can't get at my teeth to clean them so i must have my lips surgically removed. Jeez, some of you smart people are devilish stupid at times. Glad my kids still have their foreskins. They are whole and unscarred and know how to clean themselves. How about you? When did you last have a shower?
http://www.acetonestudio.com
>>>How dare you call their health choice "mutilation"?
If I remove my breasts myself, it's an elective choice and perfectly legal. If it's done by somebody who holds me down and carves up my breasts with a knife, the law calls it "mutilation" because it was an involuntary act.
We should not be cutting off little boy's penis tips or little girl's breast buds, and I don't care if doing so would prevent penile cancer or breast cancer. The decision should wait until they are old enough to make the decision as legal adults.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Not to be cynical or anything, but the studies were done by a group with a vested interested in promoting this lucrative surgical procedure.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Some naysayers mention that the kids on the other side of the fence did get some disease one day, even though they are nail nail-circumcised. That's because their parents let them play everywhere. They should practice playground-abstinence like my kids, and put on their preservahand gloves when they go to school.
Sneak teach kids Algebra using a game
a) The chances of your circumcision being botched leaving serious, permanent dysfunction are higher than the reduction in AIDS risk.
b) Your risk of AIDS is highly lifestyle dependent. The western world isn't Uganda, most people simply aren't at risk. Why can't people who chose risky lifestyles also choose to be circumcised, as adults? Why do we presume all babies are guilty...?
c) All the medical studies in favor of circumcision are written by people who make money from it. The only study you need is the observation that Europe isn't some aids infested den of rotting, cancerous dicks.
d) Masturbation with/without foreskin? Foreskin is best, no contest. Modern circumcision was actually started by the anti-masturbation movements in the 1900s to remove the pleasure from wanking (headed by Doctor Kellogg no less - the guy who invented cornflakes). Think about that before chopping.
No sig today...
Not really. According to Wikipedia, 30-50% sounds around right for a first-world country. Advanced civilization is expensive to maintain, and trying to cut corners - for example by cutting social security - tends to increase costs elsewhere more (you need more internal security to keep the people who have nothing to lose but their chains from revolting). The laternative is to descend to third world status, which is unlikely to result in people having more disposable income.
Perhaps you should think of the society in terms of a corporation: a company which pays most of its profits to its shareholders rather than investing them will be utterly crushed by its competitors and deliver far less value in the long run.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.