Circumcision

[Caitlin.ann]

Actually my opinion is based on a medical journal published in the American Journal of Bioethics and affiliated with Harvard university. It is "Between prophylaxis and child abuse: the ethics of neonatal male circumcision." by Benatar. It is also peer reviewed. Here is the abstract:

Opinion about neonatal male circumcision is deeply divided. Some take it to be a prophylactic measure with unequivocal and significant health benefits, while others consider it a form of child abuse. We argue against both these polar views. In doing so, we discuss whether circumcision constitutes bodily mutilation, whether the absence of the child's informed consent makes it wrong, the nature and strength of the evidence regarding medical harms and benefits, and what moral weight cultural considerations have. We conclude that nontherapeutic circumcision of infant boys is a suitable matter for parental discretion.

Forgive me if I believe a peer reviewed article vs. a propaganda filled site.

 

[Umaro]

You've missed the point of my post.

No, I understand it. You're saying it's stupid that people are so hung up with minor surgeries that change how they look. If it's not an issue, why bother cutting off the foreskin? Many people even site aesthetics as the reason to do it. Fact is, it does matter to some people. If you're an adult and want a nose job, why should someone stop you? Conversely, if you're 16 and don't want a nose job, your parents shouldn't be able to force you to. Why should circumcision be any different? If you want it done, have it, if you don't want it done, no one should force you to.

 

[OGM]

Really? Where did you get that info? You do know that men transmit STD's to women at several times the rate that women do to men, don't you? Is it easier for a man to transmit HIV to a woman than vice versa?

A man can easily get an STD from a woman, many do. In medical emergencies a woman has to often have a catheter placed in her because it is virtually impossible to obtain a clear urine sample otherwise. That does not mean her labia should be removed at birth for hygienic reasons.

Did it ocurr to you that women have a reason for wanting a man to be cut? I realize it doesn't mean anything to you, but for over 95% of the male population, it should. I don't want to have STD's including HPV which leads to cervical cancer transmitted to me. Gee, how selfish of me.

Veritas; just have your partner use a condom. I would not recommend having unprotected sex based on a man being circumcised.

I'm in the Netherlands, and babies are not circumcised over here - except the babies of muslims and jews. Most men have intact penises over here.

As is the case with most advanced countries in the world. It would probably be hard to find a surgeon in Holland that would perform a circumcision on an otherwise healthy baby. Most would probably consider it to be medically unethical.

I hope so. I truly don't understand the aversion to intactness some females seem to have. They seem to think its gross when in reality it is anything but.

Most of them know nothing else. Men that grow up in areas where women are circumcised may find the sight of a “natural” woman to be gross as well.

I realize there are some cases in which circumcision is necessary, however I have placed that in a separate category from routine infant circumcision. I caution circumcisions when not done under the direct care of a medical professional within the hospital setting.

Even in countries such as The Netherlands circumcisions are performed on newborns if a congenital deformity is bad enough. This is fine with me. Like you said; the problem is when circumcisions or any other surgery is performed in non-sterile settings. Circumcisions often are.

 

[Veritas]

You can 100% absolutely retract the foreskin before puberty. As a future nurse who is doing my clinical rotations right now I'm calling bunk. As a babysitter who had to change an uncircumcised diaper before I'm also calling bunk. Never have I had that experience and always have I been able to retract the foreskin.

Maybe YOU need to learn something. Your personal experience does not a FACT make.

foreskin care - a parent's guide

Before birth, the foreskin and penis grow as a single structure. After birth, the foreskin slowly begins to loosen over a period of years. As the inner layer dissolves during childhood, excess skin cells slough off and appear as small white lumps (dead skin in nether region) collecting in the space between his foreskin and glans, which are easily washed away. Few foreskins retract in the first year, most take many years, while some never retract—this is all normal.

Forced foreskin retraction by an uninformed adult is the greatest penile risk boys face. It causes severe pain, bleeding, scarring, and may lead to infection and adhesions. The foreskin should be retracted only by the boy himself, and only when he is ready to do so.

CAUTION: Never forcibly retract his foreskin or allow anyone else to do so! It is painful, and can lead to infections and adhesions. Stay with your boy during all medical examinations, and state that his foreskin should not be retracted. Your son should be the first and only person to retract his foreskin.

The above is from an anti-circumcision site, btw.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

Maybe YOU need to learn something. Your personal experience does not a FACT make.

foreskin care - a parent's guide

Before birth, the foreskin and penis grow as a single structure. After birth, the foreskin slowly begins to loosen over a period of years. As the inner layer dissolves during childhood, excess skin cells slough off and appear as small white lumps (dead skin in nether region) collecting in the space between his foreskin and glans, which are easily washed away. Few foreskins retract in the first year, most take many years, while some never retract—this is all normal.

Forced foreskin retraction by an uninformed adult is the greatest penile risk boys face. It causes severe pain, bleeding, scarring, and may lead to infection and adhesions. The foreskin should be retracted only by the boy himself, and only when he is ready to do so.

CAUTION: Never forcibly retract his foreskin or allow anyone else to do so! It is painful, and can lead to infections and adhesions. Stay with your boy during all medical examinations, and state that his foreskin should not be retracted. Your son should be the first and only person to retract his foreskin.

The above is from an anti-circumcision site, btw.

I referred to my nursing textbook which is "clinical skills for pediatric nursing: caring for children"by Bindler and Ball in which name numerous procedures in which the foreskin is retracted.

You should never forcibly retract ANYONE's foreskin because they may have phimosis and that would cause damage to the penis. But that has nothing to do with "not being able to retract the foreskin before puberty" which you stated earlier. Should I write the nursing Ph.d and tell them to rewrite their texts?

 

[OGM]

Actually my opinion is based on a medical journal published in the American Journal of Bioethics and affiliated with Harvard university. It is "Between prophylaxis and child abuse: the ethics of neonatal male circumcision." by Benatar. It is also peer reviewed. Here is the abstract:



Forgive me if I believe a peer reviewed article vs. a propaganda filled site.

Here is some more peer reviews information from my previous post:

"The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP; September 2010) state that "After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand."

"The Fetus and Newborn Committee of the Canadian Paediatric Society posted "Neonatal circumcision revisited" in 1996 and "Circumcision: Information for Parents" in November 2004. The 1996 position statement says that "circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed",[91] and the 2004 information to parents says: 'Circumcision is a "non-therapeutic" procedure, which means it is not medically necessary. After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions."

"In the Netherlands, the Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) stated in 2010 that non-therapeutic male circumcision "conflicts with the child’s right to autonomy and physical integrity." They called on doctors to inform caregivers seeking the intervention of the (in their assessment) medical and psychological risks and lack of convincing medical benefits. They stated that there are good reasons for legal prohibition of male circumcision as exists for female genital cutting."

 

[Caitlin.ann]

A man can easily get an STD from a woman, many do. In medical emergencies a woman has to often have a catheter placed in her because it is virtually impossible to obtain a clear urine sample otherwise. That does not mean her labia should be removed at birth for hygienic reasons.

Veritas; just have your partner use a condom. I would not recommend having unprotected sex based on a man being circumcised.

As is the case with most advanced countries in the world. It would probably be hard to find a surgeon in Holland that would perform a circumcision on an otherwise healthy baby. Most would probably consider it to be medically unethical.

Most of them know nothing else. Men that grow up in areas where women are circumcised may find the sight of a “natural” woman to be gross as well.

Even in countries such as The Netherlands circumcisions are performed on newborns if a congenital deformity is bad enough. This is fine with me. Like you said; the problem is when circumcisions or any other surgery is performed in non-sterile settings. Circumcisions often are.

My primary thought was conditions such as hypospadias when circumcision is performed to put the urethra in the correct position.

 

[Veritas]

Actually my opinion is based on a medical journal published in the American Journal of Bioethics and affiliated with Harvard university. It is "Between prophylaxis and child abuse: the ethics of neonatal male circumcision." by Benatar. It is also peer reviewed. Here is the abstract:



Forgive me if I believe a peer reviewed article vs. a propaganda filled site.

Havard gets a lot of their funding from invested sources. I have posted links to WHO, CDC and NIH. CIRCUMCISION: An Evidence-Based Appraisal documents all of their statements from a wide variety of sources. But since these sites don't agree with you, you think they are full of propaganda.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

Here is some more peer reviews information from my previous post:

"The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP; September 2010) state that "After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand."

"The Fetus and Newborn Committee of the Canadian Paediatric Society posted "Neonatal circumcision revisited" in 1996 and "Circumcision: Information for Parents" in November 2004. The 1996 position statement says that "circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed",[91] and the 2004 information to parents says: 'Circumcision is a "non-therapeutic" procedure, which means it is not medically necessary. After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions."

"In the Netherlands, the Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) stated in 2010 that non-therapeutic male circumcision "conflicts with the child’s right to autonomy and physical integrity." They called on doctors to inform caregivers seeking the intervention of the (in their assessment) medical and psychological risks and lack of convincing medical benefits. They stated that there are good reasons for legal prohibition of male circumcision as exists for female genital cutting."

Sounds great to me. Mine takes a more middle line approach, but considering I'm personally against I'm not going to argue.

 

[OGM]

My primary thought was conditions such as hypospadias when circumcision is performed to put the urethra in the correct position.

You are correct; I have been involved with a few of these surguries.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

Havard gets a lot of their funding from invested sources. I have posted links to WHO, CDC and NIH. CIRCUMCISION: An Evidence-Based Appraisal documents all of their statements from a wide variety of sources. But since these sites don't agree with you, you think they are full of propaganda.

You said the foreskin can not be retracted in anyone before puberty. Forgive me if I distrust your interpretation of documents.

 

[Veritas]

I referred to my nursing textbook which is "clinical skills for pediatric nursing: caring for children"by Bindler and Ball in which name numerous procedures in which the foreskin is retracted.

You should never forcibly retract ANYONE's foreskin because they may have phimosis and that would cause damage to the penis. But that has nothing to do with "not being able to retract the foreskin before puberty" which you stated earlier. Should I write the nursing Ph.d and tell them to rewrite their texts?

Perhaps. Must medical and nursing school texts are hopelessly biased. In fact, you need to find out who wrote them and their funding.

 

[Veritas]

You said the foreskin can not be retracted in anyone before puberty. Forgive me if I distrust your interpretation of documents.

You're forgiven.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

How can you be biased about whether you can pull a foreskin back? Seriously, it either moves or it doesn't.

 

[OGM]

I have worked in all three of those countries (Australia, Canada & Holland). After leaving the U.S. I started to see routine circumcisions the same as routine hysterectomies. Years ago they used to perform those on women at the drop of a hat

 

[Caitlin.ann]

My fiance is Canadian and he says its pretty much not done there anymore except for religious purposes.

 

[OGM]

How can you be biased about whether you can pull a foreskin back? Seriously, it either moves or it doesn't.

Yeah, that what I was wondering?

 

[Caitlin.ann]

Found this in response to the CDC's stance on circumcision.

Status of CDC Male Circumcision Recommendations


Some recent reports have speculated about the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) upcoming public health recommendations on male circumcision for HIV prevention in the United States.

It is important to note that the recommendations are still in development and CDC has made no determination at this time about the final content. CDC is employing a deliberative, evidence-based process for developing the circumcision recommendations, which allows for both external and internal CDC experts to provide input. CDC will also publish draft recommendations for public comment before the content will be finalized.

With respect to infant circumcision, it is important to recognize that many options are still being considered in this process, including simply recommending that health-care providers educate parents about the potential benefits and risks to ensure that parents have the information they need to make an informed decision.

In developing its recommendations, CDC is also considering whether circumcision should be recommended for heterosexual adults at high risk for HIV infection in the United States, as well as whether there is sufficient scientific evidence to make any recommendations for men who have sex with men.

Whatever the content may include, CDC’s final circumcision recommendations will be completely voluntary. While CDC has not yet determined if male circumcision should be recommended for any population, ultimately the decision will rest with individuals and parents. CDC’s public health imperative is to provide the best possible information on the risks and benefits to help inform those decisions.

Link

That means they don't have enough objective data to say one way or the other.

As CDC proceeds with the development of public health recommendations for the United States, individual men may wish to consider circumcision as an additional HIV prevention measure, but they must recognize that circumcision 1) does carry risks and costs that must be considered in addition to potential benefits; 2) has only proven effective in reducing the risk of infection through insertive vaginal sex; and 3) confers only partial protection and should be considered only in conjunction with other proven prevention measures (abstinence, mutual monogamy, reduced number of sex partners, and correct and consistent condom use).

Link

 

[Caitlin.ann]

Yeah, that what I was wondering?

Yup.

Especially in this book goes like this:

1. wash the umbilical cord
2. clean the meatus by pulling back the foreskin if applicable
3. etc.


Uhm..bias where?

That was just an example off the top of my head to show the layout of the procedural style. Its a procedure book, not a textbook.

 

[Skaloop]

Havard gets a lot of their funding from invested sources. I have posted links to WHO, CDC and NIH. CIRCUMCISION: An Evidence-Based Appraisal documents all of their statements from a wide variety of sources. But since these sites don't agree with you, you think they are full of propaganda.

Perhaps. Must medical and nursing school texts are hopelessly biased. In fact, you need to find out who wrote them and their funding.

Since those sites/journals/texts don't agree with you, you think they are full of bias.

Or is it that those other sites do agree with you, so you think they are free of bias?

There's a distinct lack of consistency in your calling one person out for dismissing sites due to perceived bias well at the same time dismissing other sites due to perceived bias.