Recent Circumcision Analysis - What do you guys think?

[aragornlover8]

https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014...sks-study-reports/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

Brian J Morris has done another analysis on circumcision and has gone so far as to suggest that circumcision should be treated like vaccinations as the benefits so vastly outweigh the risks associated with the procedure. What do you guys feel about this? I still don't see any really strong evidence to suggest it needs to be done with the baby is an infant without his actual consent to a permanent physical change.

I especially wanted to see the opinions of people living in places other than the US where the circumcision rate is overall much smaller.

Thanks! Keep it civil, as always.

 

[MummyMana]

I personally can't see any benefits :s as long as there's no medical problem, leave it where it is! We don't remove appendix on the off chance of appendicitis...

 

[Sharkey]

Wouldn't circumsice a boy's winky unless It was absolutely medically necessary, but each to there own I suppose..... Everyone Is entitled to bring there children up the way that they believe Is correct!!

 

[Rachel_C]

If it was shown that female genital mutilation led to a decrease in a certain kind of cancer, would it suddenly be recommended? No! The study seems to conclude that 'emotional' objections to circumcision are not scientific and so should be disregarded but that is hogwash.

It would be interesting to see a comparison of rates of various diseases between different countries. Do countries where circumcision is unusual have most men in hospital with dodgy willies as the study seems to conclude they would be? I don't think so - if that was the case, those countries would be recommending circumcision, especially in countries like the UK with a public health system where a lot of decisions are made on cost.

 

[emyandpotato]

As far as I know STIs and infections aren't more common in Europe than in the US, which kind of disproves the theory as barely anyone here is circumsized unless they're Muslim or Jewish. The only two guys I know who have had it done actually have problems so

 

[Natsku]

Pretty sure the US has higher rates of STDs than many European countries that don't routinely circumcise.

 

[aragornlover8]

I thought the same about STIs and UTIs in other countries. I haven't heard of a crazy amount of money spent curing UTIs in newborns in other countries. So I'm not really sure where the author is getting figures about money being saved.

Furthermore, they're now starting campaigns to get adult males circumcised in Africa in order to combat the spread of HIV. This has had slightly dubious effects, because some studies suggest that men who are circumcised are more likely to believe they are safe and practice unsafe sex anyway. In reality, the only way to really cut back on STDs is to use condoms.

I'm just confused why it's such a norm in the US. I've yet to see a study that really shows me that a permanent body modification is necessary to keep my son healthy.

 

[hayz_baby]

From what I understand utis aren't too common in men as they are in women due to our.. IIndoor plumbing
In the UK it isn't routinely done and there certainly not a lot of men with complaints that a circumcison claim to solve. My oh has never had a uti.. I grew up in a house of boys and they have never had any issues.. I have 2 boys no issues so far...
A Willy is fairly easy to keep clean as long as you do it regurally.. Likened to brushing your teeth or washing your hands after the loo it becomes habit. My dad would remind my Bros to "make sure your clean your willy" whenever they showered when we were kids.

I never understand these studies as there are all these claims but here in the UK its just not the case.

Frankly it can't b a bad thing if you're born with it!

 

[meli1981]

Im confuzed as to why it should be routinely done as well.....no benefits imo...

 

[Yammas]

How does circumcision reduce hiv risk if someone wouldnt mind explaining? I wouldnt have it done to my sons I think its something that they should decide for themselves unless medically necessary.

 

[Natsku]

How does circumcision reduce hiv risk if someone wouldnt mind explaining? I wouldnt have it done to my sons I think its something that they should decide for themselves unless medically necessary.

Something to do with some kind of cells in the foreskin I think. Which I would assume would have no impact then if the man is wearing a condom which is a much better preventative anyway!

 

[emyandpotato]

How does circumcision reduce hiv risk if someone wouldnt mind explaining? I wouldnt have it done to my sons I think its something that they should decide for themselves unless medically necessary.

Something to do with some kind of cells in the foreskin I think. Which I would assume would have no impact then if the man is wearing a condom which is a much better preventative anyway!

Exactly! If guys think they have less risk of HIV cos they're circumcised they're just going to be careless, or at least more likely to think 'fuck it' once in a while. If there was no risk of HIV in circumcised men then Dallas Buyers Club would never have happened, for one!

 

[Noodlebear]

Cringe! If I had a daughter I wouldn't be allowed to start mutilating her privates so why is it even up for discussion because I have a boy? Unless medically necessary I won't be considering it.

 

[HBGirl]

Bollocks. The study on HIV transmission is invalid because there can be no control group. It would be unethical.

 

[aragornlover8]

Bollocks. The study on HIV transmission is invalid because there can be no control group. It would be unethical.

Yeah, I've felt the same about that too. All of the studies supporting seemed flawed in one way or another.

 

[modified]

I think it's all a load of crap. Like the anti-vax brigade, making claims that are unfounded and just not set in reality.

 

[BrandiCanucks]

Okay, I'm a circ'ing Mom and even I was shocked by that last statement...to compare circumcision to vaccinations is absurd! There really is no comparison!

A little boy is not going to die if he remains intact, where if he acquires a disease for which there is a vaccine and was not vaxxed, he could.

I recently had this discussion on a pregnancy group I admin on Facebook, and the very first statement in this article is ludicrous...to say the benefits "vastly outweigh the risks". No, actually, they don't. This is a very one-sided article and almost offensive.

In 2008, the American Academy of Pediatrics’ position was:

Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child’s current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child.

On August 27, 2012, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a revised Circumcision Policy Statement saying that the benefits outweigh the risks.



The revised policy is based on the findings of a multidisciplinary task force that did a systematic evaluation of the peer-reviewed literature from 1995 through 2010. The new statement has been endorsed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. It says:

…preventive health benefits of elective circumcision of male newborns outweigh the risks of the procedure. Although health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns, the benefits of circumcision are sufficient to justify access to this procedure for families choosing it … Parents ultimately should decide whether circumcision is in the best interests of their male child.

In other words, while current research is showing that the benefits outweigh the risks, they're not great enough to say what this dude in the article is saying.

 

[hayz_baby]

What benefits are they?

 

[Natsku]

What benefits are they?

None that can't also be achieved with good hygiene skills and condom use with the exception of a very very slight decrease in penile cancer risk.
Seriously its things like less incidences of urinary infections which are already rare for men and of course easily treated, easier to keep clean (washing it isn't exactly hard though really) and the supposed lower risk of HIV. And I guess some people think it looks better so I guess that's a benefit for them but its a pretty ridiculous one because not many people spend much time staring at a flaccid penis and they look the same when erect!

 

[HBGirl]

To be honest, the sight of a circumsized penis horrifies me.