Welcome, nath. Some hints found in this thread I’ve linked to might save you a little work in future posts.
Guess what? EVERY form of surgery has some element of danger and a few doctors are incompetent. Mix these two factors together and voila, some unfortunate person dies from a procedure that has a VERY high survival rate.
Only 229 deaths out of 1,325,000? If only birth itself had such a low mortality rate. According to the Center for Disease Control, in 1997, the infant mortality rate in this country was 7.2 per 1,000. If your figures are corect, 229 out of 1,325,000 is a mortality rate of only .17 per 1,000. That’s bad?
It’s like arguing that we should no longer do blood transfusions because, once in a VERY great while, the procedure is done wrong and someone dies or contracts a disease.
While it may be true that circumcision is unnecessary, it may also be harmless.
jab1, while circumcision may have a very low risk (as compared to many other procedures or events), some question if the risk is necessary. Sure, birth itself has a higher fatality rate, but birth is unavoidable. Life requires birth, so it’s not like you can skip it if you think it’s too risky. Whereas circumcision does not appear to be required. It is an extra procedure, so comparing it to birth is a little disingenuous. Isn’t that like comparing liposuction or a facelift to heart bypass? One is a medically necessary procedure to prolong life, the other is a cosmetic procedure to look better. Circumcision is a step that can be skipped altogether, so is it worth the .017% risk when that’s .017% more deaths than no circumcision?
What is a fair comparison is arguing the instances of infection or cancer or other health effects of not circumcising, and balancing the risks. Of course the debate also includes the other, non-medical factors.
nath, you make a good point about the resources linked through the NOHARMM and CIRP cites including medical journal articles and such. Certainly it is valid to link such. However, someone might argue that those sites would not include a balanced set of articles, but only the articles that support their position. As such, it would be helpful to use other sources of information, to prevent a selection bias.
andros, the line between this forum and Great Debates can be a very fine one. I don’t want to have to move a thread everytime someone says “Cecil’s statement is justified because of X” and someone else says “No, it’s correct because of Y, X is not an accurate explanation.”
On the other hand, if the posters start debating a matter of opinion rather than a matter of fact, and the discussion becomes very lengthy and removed from the original point in the Straight Dope Column, then the dialogue would probably be better suited to Great Debates.
I’m going to let this thread noodle along a little longer and see what develops.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Arnold Winkelried *
**You mention several deaths due to circumcision, 229 out of 1,325,000 in your post. Let me contrast that with what I read in the Straight Dope column:
I already answered that (there are more than 10 case studies of penile cancer in circumcised men). Also the penile cancer rate in non-circumcising countries such as Denmark is much lower than the US. Walbarst’s original claim about penile cancer was made on the basis of very different populations, and it’s about time it was put to rest.
Well, doh! If you have something - anything - it might have a problem, and if you cut it off, it can’t. The same is true of eyes, tongues, etc. etc. The “problems” you mention are trivial. Inflammation is a sign that the body is dealing with a problem. Failure to retract may be no problem for the person whose penis it is, that’s for them to decide.
These have all been demolished or shown to be minimal. The remarkable thing about the “health benefits” of circumcision is that when one is disposed of another comes up, and always the most feared disease of the day: - masturbation, TB, epilepsy, STDs (when these were incurable), cancer and now, inevitably, AIDS. I expect a claim that circumcision prevents or cures Ebola any day now.
Here in New Zealand, doctors now simply refuse to do it, and the rate has fallen from ~95% in the 1950s to under 1% among non-Polynesians. That’s saying no.
The civilised world says no to ear-lopping, without having a specific law about it; it’s subsumed within “maiming”, “bodily harm” etc. Someday the same will apply to non-medically indicated infant circumcision.
Irishman, some say circumcison IS necessary, for the prevention of diseases, so I don’t think I was all that wrong in comparing it to infant mortality rates. It isn’t just cosmetic. If people think the circumcised penis looks “better,” it’s because that’s what they’re accustomed to.
Hugh, if you cut out a person’s eyes or tongue, that person will be blind or unable to talk or taste. It causes more problems than it solves.
But would a circumcised man HAVE that problem? You said there were more than ten case stuides of men with penile cancer? How many, exactly? Where did you read this?
(sorry, Arnold, I wasn’t trying to second-guess you, really. I’m just gun-shy after JDT.)
If you cut off a person’s foreskin they will be unable to enjoy the benefits and the (many) pleasures it gives. (So men circumcised in infancy don’t know what they’re missing? I work for a man in a wheelchair who is so reconciled that now he wouldn’t have it any other way. That doesn’t mean we ought to break the back of every baby.) Circumcision causes its own problems - more than it solves.
Have a look at http://www.circumstitions.com/Complic.html and http://www.circumstitions.com/Botched1.html
Any part of the body may become inflamed. Why do you demand a higher standard of trouble-freedom from the foreskin than any other part of the body? No other part gets whacked off at birth just because it might become inflamed later.
THE JOURNAL OF FAMILY PRACTICE, Vol. 44 No. 4 (Apr), 1997:
Pages 407-409. “Brief Report: Carcinoma in Situ of the Penis in a 76-Year-Old Circumcised Man” Christopher J. Cold, MD; Michelle R. Storms, MD; and Robert S. Van Howe, MD Minoqua, Wisconsin:
"In addition to several publications documenting cancer in circumcised men,[19-26] a recent case control study of 110 men with penile cancer from the Pacific Northwest
revealed that 41 (37%) had been circumcised.[8]
- Maden C, Sherman KJ, Beckman AM, Hislop TG, Teh CZ, Ashley RL, Daling JR. History of circumcision, medical conditions, and sexual activity and risk of penile cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993;85:19-24."
In no other case (including the parallel case with girl children) do they have the option to surgically remove a healthy body part the child was born with. In the first instance I would not interdict it either. It should be sufficient that parents and especially the medical profession, whose business is health, not cosmetics or conformity, come to their senses and stop doing it.
Is it? As a human rights issue, what difference is there? In Egypt, FGM is defended on very similar “health” grounds to MGM in the US.
Not from fossils, I guess I deduced it from the fact that all mammals (and some reptiles) have one. So far as I know, the circumcised human is the only male mammal that goes about with glans exposed. Therefore either the foreskin evolved early, or those lines that failed to evolve one died out…
The human is also the only animal that goes about wearing underwear.
As regards Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) - the difference (as far as it being a Human Rights issue) is that major hnuman rights organizations such as Amnesty International oppose FGM but do not oppose male circumcision.
Here is a sample Amnesty International document:
Children’s Rights - The Future Starts Here
You will notice that there is a discussion of FGM but no discussion of male circumcision. To mention the case of Egypt since you brought it up, I quote from the report:
<<In December 1997 the Supreme Council in Egypt upheld a Health Ministry decree banning female circumcision from being carried out in state hospitals. By rejecting arguments that FGM is a religious requirement and that medicalization makes the practice acceptable, the court’s decision gave a major boost to eradication efforts worldwide.>>
The article you cite about one study showing that in one case study 37% of men with penile cancer would seem to be a basis for disputing the statement in the Straight Dope column. I don’t know what sources were used to determine that penile circumcision effectively prevents penile cancer. In any case, I don’t have enough knowledge to engage in a point-by-point discussion of the benefits of circumcision. I did find a web page that lists some of the medical benefits of circumcision, with references to sources:
Medical Benefits From Circumcision
I suppose people interested in the subject could order the book mentioned on the web page, read the documentation at the many anti-circumcision websites found on the internet, and make up their own mind.
P.S. I notice (and other people have too) that we are inching away from the discussion of Cecil Adam’s column.
If you want to point out other facts in the Straight Dope column that you think may be in error, you can do so in this forum.
If you want to dispute the generally held medical view of circumcision, please do so in our Great Debates forum, not in this thread. In particular, any discussion of issues that are not mentioned in Cecil’s column should go in the Great Debates forum.
moderator, «Straight Dope Message Board»
This implies that the only function of the foreskin is to protect the glans. It is not. The foreskin has a variety of functions. See http://www.circumstitions.com/Functions.html
Underwear does not replace this protective function. On the contrary, it contributes to the keratinisation (hardening) of the glans which deleteriously affects its sexual function (which is minor compared to that of the foreskin in the intact man).
This seems to be an appeal to authority, putting the cart before the horse. AI is a fallible human organisation that is growing and developing (it used to refuse to work for people imprisoned by reason of their sexual orientation, claiming they were not “political”). The Bermuda branch of AI is attempting to convince the international body that MGM deserves its attention.
The original claim was made in 1932 by Abraham Wolbarst in the Lancet, based on a few case reports in Canada and India.
You will find Morris rebutted point by point at http://www.circumstitions.com/Morris.html (He doesn’t just list “some of” the benefits: he seriously offers “because the foreskin might get caught in a zipper”!) His book is slammed at Amazon.com.
Thank you Hugh for the information.
I believe the appeal to authority is justified for a person such as myself who is not an expert on the subject. AI does not work on every human rights issue under the sun, that is true. On the other hand the fact that they do view FGM as being a human rights violation, and not male circumcision is significant to me, because they do not discriminate on the basis of gender.
As far as “sources”, my statement was referring to what the sources were for the Straight Dope article. Since Cecil Adams speaks of penile cancer in the USA, I think it’s pretty safe to say that his basis is not the work of Abraham Wolbarst in the Lancet.
Thank you for providing a link to the page where the author discusses the validity of Morris’ claims.
jab1 said:
I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to suggest that circumcision is purely cosmetic. Much of the debate centers over the medical benefits vs. risks of the procedure. My distinction was that birth happens, whereas circumcision is something that is optional. An example might be performing a tonsilectomy. The tonsils sometimes become a seat of infection, and children with chronic throat infections have them removed on medical grounds. (Note, I am not really versed on the tonsils or tonsilectomies, so I may not be current.) However, I don’t see anyone advocating tonsilectomy of all infants to prevent later infection. That is a comparable situation - infantile circumcision as a standard practice to prevent later infection. Similarly, the little toe doesn’t seem to do a lot, why not advocate infantile de-toe-ectomy to prevent later problems like blisters, ingrown toenails, stubbing them, etc? Or infantile appendectomies? The appendix is nothing but a potential source of infection and death. Why not remove it at birth and save everyone later hassles and risks?
Arnold Winkelried said:
Excuse me, but I don’t see how whether or not Amnesty International regards it as a human rights issue makes it acceptable. Slavery was regarded as morally acceptable for a long time. Women’s suffrage was a long battle in this country, and there are places in the world (i.e. Afghanistan) where women’s rights are not yet respected. So what if AI has not yet recognized the morality of the issue? Maybe they need to be convinced, too. Maybe they don’t regard it on the same grounds because they are culturally inured to it. You said they do not [typically] discriminate on the basis of gender. That may be true, but differences in cultural attitudes could be affecting their perceptions without them consciously being aware of a double standard.
Tonsillectomy was very common earlier this century - possibly commoner than circumcision, since girls also had it done - quite often in the absence of any medical indication. Tonsillectomy and circumcision were so often done together that the combination was called “T&C”. But when doctors stopped recommending tonsillectomies, the parents didn’t resist, as they did in the case of circumcision.
Irishman:
The fact that Amnesty International does not oppose circumcision has nothing to do with the debate over whether or not male circumcision is medically justifiable. It has a lot to do with whether or not it is a human rights issue, which is what I said. If the major human rights organizations in the world, e.g.
Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, etc…
do not have male circumcision on their agenda, in my mind that is significant.
At Amnesty International conferences I have seen people advocate many additions to Amnesty International’s mandate, e.g.
- S&M sex
- Cloning
- Drug use
etc…
Drug dealers are arrested in the USA. Would you consider that a human rights violation? Who is to decide whether or not taking drugs should be a fundamental human right? I would think that human rights are determined by the general consensus in society and, yes, human rights organisations.
Um, I have one, and I don’t “KNOW” that. It’s probably quite possible that some of us have these pleasure-giving nerves, and some of us just have normal skin. (Come to think of it, if I scratch an itch and it makes me feel better, does that count as having “pleasure-giving” nerves in that area?)
Evolution aside, I worry when people make generalities based on just their individual experience and scant research articles.
Arnold, if you look closely, you will notice that my response to you was about the human rights issue. I commented that while Amnesty International (and apparently the rest of the groups you mention) do not yet consider it important enough to garner their attention, that does not mean it is not a human rights issue. It just means that consciousness has not been raised enough to the issue. Your argument is an acceptable rebuttal to the point that the majority of the rest of the world (especially Europeans) regard male circumcision as brutal or vile or otherwise offensive, but it is not, to my mind, a fair rebuttal to whether or not circumcision is morally wrong. I submit that circumsion as a moral (i.e. civil rights) issue is a culturally influenced evaluation, and as such it is not viewed in the same light as female circumcision based on cultural norms, not any inherent distinction between the two practices.
I regret my comment to jab1 that much of the debate was over the medical necessity, as clearly a substantial part of the debate is over the morality as well. I was attempting to emphasize one aspect of the debate over others, rather than discount other parts of the debate as unimportant or minor. And I certainly didn’t mean to confuse the point I was making to you.
Hugh, thank you for the additional information relating to tonsillectomies. (A cite might be nice, but I’ll accept it for now, unless someone else wants to challenge. 
) I was aware that tonsillectomies were more frequent previously, but not the practice as described. Okay, so here we have a medical practice widely performed as a preventative measure that has been called into question, and reduced in frequency to more of a case-by-case basis. (I think that’s a fair evaalutation, is it not?) So we have a precedent. How did the situation get altered in that case to make tonsillectomies less frequent? Any lessons to apply to circumsion?