One small cut for man not kind

[QuickSilver]

Jeez folks… nothing like the purity of argument from a position of near abject ignorance on the subject, eh?!

I see two camps here. Neither has the benefit of concious life’s experience with and then without that tiny appendage of skin that seems to continually cause this disproportionate mass of contraversy and indignation.

I don’t know what’s worse, the indignation of those who still have their dicks covered or those who argue without even having the benefit of actual dick ownership.

Sadly, my personal late life experience would only be written off as anecdotal or worse, self justifying. Far more interesting to mentaly masturbate about the socially and culturally damning aspects of circumcision, eh?!

[dropzone]

@Eva Luna

Crackpot, indeed. I’ve seen at least one Jewish uncircumcised penis and one Muslim circumcised one. My understanding is that, interestingly enough, Muslims for the most part also circumcise baby boys.

Not surprised about the Muslim one, since circumcision is common, if not the rule, among them. Sir Richard Burton (the explorer) needed to get cut before he could try to sneak into Mecca. I am surprised about the Jewish one, though.

Crackpot Theory II: Might his parents, when remembering the Holocaust, have chosen to not to have him circumcised so he could “pass,” if necessary? I recall my mom’s reaction upon learning her father was Jewish (Earth to Mom: DUH!) was a desire to keep it covered up, not because of any prejudice on her part but for fear for us kids’ safety in the event of a new Holocaust. Dad wasn’t comforting when he told her not to bother. “They’d know, even if you didn’t.”

[xbuckeye]

There are other health reasons too, like preventing the transmission of viral STD’s like HIV

Researchers have noted links between MC and HIV prevalence rates since the 1980s. The body of research now includes:

• A systematic meta-analysis that analyzed the findings of 38 studies, mostly in Africa, and found that circumcised men appear to be less than half as likely to be infected by HIV as uncircumcised men. A sub-analysis of 16 of these studies found an estimated 70 percent reduction in HIV infection among higher-risk men.

* A two-year cohort study of male partners of HIV-positive women in Rakai, Uganda, in which 40 of 137 uncircumcised men became infected, compared with 0 of 50 circumcised men.

* Mapping of the HIV epidemic that has demonstrated a strong correlation between regions with higher levels of HIV infection and those with lower MC rates.

* A Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) multisite study that found MC to be a principal factor in the large and pervasive disparities in HIV prevalence across different African regions. Similar patterns have been observed in South and Southeast Asia.

[alaricthegoth]

@bizzwire

Try a google search of, say, “mohel lidocaine.” You might find something you didn’t know, such as the fact that topical anesthetics are, indeed used. One thing I learned in the 20 seconds I spent researching this is that, 1. there are risks associated with anesthetics That I wasn’t aware of, and 2. sugar water (and presumably, sweet wine), has analgesic effects.

from
here
quasi-link to cited paper

Learn something new every day, non?

oh, please!

the torahreview??? gmab

i have seen how effective a pain killer wine is in these instances.

[QuickSilver]

@alaricthegoth

i have seen how effective a pain killer wine is in these instances.

Are you talking trash about Manischevitz? You best step back. You don’t know us like that. ;j

[Marley23]

@alaricthegoth

The preposterous argument that this monstrous trauma goes unremarked, and “you don’t remember” is laughable.

Okay then. CITE. Provide a cite that an infant remembers anything on any level at the age of 8 days or younger. Do you think anybody will agree just because you say it’s laughable?

oh, please!

the torahreview??? gmab

Please read carefully and notice that the site comes from The British Medical Journal, which I’d trust is fairly impartial on the topic, or at least not explicitly Jewish.

[bizzwire]

@alaricthegoth

oh, please!

the torahreview??? gmab

i have seen how effective a pain killer wine is in these instances.

As Marley has already noted, the study I was talking about is from a medical Journal of no small repute. Here’s a direct link to the British Medical Journal article, although since you’re only to happy to attack the messenger and ignore the message, I must warn you that the corresponding author’s name is Levene.

“Oh, Please!!! Levene*??? gmab”

I’d be interested in the depth and width of your experience “in these instances.” Please, elaborate.

[Jackmannii]

I generally do not open these threads, but mine eyes have been opened by this one.
We get quite a few incidental appendices at my hospital (patient goes in for a hysterectomy or other operation, and has an appendix removed simultaneously, the theory being why not harvest the bugger now before it causes trouble and you have to plow through the adhesions left by the earlier surgery?). Never knew these poor people were being “mutilated” by having perfectly normal tissue removed.

I think I’ll go picket the OR.

[MelCthefirst]

@Jackmannii

I generally do not open these threads, but mine eyes have been opened by this one.
We get quite a few incidental appendices at my hospital (patient goes in for a hysterectomy or other operation, and has an appendix removed simultaneously, the theory being why not harvest the bugger now before it causes trouble and you have to plow through the adhesions left by the earlier surgery?). Never knew these poor people were being “mutilated” by having perfectly normal tissue removed.

I think I’ll go picket the OR.

Oh my god - I’m I being whooshed or is this general practice?
My diabetic dad has bits lobbed off now and then (of his feet and legs that is) and this seems to be normal practice - they don’t just take off the whole leg because it may cause problems later on.
Do people have their tonsils out, just in case they cause problems later on?
This strikes me as an economy measure more than a good way to practise surgical medicine - but I’m not in the medical field in any way (off to check out NZ surgical methods).

[Eolbo]

@xtisme

Didya read Cecils take on it?

.2 to .6 percent complications with a total of 3 deaths since 1954? Its hard to imagine a proceedure thats safer. IIRC more kids were killed by being hit by baseballs in the chest. While, again, according to Cecil “more than 1,000 U.S. men develop penile cancer each year”, which seems to be much more common among the uncircumcised. So…its not ALL just plain barbarism it seems.

-XT

And for a contrary opinion:

Several doctors have given estimates of the number of deaths that occur each year. Douglas Gairdner reported 16-19 actual deaths a year in England and Wales from neonatal circumcisions in the 1940s.9 Sydney Gellis believed that "there are more deaths from complications of circumcision than from cancer of the penis.10 There are various figures for the number of deaths from penile cancer ranging from 200 to 480 deaths per year. Robert Baker estimated 229 deaths per year from circumcision in the United States.11

http://www.cirp.org/library/death/

Same site also notes that apart from deaths in the west, children die every year following ritual circumsion performed by African tribesmen without any medical background.

And while we can contrive circumstances where the removal of a naturally occurring part of the body (I can advocate for routine mammectomies as a preventive measure for breast cancer for instance) may be beneficial, in general it is more likely to cause complications fatal or non-fatal. Its an operation done for cultural reasons and not for medical ones. And its more likely to do harm then good, and so say the Australian, British and Canadian medical associations.

Preventing penile cancer is a poor rationale for routine circumcision but its a pretty good example of a desire (to circumcise for cultural reasons) desperately looking for a pretext. It occurs in maybe 1 in every 100,000 males. The complication rate following circumcision is between 1% and 5% in the west. Similarly urinary tract infections are also less common then complications. Its an operation done for cultural reasons and not for medical ones. And its more likely to do harm then good, and so say the Australian, British and Canadian medical associations.

To quote from the Royal Australasian College of Physicians

After extensive review of the literature the RACP reaffirms that there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision

[Jackmannii]

@MelCthefirst

Oh my god - I’m I being whooshed or is this general practice?

Nope, no whoosh.

[Eva_Luna]

@dropzone

Not surprised about the Muslim one, since circumcision is common, if not the rule, among them. Sir Richard Burton (the explorer) needed to get cut before he could try to sneak into Mecca. I am surprised about the Jewish one, though.

Crackpot Theory II: Might his parents, when remembering the Holocaust, have chosen to not to have him circumcised so he could “pass,” if necessary? I recall my mom’s reaction upon learning her father was Jewish (Earth to Mom: DUH!) was a desire to keep it covered up, not because of any prejudice on her part but for fear for us kids’ safety in the event of a new Holocaust. Dad wasn’t comforting when he told her not to bother. “They’d know, even if you didn’t.”

Precisely - his father is a Holocaust survivor, in fact. Not that anyone meeting him would mistake him for anything other than a Member of the Tribe, but still.

[bizzwire]

by the way, has anyone seen our esteemed OP?

bad form, if you ask me… just not done…

[alaricthegoth]

@bizzwire

As Marley has already noted, the study I was talking about is from a medical Journal of no small repute. Here’s a direct link to the British Medical Journal article, although since you’re only to happy to attack the messenger and ignore the message, I must warn you that the corresponding author’s name is Levene.

“Oh, Please!!! Levene*??? gmab”

I’d be interested in the depth and width of your experience “in these instances.” Please, elaborate.

Well, I remember mine, and it hurt like hell and, furthermore, caused me to wonder considerably about the benevolence of the assembled near and dear, not ONE of whom raised a hand or voice to save my tiny baby dick from getting cut …

If you have forgotten your encounter with the cult of Yahweh and it’s flesh-harvesting dyubbaks, I recommend a variation on the tibetan buddhist practices, in this case, not a meditation onthe wrathful deities, but the wrathful baby with the bleeding weenie…

[alaricthegoth]

@Eolbo

And for a contrary opinion:

http://www.cirp.org/library/death/

Same site also notes that apart from deaths in the west, children die every year following ritual circumsion performed by African tribesmen without any medical background.

And while we can contrive circumstances where the removal of a naturally occurring part of the body (I can advocate for routine mammectomies as a preventive measure for breast cancer for instance) may be beneficial, in general it is more likely to cause complications fatal or non-fatal. Its an operation done for cultural reasons and not for medical ones. And its more likely to do harm then good, and so say the Australian, British and Canadian medical associations.

Preventing penile cancer is a poor rationale for routine circumcision but its a pretty good example of a desire (to circumcise for cultural reasons) desperately looking for a pretext. It occurs in maybe 1 in every 100,000 males. The complication rate following circumcision is between 1% and 5% in the west. Similarly urinary tract infections are also less common then complications. Its an operation done for cultural reasons and not for medical ones. And its more likely to do harm then good, and so say the Australian, British and Canadian medical associations.

To quote from the Royal Australasian College of Physicians

After extensive review of the literature the RACP reaffirms that there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision

Thank you, Jesus! someone had the energy (obviously lacking in me) to crank up some facts on the side of lets’ not cut the little babys’ dicks on a humbug.

[alaricthegoth]

@Marley23

Okay then. CITE. Provide a cite that an infant remembers anything on any level at the age of 8 days or younger. Do you think anybody will agree just because you say it’s laughable?

Please read carefully and notice that the site comes from The British Medical Journal, which I’d trust is fairly impartial on the topic, or at least not explicitly Jewish.

We are going to walk through this together, slowly.

It will be in the nature of “thought experiment”, kinda like Mr. Einstein, only our combined iqs won’t match his.

1. there are no citable studies post traumatic trauma in infants. The material is not within current technological reach.

However, we do know a few things about the brain, pain, neurotransmitters, learning pathways, whathave you.

We have all, I submit, noticed how time accelerates as a subjective phenomena as we age. Stuff is more important when you are 5 than when you are 25, and things seem to take longer.

We all, furthermore, remember quite vividly SOME events in our lives albeit long passed.

And, we remember LOTS of stuff from yesterday.

So, let us agree that the availabiltiy of memories as a present phenomena is widely variable, and that only memories whichwe can reduce to a verbal description are likely to lend themselves to conscious repoduction, reporting, study, etc.

That said, are you going to propose that events in the pre-verbal periiod of a baby’s life, which involve perceptions of gratuitious pain,and betrayal of newly forming attachments, the oucome of which are surely a crescendo ofneurochemical events, some ofwhichare perhaps occurring for the first time inthis new being, subside without a trace and leave behind no adverse impacts whether in thetrust thebaby will now extend to these accomplices in his pain nor his relationship to the part of his body that expetrioenced the pain?

If your answer is to diiminsh the baby’s phenomonology to some vague blur before the age of 6 months, how will you reconcile this with all of the other studies speaking to the plasticity of the infant neuronal circuitry and the frenetic wiring, unwiring and rewiring that is a constant occurrence?

[XT]

@Eolbo

And for a contrary opinion:

And for another contrary opinion:

Historically circumcision has been a topic of emotive and often irrational debate. At least part of the reason is that a sex organ is involved. (Compare, for example, ear piercing.) During the past two decades the medical profession in Australia have tended to advise parents not to circumcise their baby boys. In fact there have even been reports of harrassment by medical professionals of new mothers, especially those belonging to religious groups that practice circumcision, in an attempt to stop them having this procedure carried out. Such attitudes are a far cry from the situation years ago when baby boys were circumcised routinely in Australia. But over the past 20 years the rate has declined to as low as 16-19% [81].

However, a reversal of this trend is starting to occur. In the light of an increasing volume of medical scientific evidence pointing to the benefits of neonatal circumcision a new policy statement was formulated by a working party of the Australian College of Pediatrics in August 1995 and adopted by the College in May 1996 [6]. In this document medical practitioners are now urged to fully inform parents of the benefits of having their male children circumcised. Similar recommendations were made recently by the Canadian Paediatric Society who also conducted an evaluation of the literature, although concluded that the benefits and harms were very evenly balanced [37]. The American Academy of Pediatrics has moved far closer to an advocacy position and many recognised authorities in the USA strongly advocate circumcision of all newborn boys. More details of their statements appear later.

Why the foreskin increases infection risk

It has been suggested [18] that the increased risk of infection in the uncircumcised may be a consequence of the fact that the foreskin presents the penis with a larger surface area, the moist skin under it represents a thinner epidermal barrier than the drier, more cornified skin of the circumcised penis (the glans of which develops a thick stratum corneum layer), and the presence of a prepuce is likely to result in greater microtrauma during sexual intercourse, thereby permitting an entry point into the bloodstream for infectious agents. Also, as one might expect and as has been observed, the warm, moist mucosal environment under the foreskin favours growth of micro-organisms (discussed later). The preputial sac has even been referred to by Dr Gerald Weiss, an American surgeon, as a ‘cesspool for infection’ [142], as its unfortunate anatomy wrapped around the end of the penis results in accumulation of secretions, excretions (urine), dead cells and growths of bacteria. Parents are told not to retract the foreskin of male infants which makes cleaning difficult. Even if optimal cleansing is performed there is no evidence that it confers protection [152][153].

A trend not to circumcise started in the mid to late 1970s, after the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee for the Newborn stated, in 1971, that there are ‘no valid medical indications for circumcision’ [19]. However, in 1975 this was modified to ‘no absolute valid … ’ [134], which remained in the 1983 statement, but in 1989 it changed significantly to ‘New evidence has suggested possible medical benefits …’ [3]. A new statement is to appear in 1998.

Dr Edgar Schoen, Chairman of the Task Force on Circumcision of the American Academy of Pediatrics, has stated that the benefits of routine circumcision of newborns as a preventative health measure far exceed the risks of the procedure [115]. During the period 1985-92 there was an increase in the frequency of postnewborn circumcision and during that same time Schoen points out that the association of lack of circumcison and urinary tract infection (UTI) has moved from ‘suggestive’ to ‘conclusive’ [115]. Moreover, it heralded the finding of associations with other infectious agents, including HIV. In fact he goes on to say that ‘Current newborn circumcision may be considered a preventative health measure analogous to immunization in that side effects and complications are immediate and usually minor, but benefits accrue for a lifetime’ [115].

Different specialists see different things

Neonatologists only see the problems of the operation itself. Moreover such problems occur in only a minor proportion of boys, and generally because of poor technique by an inexperienced operator. However, urologists who see and have to treat the problems of uncircumcised men cannot understand why all newborns are not circumcised [113,115]. Other health care workers in hospitals and aged care homes also have adverse comments about the uncircumcised penises they see. The demand for circumcision later in childhood has increased, but, with age, there is an inevitable increase in worry to the boy or man in the lead up to having this done, and there may be a more visible scar left. This, coupled with the advantages of early circumcison, led Schoen to state ‘Current evidence concerning the life-time medical benefit of newborn circumcision favours an affirmative choice’ [115].

Benefits outweigh the risks

Dr Tom Wiswell, a respected authority in the USA was a strong opponent, but then switched camps as a result of his own research findings and the findings of others. This is what he has to say: “As a pediatrician and neonatologist, I am a child advocate and try to do what is best for children. For many years I was an outspoken opponent of circumcision … I have gradually changed my opinion” [149,150]. This ability to keep an open mind on the issue and to make a sound judgement on the balance of all available information is to his credit — he did change his mind!

Wiswell looked at the complication rates of having or not having it performed in a study of 136,000 boys born in US army hospitals between 1980 and 1985. 100,000 were circumcised and 193 (0.19%) had complications, with no deaths, but of the 36,000 who were not circumcised the complication rate was 0.24% and there were 2 deaths [156]. A study by others found that of the 11,000 circumcisions performed at New York’s Sloane Hospital in 1989, only 6 led to complications, none of which were fatal [110]. An early survey saw only one death amongst 566,483 baby boys circumcised in New York between 1939 and 1951 [125]. (There are no deaths today.)

A retrospective study of boys aged 4 months to 12 years found significantly greater frequency of penile problems (14% vs 6%; P < 0.001) and medical visits for penile problems (10% vs 5%; P < 0.05) among those who were uncircumcised, compared with those who were circumcised [51]

Pain and memory

No adverse psychological aftermath has been demonstrated [112]. It must be recognised that there are many painful experiences encountered by the child before, during and after birth [79]. Circumcision, if performed without anaesthetic is one of these. Cortisol levels have registered an increase during and shortly after the procedure [131,132], indicating that the baby is not unaware of having had something painful done in its unanaesthetized state. Neverthless, some babies show no signs of distress at all. Most do, however, and this may be contributed by the restraining procedure, as well as the surgery itself. In the past doctors and parents had to weigh up the need to inflict this short term pain in the context of a lifetime of gain from prevention or reduction of subsequent problems. However, today, effective anaesthetic procedures are available that make circumcsion virtually pain-free. These will be discussed later.

There is lots more in the cite, and they seem to do good with citing each section with relevent links.

As for the Africa or other countries provided in your cite Eolbo I don’t see any place where they offer up the rate of penile cancer or other complicatons associated with the uncircumcised. Ok, they have a higher death/complications rate for doing the proceedure…but then they have a higher such rate for ANY proceedure compared to the West were I to guess. Considering all the nasty things children in Africa potentially can die from I’d have to say that circumcision is probably well down on the list…as is the complications they can get from even the crude proceedure being done.

-XT

[Marley23]

@alaricthegoth

Well, I remember mine, and it hurt like hell and, furthermore, caused me to wonder considerably about the benevolence of the assembled near and dear, not ONE of whom raised a hand or voice to save my tiny baby dick from getting cut …

I don’t believe you, and in any case, ‘for instance’ is no proof. Certainly it’s no cite. Fake memories are so common that this is particularly worthless. I have a good memory and even I know I can’t always trust it. Especially - and I don’t think this is unique to me at all - because most of my early childhood memories are so dissociated. I see myself in them, so I trust them even less; the whole thing is at best a reconstruction. I submit to you that your memory, which is obviously responsible for your vehement hatred of circumcusion, is not genuine.

We are going to walk through this together, slowly.

Sigh… is there any other way?

It will be in the nature of “thought experiment”, kinda like Mr. Einstein, only our combined iqs won’t match his.

So your IQ is below room temperature?

1. there are no citable studies post traumatic trauma in infants. The material is not within current technological reach.

I think you’re too lazy to look, or won’t accept anything that runs against your conclusions.
Also, you say “there are no studies” and then attempt to prove that infants DO remember specific events, so, uh…

However, we do know a few things about the brain, pain, neurotransmitters, learning pathways, whathave you.

Not to be snippy, but I’ll cut you off there. Just to shorten things. The implication seems to be that the circumcision you claim to remember is in fact probably your most important memory. While that’s completely in keeping with your posts here, I don’t buy it. Your reasoning may work in yor mind, but it involves none of what I asked for and no relevant data - information about what, if anything, infants of that age are able to remember.
I suppose it makes sense that you claim to remember it, since some people claim they remember birth. And others claim to remember past lives they never had. So in that context I should be less surprised.

If your answer is to diiminsh the baby’s phenomonology to some vague blur before the age of 6 months, how will you reconcile this with all of the other studies speaking to the plasticity of the infant neuronal circuitry and the frenetic wiring, unwiring and rewiring that is a constant occurrence?

You’re talking about general brain development while making claims about something much more specific. Doesn’t help. When come back, bring foreskin. Err, pie. PIE. Make that pie. Just the pie.

[XT]

@Marley23

You’re talking about general brain development while making claims about something much more specific. Doesn’t help. When come back, bring foreskin. Err, pie. PIE. Make that pie. Just the pie.

But please please please…NOT foreskin pie! :eek:

-XT

[squeegee]

@alaricthegoth

If your answer is to diiminsh the baby’s phenomonology to some vague blur before the age of 6 months, how will you reconcile this with all of the other studies speaking to the plasticity of the infant neuronal circuitry and the frenetic wiring, unwiring and rewiring that is a constant occurrence?

Well, jeez… my boy was a 9.5 lb baby shoved through a 10cm-ish hole head first, and it took several hours. When done, as is common, his skull was somewhat deformed for several days. Vaginal birth is pretty tough on a baby (and Mom!).

If, sometime later that day or the next, a small piece of skin was snipped, you’d count that as even on the same scale of trauma? Get a grip.