Tide turning on Circumcision, Push to circumcise all male infants

[adoucette]

It is you who are misrepresenting the findings of American medical societies. They say that the benefits do not justify a recommendation for routine circumcision of all male infants, but that parents should be informed of the risks and benefits so that they can decide for themselves.

Not at all.
Since the medical research has shown that the risks don't justify doing it when there is no medical indication for it, the doctors unbiased advice would be to NOT perform it.

If the parents choose to do it for cultural, religious or ethnic traditions they are still going against the medical advice of an unbiased professional.

Arthur

 

[madanthonywayne]

Not at all.
Since the medical research has shown that the risks don't justify doing it when there is no medical indication for it, the doctors unbiased advice would be to NOT perform it.

If the parents choose to do it for cultural, religious or ethnic traditions they are still going against the medical advice of an unbiased professional.

Arthur

I quoted the exact advice given by various US medical societies and none of them said what you're saying. You're substituting your opinion for theirs.

 

[adoucette]

They are saying exactly what I'm saying.

Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, 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. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. It is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to the medical factors, when making this decision. Analgesia is safe and effective in reducing the procedural pain associated with circumcision; therefore, if a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided. If circumcision is performed in the newborn period, it should only be done on infants who are stable and healthy.


however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision = medical research has shown that the risks don't justify doing it when there is no medical indication for it

Which would be the UNBIASED medical recommendation.

Which means that if a parent goes through with it, they are going against the medical risk/reward assessment that has been done by professionals.

Arthur

 

[madanthonywayne]

They are saying exactly what I'm saying.

You are blinded by your own bias. If they meant what you're saying they'd have said that, but they didn't. The Dutch did say what you're saying, but not any American medical association that I"m aware of has flat out said that they are against circumcision.

 

[adoucette]

I don't believe I have a bias, but I think I understand what "data are not sufficient to recommend" means.

It means that the Medical community doesn't think you should do it FOR MEDICAL REASONS.

They clearly state, that if parents want to do it for OTHER reasons, than this group thinks that they have the right to request the operation.

Arthur

 

[ElectricFetus]

I don't believe I have a bias, but I think I understand what "data are not sufficient to recommend" means.

It means that the Medical community doesn't think you should do it FOR MEDICAL REASONS.

They clearly state, that if parents want to do it for OTHER reasons, than this group thinks that they have the right to request the operation.

Arthur

Remember they said "data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision" so "it" is not circumcision in general, but circumcision done on infants without parental demand. Also the very first sentence states "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision" so that means medical reasons could be valid for wanting a circumcision, not just religious or traditional reasoning.

 

[WillNever]

You are blinded by your own bias. If they meant what you're saying they'd have said that, but they didn't. The Dutch did say what you're saying, but not any American medical association that I"m aware of has flat out said that they are against circumcision.

Nay, manthony. The title and subject of this thread pertained to the idea that the United States government organization, the CDC, was going to officially recommend circumcision. So far, and in spite of the jewish-authored articles you have cited, they have exhibited no such jewish thing.

 

[adoucette]

Remember they said "data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision" so "it" is not circumcision in general, but circumcision done on infants without parental demand. Also the very first sentence states "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision" so that means medical reasons could be valid for wanting a circumcision, not just religious or traditional reasoning.

All we have been discussing is the issue of ROUTINE neonatl circumcison not circumcison when medically indicated.

Arthur

 

[Neverfly]

All we have been discussing is the issue of ROUTINE neonatl circumcison not circumcison when medically indicated.

Arthur

This is where ElectricFetus has taken on some flack for himself.

He has repeatedly pointed out that he is not advocating routine (At least not in the same sense) but rather, that he finds that the procedure itself is entirely beneficial and not in the least way harmful.

I do not understand how he can take that stance. Because that could be said about a great many procedures that are only performed if necessary.

There are detrimental effects that I think he's ignoring.


ETA: ElectricFetus, if I've misrepresented your arguments, feel free to correct me as any misrepresentation was entirely unintentional.

And all of this brings his arguments to moot if he's not supporting routine circumcision.

It's caused me some confusion.

 

[ElectricFetus]

This is where ElectricFetus has taken on some flack for himself.

He has repeatedly pointed out that he is not advocating routine (At least not in the same sense) but rather, that he finds that the procedure itself is entirely beneficial and not in the least way harmful.

Nope, still not my argument, try again! There are risk to even minor surgery and the benefits only out weigh the risks in a subset of the male population, my argument is that the risks and benefits are usually minor enough that a parent has the right to decide if or if not to undergo this procedure on their child, which by the way qualifies for a variety of minor surgeries that parent apply to their children, from over-application of tonsillectomies to ear piercing.

There are detrimental effects that I think he's ignoring.

Oh do tell.

And all of this brings his arguments to moot if he's not supporting routine circumcision. It's caused me some confusion.

Many here have clearly been advocating more then simply not having circumcision routine, many have argued for present or eventual banishment
of the procedure, it is to them I provide my counterargument.

 

[Neverfly]

Nope, still not my argument, try again!

Correction noted and accepted. Smart ass commentary mostly ignored...

Oh do tell.

We already went round the mill on it, thanks. Not again. It's all there in the thread. So it's not like I'm denying you an answer or anything.

I just don't like repeating myself.

Many here have clearly been advocating more then simply not having circumcision routine, many have argued for present or eventual banishment
of the procedure, it is to them I provide my counterargument.

Excellent.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Correction noted and accepted. Smart ass commentary mostly ignored...

I didn't think there was anything "smart ass" about my comment.

We already went round the mill on it, thanks. Not again. It's all there in the thread. So it's not like I'm denying you an answer or anything.

I just don't like repeating myself.

Oh please do repeat your self, I would like to hear what these detriments are, all I know of is the risks of minor surgery and extremely pain, the latter can be fixed with analgesic/anesthetic before surgery.

 

[Neverfly]

I didn't think there was anything "smart ass" about my comment.

I did.

Oh please do repeat your self, I would like to hear what these detriments are, all I know of is the risks of minor surgery and extremely pain, the latter can be fixed with analgesic/anesthetic before surgery.

Aww go back and read it ya lazy bum.

Or just google "Circumcision gone wrong" for plenty of horror stories.

 

[ElectricFetus]

I did.

Ok then, guest I just forgo trying to be nice to you from now on.

Or just google "Circumcision gone wrong" for plenty of horror stories.

Risk of surgery, already covered that, anything else?

 

[Neverfly]

Risk of surgery, already covered that, anything else?

Oh so risk makes it ok?
Whatever...
Let's read this:

There are risk to even minor surgery and the benefits only out weigh the risks in a subset of the male population

Aww go back and read it ya lazy bum.

It's not my job to pander to you. Go back and read it or move on.

 

[madanthonywayne]

Nay, manthony. The title and subject of this thread pertained to the idea that the United States government organization, the CDC, was going to officially recommend circumcision. So far, and in spite of the jewish-authored articles you have cited, they have exhibited no such jewish thing.

Why are you harping on Jewish so much?

 

[WillNever]

Predominantly, it is Jews who surreptitiously urge others that the CDC or other organizations wish to recommend circumcision.

 

[Idle Mind]

interesting argument. Let me answer that with a question, if i drug a women with medazalam (a related drug to valium) which also causes amnesia and rape her should she be alowed to press rape charges even though she cant rember the rape?

What argument? I am not posting any argument. My question to adoucette was merely how he could show that infant males who were circumcized remember the procedure.

Your scenario is irrelevant to my question, because I was not making the point that "just because the person may not remember, the action is less unjust." I have not stated my position on circumcision, so don't assign me one.

Well because it's been studied and documented.

See: www dot cirp.org/library/birth/marshall1/ (among many others)

And no, you don't have to remember the actual procedure today for the searing pain you experienced to have affected your mental development, which by the way, doesn't have to result in a specific memory, but can still impact how you relate to the world.

That paper states that 90% of the infants had modified behaviour for a period of 4 hours, and only 33% of the behaviour changes persisted past 22 hours. Possibly due to discomfort, but I can't see that supporting the idea that it affects them the rest of their lives.

If you trip and fall, and cut your hand or arm, it is uncomfortable and may cause a change in behaviour (can't bend your arm in a certain way, or can't hold items), depending on the extent of the laceration. But once it's healed, do you remember that pain for the rest of your life? Does it cause you pain flashbacks?

 

[adoucette]

As I said (among many others)

Here's another.

http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/taddio2/

Circumcised infants showed a stronger pain response to subsequent routine vaccination than uncircumcised infants.

So the point is, it does appear to have longer lasting effects.
More to the point, we might not even be able to tell the true impact to the procedure on neo-natal development.

Arthur

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Well the reasons people advocate cutting the foreskin are beginning to wear thin:


In the new study, researchers at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) looked at HIV infection rates among nearly 4,900 men in the U.S., Canada and the Netherlands who took part in a clinical trial of an HIV vaccine.

They found that circumcised and uncircumcised men showed no difference in the risk of HIV infection over three years.

Moreover, while having unprotected sex with an HIV-positive partner increased a man's risk of infection, there was no evidence that circumcision altered that risk.

The findings, reported in the journal AIDS, come as the CDC is developing new recommendations on circumcision for reducing HIV transmission. The agency says it is considering whether to recommend circumcision for heterosexual men at elevated risk of HIV, and whether there is enough evidence to make any recommendations for men who have sex with men.

With regards to infant circumcision, the CDC says on its Web site, "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."

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6283Z820100309

Study: Circumcision Rates Falling Fast In U.S.

August 22, 2010
New research about a steep drop in circumcisions made headlines this past week. According to one federal researcher, circumcision rates in U.S. hospitals slid from 56 percent in 2006 to fewer than a third of boys born last year.

Doctors caution that those numbers aren't definitive — for instance, they don't include circumcisions not covered by insurance policies or circumcisions performed in religious settings.

But Dr. Douglas Diekema, a pediatrics bioethicist at the University of Washington, tells NPR's Audie Cornish there's no doubt about the overall trend.

"I think all of us agree there probably is a decrease in the number of circumcisions over time, and that's probably a result of a number of factors," Diekema says.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129362160

The OP's premise doesn't hold water


Massachusetts Lawmakers Asked to Ban Infant Male Circumcision

Published March 03, 2010 | AP
BOSTON -- Massachusetts lawmakers are being asked to outlaw infant male circumcision.
Supporters of the proposed ban describe the procedure as "unnecessary, painful and risky."
Georganne Chapin, executive director of the group Intact America, an organization formed to change how Americans think about neonatal male circumcision, said the procedure is also unethical because the infant cannot give his consent.

Religious groups oppose the bill, which has no religious exemption.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...lawmakers-asked-ban-infant-male-circumcision/