|
meatcleaver -> RE: Circumcision (7/10/2008 1:48:24 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: somethndif
quote:
ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
There is no evidence that circumcision reduces STDs, the study you mentioned was HIV specific. You are being economical with the truth. However, according to British Medical Association and other European medical bodies, circumcision does increase infections and cause erectile and urinary problems not associated with none circumcized males.
Actually there were three studies in Africa and in each of them circumcised men had statistically significant reduced rates of HIV infection.
And, yes, there is evidence that circumcision reduces the risk of other STD's, as well as HIV/AIDS. Again from the CDC fact sheet:
"Male Circumcision and Other Health Conditions
Lack of male circumcision has also been associated with sexually transmitted genital ulcer disease and chlamydia, infant urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and cervical cancer in female partners of uncircumcised men [1]. The latter two conditions are related to human papillomavirus (HPV) infection. Transmission of this virus is also associated with lack of male circumcision. A recent meta-analysis included 26 studies that assessed the association between male circumcision and risk for genital ulcer disease. The analysis concluded that there was a significantly lower risk for syphilis and chancroid among circumcised men, whereas the reduced risk of herpes simplex virus type 2 infection had a borderline statistical significance [4]."
As for complications from circumcision, the CDC fact sheet states:
"Risks Associated with Male Circumcision
Reported complication rates depend on the type of study (e.g., chart review vs. prospective study), setting (medical vs. nonmedical facility), person operating (traditional vs. medical practitioner), patient age (infant vs. adult), and surgical technique or instrument used. In large studies of infant circumcision in the United States, reported inpatient complication rates range from 0.2% to 2.0% [1, 14, 15]. The most common complications in the United States are minor bleeding and local infection. In the recently completed African trials of adult circumcision, the rates of adverse events possibly, probably, or definitely attributable to circumcision ranged from 2% to 8%. The most commonly reported complications were pain or mild bleeding. There were no reported deaths or long-term sequelae documented [9, 10, 11, 16]. A recent case-control study of two outbreaks of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in otherwise healthy male infants at one hospital identified circumcision as a potential risk factor. However, in no case did MRSA infections involve the circumcision site, anesthesia injection site, or the penis, and MRSA was not found on any of the circumcision equipment or anesthesia vials tested [17]."
So, circumcision has few adverse effects and no "long-term sequelae."
If you have a link or citation to something from the BMA or some other medical association showing problems with circumcision, I would like to see it. Until then, I'll trust the CDC's review of the available medical literature.
Dan
The fact that America is THE ONLY country in the world that accepts there are benefits from circumcision should alarm you, considering there are about 250 countries in the world. Even countries where ritual circumcision takes place don't defend it by suggesting there are any benefits from it.
Improved understanding of the normal anatomy of the infant foreskin means there is now rarely a therapeutic indication for infant circumcision,1 and the procedure is not supported by international medical opinion.2 Ritual (non-therapeutic) male circumcision, however, continues unchecked throughout the world, long after female circumcision, facial scarification, and other ritual forms of infant abuse have been made illegal. The law and principles pertaining to child protection should apply equally to both sexes, so why do society and the medical profession collude with this unnecessary mutilating practice?
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/335/7631/1180
American pediatricians are turning away from the practice of routine circumcision, concluding that doctors have no good medical reason to perform the procedure.
The United States is the only country in the world that routinely removes the foreskins of infant boys. Critics of circumcision got additional ammunition Monday from the American Academy of Pediatrics, a leading medical organization.
The academy concluded the benefits "are not compelling enough" for circumcision to be routinely administered. And if doctors do go ahead with the practice, the pediatricians' group recommended the use of pain relief for the child afterward -- the first time it has made that recommendation.
http://www.canadiancrc.com/Newspaper_Articles/CNN_Pediatricians_turn_away_circumcision_01MAR99.aspx
Critics believe circumcision is unethical and unnecessary. They argue that the removal of the foreskin increases the risk of infection and, in some cases, death. They also argue that circumcision is linked to conformity and the 'locker room syndrome' where uncircumcised men risk being ridiculed by their peers.
But supporters claim circumcision has important health benefits and reject arguments that the surgical removal of the foreskin is nothing more than a tribal mark, badge of honour or sign of belonging.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/malecircumcision/social_2.shtml
Hell, I could post a thousand links, it makes no difference, you will defend it through a sense of guilt for you parents but ignorance is no excuse to future generations that know the evidence is an asinine defence for ritual mutilation that is to do with archiac religious practices rather than scientific evaluation. If it was never an archiac religious practice, this debate would not be happening because no male would be circumcized.
|
|
|
|
