|
Caius -> RE: Circumcision (7/11/2008 11:08:07 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
The foreskin is not superficial skin, it is a fully functioning part of the male genitalia. It is there to protect the glans and stop the glans cauterizing.
LMAO, Cauterizing? Ahhh, right. Because the head of the circumcised penis has been known to regularly dry out, rub raw, and in some cases just fall right off, huh? Trust me, the glans does just fine without its little hoodie. Which makes sense as physiologists and evolutionary biologists long ago largely abandoned the idea the function of the prepuce in most of those mammals that have it is to protect the glans. I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but it's not from anything written in the last few decades; currently researchers believe one of two possibilities are likely -- that the the foreskin helps protect the developing penis in utero or that it is simply part of our phylogenetic inheritance and is in fact a vestigial organ.
If nothing else, there's no doubt (anywhere in research or the medical profession) that the foreskin contributes significantly to local infection and a variety of painful skin conditions of the penis (balanitis, phimosis, paraphimosis, ischaemia, and others).
quote:
ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
The origins of circumcision are in irrational religious beliefs and the use...
Oh, I don't disagree there. The origins of circumcision are in fact largely religion and tradition and we simply fell ass-backwards into any benefits, to whatever extent they exist.
quote:
ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
...suprious medical evidence to defend it has only come late in the day...
Spurious? The World Health Organization launched a comprehensive review of all literature on the subject a few years back. Their conclusions were
that is now established fact that circumcision significantly reduces chances of contraction of HIV. Perhaps a little information in the basic pathophysiological mechanisms of HIV contraction in heterosexuals will help elaborate on this point. The cell which is currently held to be the primary site of introduction of HIV for males is called a Langerhan's cell. These cells are found in various human mucosa in both sexes and, in the male, throughout the epithelium of the penis, but, and here's the important part, they are found to be most prevalent and most superficial (that is, closer the surface of the skin) in the inner surface of the foreskin, due to lower levels of keratin in the surrounding tissue. Studies tracking massive populations found an undeniably lower rate of contraction in circumcised men. The three largest of these studies were concluded early because the international teams running them found the evidence to be so overwhelming that they considered it an ethical dilemma to continue tracking these two groups without recommending circumcision to the uncircumcized who participated. Similar reviews have since also established similar correlations for HPV, and evidence is building for a number of other STDs. That rates for penile cancer are three times higher for uncircumcised men has been known for almost three decades. Read up, unless you consider yourself a greater authority than the WHO despite having, (as best I can tell) no background in medicine or physiology. And when I say read-up, I don't mean thed editorial section of the BBC webpage.
However, let me state again for the record, as you seem to have missed it, that I am not advocating for the practice of circumcision for the purpose of disease prevention; the prevention of AIDS and other pandemics of sexually-transmitted diseases is best affected by education and the dissemination of condoms; circumcision, even if to does cut contraction rates by a considerable amount, is not the epidemiological solution as the spread of the disease will still continue to accelerate. Nor am I really advocating for circumcision at all -- my purpose in this post, as in my previous two, is to correct medical misinformation I've seen forwarded here as fact.
quote:
ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
In this case, mutilation is mot misappropriated, it is exactly what it is, just because it is mainstream in America, doesn't make it an acceptable practice. You should be asking tyourself as to why America is the only developed country where circumcision is mainstream. You should be asking yourself why America medical professionals are the only ones in the world that recommend circumcision as routine. Is this really another case of America is right and the rest of the world is wrong?
Almost 1/3 of all men in the world are circumcised, some 1.1 billion persons. There are some 150 million men in the U.S., less than 80% of them circumcised. Do the math. Circumcision is practiced by a significant portion of the population of every continent in the world and is not an American-dominated custom on the industrial world. It is, in fact, the most common surgical procedure in existence.
More important than that, however, much as you've tried to frame the debate in the medical profession as one in which only American doctors support the practice, this is just out and out false. The studies I alluded to above were mostly published by non-American or international groups and were conducted throughout the world. To the extent that there is any particularly relevant regions concentrated on they are to be found in Africa and Asia. You can find medical advocates for the procedure anywhere you go; of course, what you will find most commonly in the medical community of pretty much any nation is neither advocates or proponents, but rather those who hold that it is a generally harmless procedure, be it cosmetic or practical, and that the debate is, to the knowledgeable practitioner, a non-issue. Even amongst those who are opposed to it as a routine procedure, only the smallest fraction view it as rising anywhere near the level of "mutilation." Of course, this is rapidly changing throughout Africa where it is becoming much more widely advised by physicians and institutions battling the spread of HIV. And they are damn well entitled to in that context, without being cast as promoters of barbarous ritual. Have you ever seen, with your own eyes, children stricken with AIDS? I have, and trust me, it presents a considerably more painful image than a circumcision.
quote:
ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
Of course female cicumcision is about loss of senstation, so is male ciscumcision...
If the circumcised penis were any more sensitive, men would never have sex with any woman more than once as the walrus-like wail that issued forth from their mouths during any intimate act in which their member was involved would surely scare their lovers lesbian.
Are you even serious at this point? This is a complete old wive's tale that has been throughly debunked. As a matter of fact, for many years it was contended that the opposite was true, that circumcision actually increased sensitivity, and to this day more research supports this position than the former, though I personally doubt there is much of an effect at all, as does most of the scientific and medical community. But you don't even need to trust us. Go ask any circumcised man in good reproductive health if they feel their penis fails to deliver enough sensation to make sexual interaction pleasurable and gratifying. They will laugh in your face, and rightly so. I've never heard of a single circumcised man who feels that he was mutilated by the procedure. And not because of inherited guilt as you've tried to imply with circumcised men here who have also pointed this out, but because it has not affected their chances at happiness in any sense. I'm not saying that there aren't some men out there who do in fact feel this way, but I'd be surprised if they represent even so much as .00001% of the entirety of those 1.1 billion who have undergone the procedure. Hell, I'm sure there are more people with Body Integrity Disorder who feel alienated from their own limbs. You're advocating for a ban on a "brutal" medical procedure whose "victims" neither feel brutalized nor view themselves as victims. I bet you've never so much as heard from another man's lips that he was wronged by his circumcision. Doesn't that tell you something? And for the record, I didn't pin my entire argument against female circumcision on just loss of sensation....
Furthermore, before you go lobbing about terms such as spurious, I think you might want to make the acquaintance of an American physician or two before you assume them to be persons so ignorant or self-involved so as to propagate a potentially harmful procedure for purposes of religious tradition. Most American health care providers with whom I have associated are dedicated healers and professionals who would sooner remove a part of their own anatomy before harming a child. They also happen to be one of the segments of the American populous most strongly disposed to atheism and agnosticism, in my experience. Not that Americans in general are the religious zealots you seem to believe them to be.
But, now I get to return, at last, to the most egregious claim in your posts, your equating circumcision with female genital cutting -- the argument you continue to stick to that drives any doubt from my mind that you have no first-hand experience with either phenomena or reproductive physiology. I'll use an excerpt from the afore-mentioned World Health Organization report. It doesn't say anything all that different from what I wrote in my previous post, but perhaps you will receive it better from this source than from me. And anyway, I'm not sure I can repeat the details that distinguish the two acts again without occasionally punctuating them with comments about your ignorance and obvious obsession with uncut penises. And that would really just be petty.
quote:
While both male circumcision and female genital mutilation or cutting (FGM/C) are steeped in culture and tradition, the health consequences of each are drastically different (187). Male circumcision may seem similar as far as definition is concerned – “partial … removal of the external genitalia” – but in practice is substantially different. FGM/C, often referred to as ‘female circumcision’ comprises surgical procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia. It is the manifestation of deep-rooted gender inequality that assigns women an inferior position in societies, and is unambiguously linked to a reduction in women's sexual desire and an irreversible loss of capability for a type of sexual functioning that many women value highly (188).
FGM frequently involves complete removal of the clitoris, as well additional cutting and stitching of the labia resulting in a constricted vaginal opening. The procedures are linked to extensive and in some cases lifelong health problem (189). The immediate complications include severe pain, shock, hemorrhage, tetanusor sepsis, urine retention, ulceration of the genital region and injury to adjacent tissue. Hemorrhage and infection can be of such magnitude as to cause death (189). Moreover the WHO collaborative prospective study in six African Countries on Female Genital Mutilation and Obstetric Outcomes published in June 2006 (190) showed that deliveries to women who underwent FGM/C (all types considered) were significantly more likely to be complicated by Cesarean section, postpartum hemorrhage, episiotomy, extended maternal hospital stay, resuscitation of the infant and hospital impatient perinatal death than deliveries to womenwho have not had FGM/C.
...
There are no known health benefits associated with FGM and no research evidence to suggest that such procedures could reduce the risk of HIV transmission. For these reasons, bodies including WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA, the International Council of Nurses, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists consider FGM/C to be universally unacceptable because it is an infringement on the physical and psychosexual integrity of women and girls and is a form of violence against them (189)."
187. Obermeyer, C.M., The consequences of female circumcision for health and sexuality: an update on the evidence. Cult
Health Sex, 2005. 7(5): p. 443-61.
188. Nussbaum, M., Sex and social justice. 1999, New York: Oxford University Press.
189. WHO/UNICEF/UNFPA, Female genital mutilation: a joint WHO/UNICEF/UNFPA statement. 1997, World Health
Organisation: Geneva.
190. Banks, E., Meirik, O., Farley, T., Akande, O., Bathija, H., and Ali, M., Female genital mutilation and obstetric outcome:
WHO collaborative prospective study in six African countries. Lancet, 2006. 367(9525): p. 1835-41.
191. UNAIDS, Male circumcision and comprehensive HIV prevention programming: Guidance for decision makers on
human rights, ethical and legal considerations. 2006, UNAIDS: Geneva
Looking back at the length of my post here, I can't help but feel that I should reiterate that I still believe the value of routine application of male circumcision to be an open debate. What I think people are objecting to here is your characterization of it as a debilitating procedure when the men who underwent it as infants clearly couldn't care less or are, in fact, happy to have undergone it. What I specifically find mind-boggling is your insistence that it somehow an act of comparable harm and violation to female genital mutilation. That and your completely one-sided misreprsentation of the scientific record on the issue.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark
Thank you for taking the time to respond Caius. Whilst I totally agree that stablization is a 'victory' we are still nowhere near the lower end of infection rates and that to me, is concerning.
I don't dismiss circumcision and HIV as a total waste of time, but I do believe it is important to note, that although the stats on HIV and Africa has people putting on their thinking caps and even using the statistics in threads like these, that the infection rates for women(and by that, in children) in Africa is rising, regardless of who is circumcised or not and this is one of the big reasons why many health organisations, particularly world ones, are apprehensive to support the circumcision claim to the extenet that they promote it.
the.dark.
Happy to oblige. I agree the situation remains one of grave concern, though I think research and the drastically different climate with regard to how the afflicted are viewed are giving us some cause for hope at last. As to circumcision in Africa, I actually think that's the one place where the value of widespread infant application is most justified. And I think it will contine to gain in popularity there.
|
|
|
|
