circumcision
23 Mar 2015, 5:42 pm
When I first came back to WP, I was miffed to see people questioning whether men's activists really care about male issues like circumcision [1], so I've been meaning for some time to post this e-mail that went out last Dec. to NCFM members:
1. The African studies have never been replicated in the United States or anywhere else.
2. The circumcised men in these studies were required to have a period of abstinence from sexual activity after their circumcision, while the intact men had no requirement of abstinence, and this could have a significant effect on their comparative infection rates.
3. All three of the African studies were terminated early, before the incidence of infection in the circumcised men could catch up with the incidence of infection in the intact men.
4. One more recent study (Bossio, International Society for Sexual Medicine 2014) concluded that the literature favoring circumcision contains considerable gaps, lacks rigor, and is largely not applicable to North America.
5. Another study published in 2007 concluded that the data do not support the theory that male circumcision will slow the AIDS epidemic. Rather, it is the number of infected prostitutes in a country that is highly significant in explaining HIV prevalence levels across countries:
The Number of Prostitutes and the Global HIV/AIDS Pandemic
http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchArt ... ne.0000543
6. The United States currently has the highest rate of HIV infection and the highest rate of male circumcision in the industrialized world. If male circumcision actually reduces HIV infection, then the U.S. would have a lower rate of HIV infection than European countries, Canada, and Australia, but in fact the U.S. rate is higher.
7. The recommendations say nothing at all about the function of the foreskin, or the consequences of losing it.
8. Two medical studies concluded that circumcision permanently reduces the sensitivity of the penis:
Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced ... 6.06685.x/
Male circumcision decreases penile sensitivity as measured in a large cohort
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced ... 2.11761.x/
9. Federal law prohibits any medically unnecessary genital cutting of girls, but boys are denied the equal protection of this law.
10. The recommendations say nothing at all about a boy's right to make his own choice about his own body.
The CDC is accepting public comments until January 16, 2015 at 11:59 PM Eastern Time. I encourage all chapter members to tell the CDC what you think of their recommendations, if you have not already done so.
One thing to add: To be effective in Africa, circumcision would need to prevent infection until the men are old enough to be less sexually active; otherwise they'd spread HIV to the same number of women, just at a later date. In cultures where older men are seen as sexually desirable, you'd need to prevent infection for perhaps 20 or 40 years. As noted above, the studies were stopped because of a clear short-term benefit. That's the right ethical decision, and the right regulatory one if they get NSF money, but it's dishonest to use that data to claim a long-term benefit.
Jacoby
Veteran
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash
24 Mar 2015, 12:52 am
HIV isn't much of concern in the US unless you unless you are homosexual who has casual unprotected sex with strangers or an IV drug user. STDs shouldn't play a role in any decision you make with your infant son, if a kid if worried about them then they can get circumcised when they can consent to it themselves.
24 Mar 2015, 9:05 am
The benefits of circumcision with regards to reducing HIV infection are insignificant. Using condoms are way better at reducing the HIV infection rate so we might as well use that. I don't understand how the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks, it's crap. Here there have been too many cases of boys losing their penises due to gangrene infection from traditional african circumcision.
28 Mar 2015, 11:28 am
I don't think circumcision is okay...
Unless it's for medical reasons; circumcision is unnecessary. The foreskin is there to serve a purpose, it's not meant to be removed .
_________________
We become what we think about; since everything in the beginning is just an idea.
Destruction and creation are 2 sides of the same coin.
28 Mar 2015, 2:15 pm
There is something called risk-befit used in medical ethics.
For instance it is often claimed that penile cancer correlates more with male with foreskins.
The medical risk of removing the forskin is actually significant higher than getting penile cancer. I'm not saying other procedure aren't risky, simply as a medical unnecessary procedure it can cause complications.
The flaws:
a. The very small chance of getting this rare form of cancer, vs the chance of complications.
b. The significance of the forskin is not clear, if it has any influence at all. It is equivalent to saying yellow teeth causes cancer.
c. The numbers are not that convincing given that penile cancer exists in a range of different types of cancer that can affect men, within the same category or probable cause.
c. Other potential causes such as HPV could be kept under control by vaccines.
Complications could be potentially having no penis (yes it has happened), damage to the glans and shaft, blood loss, infection, tightness, tearing, redness an irritation, persistent discomfort, sexual dysfunction, and potentially death.
The risk for having religious circumcision is potentially worse. Jewish babies have died from herpes, and others are brain damaged.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -City.html
