Infant's death at Maimonides Hospital linked to circumcision

Post Reply New Topic

Infant's death at Maimonides Hospital linked to circumcision

This is a practice that needs to go. Where's the benefit? And what's the draw back. A completely bat-shit procedure?

It is a primitive and barbaric practice that should be banned. I can understand it still continuing in backward African villages where they don't know any better, but not in the Western world.

Pretty much. No medical organization in the world recommends it as a routine thing. If there is a foreskin issue, there are many other - more conservative - treatments that can be tried before amputation. Stretching exercises, antibiotics, anti-fungal creams, steroid creams, and dorsal slits - all that are applicable - should be tried and should have failed before amputation is considered.

Circumcision promotes health.

Conditions affecting the prostate
Ravich and Ravich reported that in patients operated on for prostatic obstruction, 1.8% of obstructions in Jews were cancerous, compared with 19% in non-Jews.[102] Ross et al. reported on two case-control studies in Southern California. Both studies included 142 cases and in each study the risk was lower in circumcised men (relative risk of 0.5 in whites and 0.6 in blacks).[103] Mandel and Schuman reported on a case-control study with 250 cases. Compared with controls drawn from their neighborhood, circumcised men were less likely to develop prostate cancer (odds ratio 0.82).[104] Ewings and Bowie performed a case-control study of 159 cases of prostate cancer, and found a reduced rate among circumcised men (odds ratio 0.62). The authors noted: "...some statistically significant associations were found, although these can only be viewed as hypothesis generating in this context."[105]
McCredie et al. (2001) studied 1,216 men aged 40–69 years using the International Prostate Symptom Score, and found that being circumcised was associated with a higher prevalence of moderate-to-severe urinary symptoms.[106]
[edit]Human Papilloma Virus (HPV)
A meta-analysis by Van Howe in 2006 found no significant association between circumcision status and HPV infection and that "the medical literature does not support the claim that circumcision reduces the risk for genital HPV infection".[107] However, Castellsagué et al. maintain that this meta-analysis was flawed, and further note that a re-analysis of the same data "... clearly shows, no matter how the studies are grouped, a moderate to strong protective effect of circumcision on penile HPV and related lesions."[108]
In several studies, uncircumcised men were found to have a greater incidence of human papilloma virus (HPV) infection than circumcised men.[109][109][110][111][112] One of these studies[109] has been criticized on methodological grounds.[107][113] One study found no statistically significant difference in the incidence of HPV infection between circumcised and uncircumcised men.[114]
Two studies have shown that circumcised men report, or were found to have, a higher prevalence of genital warts than uncircumcised men.[115][116]
The Medical College of Georgia studied the impact of a new (as of 2004) vaccine against "HPV types 16 and 18, the two most common causes of cervical and penile cancer".[117]
Circumcision has been associated with a lower incidence of Human Papilloma Virus infection in males in several studies. HPV infection is a known risk factor in the development of penile cancer. Other studies suggest that circumcision may reduce the risk of more invasive forms of penile cancer. "In weighing the risks and benefits of circumcision, doctors consider the fact that penile cancer is one of the least common forms of cancer in the United States" and "Ultimately, decisions about circumcision are highly personal and depend more on social and religious factors than on medical evidence". They state that it is important to concentrate on the main risk factors: poor hygiene, having unprotected sex with multiple partners, and cigarette smoking.[118] They also state that the current consensus of most experts is that circumcision should not be recommended as a prevention strategy for penile cancer.[119]

A clean d*ck is a healthy d*ck and a healthy d*ck is a happy d*ck. Circumcision frees the male from the Curse of Smegma.

ruveyn

Circumcision is kept going by tradition and nothing else.

The "medical" reasons for it are laughable. I could use the same logic to recommend that people's earlobes should be cut off at birth.

I'm sure that if the medical benefits were anything but specious, at best, most of the medical organizations would recommend that it be done routinely. Oh, wait, none of them do.

A clean d*ick is one that has been washed whether intact or missing a foreskin. I mean really... Don't circumcised penises need to be washed too?

FTR, I fully support adult men who chose to become circumcised themselves, but I do not believe that parents should have the right to perform cosmetic surgery on non-consenting infants' genitalia regardless of their gender. About 100 baby boys die in the USA every year because of this purely elective surgery.

I will not have this procedure performed on my children.

No one is forcing you.

ruveyn

Turtlenecks are out of fashion anyway

I'm sorry, but is nobody else a little concerned by this quote? It sounds a little... wrong. Actually, it sounds a lot wrong. Very wrong.

Also, circumscision has been shown to reduce the risk of contracting HIV in groups where condoms are economically or culturally not an option (Africa). Even a tiny reduction in the spread of HIV would have a huge impact in Africa, and probably other places as well.

Last edited by Sokar on 06 Mar 2012, 3:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

If people were shown the dangers, and asked to think about the absurdity of the procedure to begin with, I bet it would become more of a fashion-less decision.

I just did a quick search and circumcisions cost between $100-$800 for a newborn, and upwards to $3000 for adults, and insurance doesn't cover it. NICE!

Last edited by snapcap on 06 Mar 2012, 3:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.

That's why I quoted it, because it is wrong.

*Facepalm*

Why pay when you can just use a bottle of Jack Daniels for anesthetic & sterilization and a set of wire strippers

Why not use the money to put together a low budget movie depicting circumcision as performed by religions and medical staff so people can see how barbaric it is? How about showing that video to high schoolers? We could also through in some examples of people that are driven to have their limbs amputated, and we can all laugh when the doctors tell them no. LOL!

You've got your knickers in a knot over circumscision, fair enough. But you're completely missing the fact that it's alright for a rabbi to suck on a baby's penis, so long as he has just circumscised him.