Circumcision

[scandal 951]

Who knew? This is apparently a very controversial subject on VJ.

And here I thought it was just a routine minor surgical procedure undergone by millions of babies every year.

http://kidshealth.org/parent/system/surgic...rcumcision.html

Whether you're expecting a baby boy or have just welcomed your new little guy into the world, you have an important decision to make before you take your son home: whether to circumcise him.

For some families, the choice is simple because it's based on cultural or religious beliefs. But for others, the right option isn't as clear. Before you make a circumcision decision, it's important to talk to your doctor and consider some of the issues.

About Circumcision

Boys are born with a hood of skin, called the foreskin, covering the head (also called the glans) of the #######. In circumcision, the foreskin is surgically removed, exposing the end of the #######.

Approximately 55% to 65% of all newborn boys are circumcised in the United States each year, though this rate varies by region (western states have the lowest rates and the north central region has the highest). The procedure is much more widespread in the United States, Canada, and the Middle East than in Asia, South America, Central America, and most of Europe, where it's uncommon.

Parents who choose circumcision often do so based on religious beliefs, concerns about hygiene, or cultural or social reasons, such as the wish to have their son look like other men in the family.

Routine circumcision is usually performed during the first 10 days (often within the first 48 hours), either in the hospital or, for some religious ritual circumcisions, at home. If you decide to have your son circumcised at the hospital, your pediatrician, family doctor, or obstetrician will perform the procedure before you bring your baby home. The doctor should prepare you by telling you about the procedure he or she will use and the possible risks. Circumcision after the newborn period can be a more complicated procedure and usually requires general anesthesia.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Oh geez another circumcision thread. Now all the hairy hippie naturalist types are gonna come outta the fvckin woodwork, having hid there so long because of all the scary political threads.

[Heracles 417]

Might be common in the US but not everywhere else.

The NHS no longer covers those procedures unless they are for religious reason in Aus.

Edited June 10, 2009 by Constellation

[scandal 951]

Oh geez another circumcision thread. Now all the hairy hippie naturalist types are gonna come outta the fvckin woodwork, having hid there so long because of all the scary political threads.

I posted this because a posting I wrote yesterday regarding circumcision got pulled as "inappropriate" on a family-friendly forum.

BTW - there have been several studies now which correlate circumcision to lower incidence of HIV infection.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

... a posting I wrote yesterday regarding circumcision got pulled as "inappropriate" on a family-friendly forum.

Well that is odd, seeing how my threads about how cumbaths are good for the skin didn't.

Especially seeing how there have been numerous threads/posts about circumcision before

[Heracles 417]

There are numerous 'international' studies that also suggest otherwise.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

There are numerous 'international' studies that also suggest otherwise.

Circumcision is not limited to the US. The entire Muslim world does it, for starters.

[Heracles 417]

There are numerous 'international' studies that also suggest otherwise.

Circumcision is not limited to the US. The entire Muslim world does it, for starters.

Not that common in other western nations. As I said earlier, the NHS recently stop covering the procedure due to negligible benefits.

[scandal 951]

... a posting I wrote yesterday regarding circumcision got pulled as "inappropriate" on a family-friendly forum.

Well that is odd, seeing how my threads about how cumbaths are good for the skin didn't.

Especially seeing how there have been numerous threads/posts about circumcision before

We clearly need an in-depth study on VJ to correlate whether cumbaths from circumcised versus uncircumcised penises have differing benefits for the skin of the recipient.

We need to conduct double-blind tests with proper controls. A suitable sample space of subjects, oh, at least a hundred or so willing volunteers, to participate in receiving said baths. As a circumcised male, I will be happy to contribute my services for this part of the experiment. Any uncircumcised males may step forward and their efforts and contributions will be gratefully acknowledged.

[Ban Hammer 13,403]

I posted this because a posting I wrote yesterday regarding circumcision got pulled as "inappropriate" on a family-friendly forum.

maybe you just rubbed someone the wrong way with it

[Heracles 417]

Policies of various national medical associations

Most guidelines make a distinction between therapeutic and non-therapeutic circumcision. Therapeutic circumcision (where there is a medical need to circumcise) is rarely controversial. Neonatal circumcision is not considered medically necessary and is therefore categorised as non-therapeutic.[citation needed]

Australasia

The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) state that "after extensive review of the literature" they "reaffirm that there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision". They also state that "if the operation is to be performed, the medical attendant should ensure this is done by a competent operator, using appropriate anaesthesia and in a safe child-friendly environment." Additionally, the RACP state that there is an obligation to provide parents who request a circumcision for their child with accurate, up-to-date and unbiased information about the risks and benefits of circumcision, adding that "there is no evidence of benefit outweighing harm for circumcision as a routine procedure in the neonate."[81]

The Tasmanian President of the Australian Medical Association (AMA), Haydn Walters, has stated that the AMA would support a call to ban circumcision for non-medical, non-religious reasons.[185]

Canada

The Fetus and Newborn Committee of the Canadian Paediatric Society posted "Neonatal circumcision revisited" in 1996 and "Circumcision: Information for Parents" in November 2004.[107] The 1996 position statement says that "circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed," (a statement with which the Royal Australasian College of Physicians concurs), and the 2004 advice to parents says it "does not recommend circumcision for newborn boys. Many pediatricians no longer perform circumcisions."[80]

United Kingdom

There is a spectrum of views within the British Medical Association's (BMA) membership about whether non-therapeutic male circumcision is a beneficial, neutral or harmful procedure or whether it is superfluous, and whether it should ever be done on a child who is not capable of deciding for himself. Moreover, the Association states that “there is significant disagreement about whether circumcision is overall a beneficial, neutral or harmful procedure. At present, the medical literature on the health, including sexual health, implications of circumcision is contradictory, and often subject to claims of bias in research.”[82] As a general rule, the BMA believe that "parents should be entitled to make choices about how best to promote their children’s interests, and it is for society to decide what limits should be imposed on parental choices." They also state that "both parents...must give consent for non-therapeutic circumcision", and that parents and children should be provided with up-to-date written information about the risks involved.[82]

According to the BMA, circumcision for medical purposes should only be used where less invasive procedures are either unavailable or not as effective. They state that "to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate." Furthermore, the BMA believe that children who are capable of expressing a view should be involved in the decision-making process with regard to their own circumcision, and their views should be taken into account. The BMA state that they "cannot envisage a situation in which it is ethically acceptable to circumcise a competent, informed young person who consistently refuses the procedure."[82]

The BMA state that parents should be informed about the lack of consensus within the medical profession with regard to the potential health benefits of non-therapeutic circumcision, adding that they consider the evidence for such benefits to be insufficient as the sole reason for carrying out a circumcision.[82]

United States

The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) stated: "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."[61] The AAP recommends that if parents choose to circumcise, analgesia should be used to reduce pain associated with circumcision. It states that circumcision should only be performed on newborns who are stable and healthy.[61]

The American Medical Association supports the AAP's 1999 circumcision policy statement with regard to non-therapeutic circumcision, which they define as the non-religious, non-ritualistic, not medically necessary, elective circumcision of male newborns. They state that "policy statements issued by professional societies representing Australian, Canadian, and American pediatricians do not recommend routine circumcision of male newborns."[12]

The American Academy of Family Physicians (2007) recognizes the controversy surrounding circumcision and recommends that physicians "discuss the potential harms and benefits of circumcision with all parents or legal guardians considering this procedure for their newborn son."[186]

The American Urological Association (2007) stated that neonatal circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks.[187]

Edited June 10, 2009 by Constellation

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Ron,

It is a tradition in my wife's culture to wait until the boys are about 9. We didn't have our son circumcised because she wants to have it done in the Philippines when he is older. Our insurance will not cover the procedure at this point unless our doctor says it is necessary.

[Niels Bohr 72]

I think it'll be alot more hygeinic to circumcise. Don't get me wrong, but, after you urinate the forskin return to the tip and kind of absorb the urine. It makes it very uncomfortable.

[scandal 951]

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

Male Circumcision and Risk for HIV Transmission

Several types of research have documented that male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex.

International Observational Studies

A systematic review and meta-analysis that focused on male circumcision and heterosexual transmission of HIV in Africa was published in 2000 [5]. It included 19 cross-sectional studies, 5 case-control studies, 3 cohort studies, and 1 partner study. A substantial protective effect of male circumcision on risk for HIV infection was noted, along with a reduced risk for genital ulcer disease. After adjustment for confounding factors in the population-based studies, the relative risk for HIV infection was 44% lower in circumcised men. The strongest association was seen in men at high risk, such as patients at sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinics, for whom the adjusted relative risk was 71% lower for circumcised men.

[Heracles 417]

International Observational Studies

A systematic review and meta-analysis that focused on male circumcision and heterosexual transmission of HIV in Africa was published in 2000 [5]. It included 19 cross-sectional studies, 5 case-control studies, 3 cohort studies, and 1 partner study. A substantial protective effect of male circumcision on risk for HIV infection was noted, along with a reduced risk for genital ulcer disease. After adjustment for confounding factors in the population-based studies, the relative risk for HIV infection was 44% lower in circumcised men. The strongest association was seen in men at high risk, such as patients at sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinics, for whom the adjusted relative risk was 71% lower for circumcised men.

Good point Jack.

The other thing is that uncircumcised men experience a better sensation during intercourse.