AAP says benefits of circumcision outweigh risks

[General Zod]

I look at it this way.

If there really is a measurable difference in health outcome, it's going to be a lot more obvious 20 years from now than it is now. Why make the decision for a baby boy now, when he'll have better information to make the same decision when he's a grown man?

Well what's the rate of getting UTIs over the next 20 years with snipped males vs un-snipped? I think waiting 20 years to let him decide is a bad move if (and I mean if, since there are no numbers either way), he could get a greater number of infections over those 20 years.

Besides, the non-measurables (sexual pleasure, aesthetics) play a big role here; I don't even know how we'd measure those, so I can't think of a just way to deal with them except informed consent.

That tends to be how I see it. Most of the negatives in this thread are subjective (not-measurable)...feeling violated, feeling mutilated, lack of sexual sensitivity, etc... All the positives are measurable scientifically and statistically. I'm not so "pro-snippage" that I'm going to back the position regardless of evidence. If by the time I have a son, there's evidence that says snipping will cut 5 years off your life...well hell, my boy ain't getting snipped. But based on my personal history and on current evidence, I see no reason to be against it outright.

Where's the evidence that snipping is the only way to achieve benefits it purports? Couldn't you accomplish most of those simply through proper behavioral teachings and other methods that don't involve mutilation? Or would that be too much work for you?

[Borgholio]

Where's the evidence that snipping is the only way to achieve benefits it purports? Couldn't you accomplish most of those simply through proper behavioral teachings and other methods that don't involve mutilation? Or would that be too much work for you?

Sure, so rather than including snipping as part as a general practice of hygiene, you ignore it and rely only on the other methods because of a personal opinion that it is body mutiliation (as opposed to legal or scientific definitions). Well, whatever makes you happy. I suppose those parents who believe that vaccinations do more harm than good have a point worth considering as well. I mean giving your child live viruses on purpose? Jabbing them with a sharp needle and making them cry because it's too much work to care for them when they develop a fever and bronchial infection? Barbaric.

[General Zod]

Where's the evidence that snipping is the only way to achieve benefits it purports? Couldn't you accomplish most of those simply through proper behavioral teachings and other methods that don't involve mutilation? Or would that be too much work for you?

Sure, so rather than including snipping as part as a general practice of hygiene, you ignore it and rely only on the other methods because of a personal opinion that it is body mutiliation (as opposed to legal or scientific definitions). Well, whatever makes you happy. I suppose those parents who believe that vaccinations do more harm than good have a point worth considering as well. I mean giving your child live viruses on purpose? Jabbing them with a sharp needle and making them cry because it's too much work to care for them when they develop a fever and bronchial infection? Barbaric.

Okay, so basically you're a lazy fuck that doesn't want to teach your kid about responsible sexual behavior, so might as well opt for the lazy route. Gotcha.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

If the study mentioned in this article is to believed, over a hundred infants die in America each year due to circumcision. Does that count as subjective and non-measurable?

[Borgholio]

Okay, so basically you're a lazy fuck that doesn't want to teach your kid about responsible sexual behavior, so might as well opt for the lazy route. Gotcha.

I was wondering how long this would take before some chimp decided to start flinging poo because I refused to accept his personal opinion as the law of God. Thanks for not disappointing me. As a point of fact, I never said getting snipped was a cure-all, nor did I say I wouldn't do my job as a parent and cover him from all angles. I guess it's too much for you to think that someone can be pro-circumcision and still be a responsible father.

[Borgholio]

If the study mentioned in this article is to believed, over a hundred infants die in America each year due to circumcision. Does that count as subjective and non-measurable?

No actually that's exactly what I'm talking about. If / when the time comes, I'll certainly weigh those risks against the benefits. Please remember I'm not die-hard pro-snippage. I'll decline to get it done if it's not safe.

[kc8tbe]

Well what's the rate of getting UTIs over the next 20 years with snipped males vs un-snipped? I think waiting 20 years to let him decide is a bad move if (and I mean if, since there are no numbers either way), he could get a greater number of infections over those 20 years.

I appreciate that you're still forming an opinion. I would point out that the UTI risk is low either way, and circumcision is really only protective against UTI during infancy. UTI tends to be easily correctible with widely available antibiotics. See summary. Meatal stenosis, on the other hand, requires surgical intervention.

The only new evidence I'm aware of since 1999 is the evidence that circumcusion can reduce the transmission of HIV and a few other veneral diseases. But by the time your infant will be exposed to those, he'll be old enough to provide assent to circumcision.

[General Zod]

I was wondering how long this would take before some chimp decided to start flinging poo because I refused to accept his personal opinion as the law of God. Thanks for not disappointing me. As a point of fact, I never said getting snipped was a cure-all, nor did I say I wouldn't do my job as a parent and cover him from all angles. I guess it's too much for you to think that someone can be pro-circumcision and still be a responsible father.

I didn't realize that requests for evidence were personal opinions but thanks for proving you're illiterate. Have you even bothered investigating if the benefits from circumcision can be achieved through other methods or do you just have a visceral reaction to the word "mutilation" and stick your head in the sand whenever you see it?

[Borgholio]

The only new evidence I'm aware of since 1999 is the evidence that circumcusion can reduce the transmission of HIV and a few other veneral diseases. But by the time your infant will be exposed to those, he'll be old enough to provide assent to circumcision.

Heh, good point. Well since I'm several years off from having children, I'll just have to wait and see when the time comes.

[Jub]

If the study mentioned in this article is to believed, over a hundred infants die in America each year due to circumcision. Does that count as subjective and non-measurable?

No actually that's exactly what I'm talking about. If / when the time comes, I'll certainly weigh those risks against the benefits. Please remember I'm not die-hard pro-snippage. I'll decline to get it done if it's not safe.

So you came into this thread spouting off and you haven't even done your homework... Bravo! When most people get themselves into this spot they try to provide evidence to support their opinion. You've decided to say, 'Evidence, I need none of that' and blaze on anyway.

[Borgholio]

I didn't realize that requests for evidence were personal opinions but thanks for proving you're illiterate. Have you even bothered investigating if the benefits from circumcision can be achieved through other methods or do you just have a visceral reaction to the word "mutilation" and stick your head in the sand whenever you see it?

I wouldn't say that calling me a lazy fuck is evidence of anything aside from your inability to argue anything above a grade-school level. Sounds like you have a problem being too sensitive. Maybe you need a circumcision.

[Borgholio]

So you came into this thread spouting off and you haven't even done your homework... Bravo! When most people get themselves into this spot they try to provide evidence to support their opinion. You've decided to say, 'Evidence, I need none of that' and blaze on anyway.

Spot? What spot? I came in here pro-snipping with plenty of evidence that it's a good thing. Most of you are against it for merely subjective reasons. Some of you have evidence that it's a bad idea and I already said I accept that. I also said that since it's a toss-up that I'll wait and see what new studies are done over the next few years. "So I'm basically saying, I'm pro-snipping for now but open to discussion."

So is it mutilation? I accept that many of you think so. Is it a violation of the child's rights? I accept that you think so. Can it be dangerous? Yes it certainly can be and that's why I'm not just "Gung ho, snip the little guy and let's go home." But from my personal experience, there has never been anything wrong with it. So why should I ignore what I know (for myself) to be true?

[Jub]

So you came into this thread spouting off and you haven't even done your homework... Bravo! When most people get themselves into this spot they try to provide evidence to support their opinion. You've decided to say, 'Evidence, I need none of that' and blaze on anyway.

Spot? What spot? I came in here pro-snipping with plenty of evidence that it's a good thing. Most of you are against it for merely subjective reasons. Some of you have evidence that it's a bad idea and I already said I accept that. I also said that since it's a toss-up that I'll wait and see what new studies are done over the next few years. "So I'm basically saying, I'm pro-snipping for now but open to discussion."

So is it mutilation? I accept that many of you think so. Is it a violation of the child's rights? I accept that you think so. Can it be dangerous? Yes it certainly can be and that's why I'm not just "Gung ho, snip the little guy and let's go home." But from my personal experience, there has never been anything wrong with it. So why should I ignore what I know (for myself) to be true?

Post your evidence and enlighten us with your wisdom!

However it being mutilation is a fact, not an opinion. Mutilation: to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts. Sounds like cutting up a kids dick to me.

[General Zod]

I didn't realize that requests for evidence were personal opinions but thanks for proving you're illiterate. Have you even bothered investigating if the benefits from circumcision can be achieved through other methods or do you just have a visceral reaction to the word "mutilation" and stick your head in the sand whenever you see it?

I wouldn't say that calling me a lazy fuck is evidence of anything aside from your inability to argue anything above a grade-school level. Sounds like you have a problem being too sensitive. Maybe you need a circumcision.

I asked you if snipping is the only way to achieve the benefits the APA is talking about, but so far all you've done is whine about it.

Because really, if you can achieve them through other methods then snipping becomes pointless.

[kc8tbe]

But from my personal experience, there has never been anything wrong with it. So why should I ignore what I know (for myself) to be true?

In my personal experience, the complications of circumcision are not worth it. But maybe I was just unlucky, and the data will eventually show that the medical benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks. On the other hand, maybe you were unlucky and a systematic study of the long-term effects of circumcision will show that it is harmful. For example, maybe decreasing penile sensitivity with age causes more circumsised adults to forego condom use, paradoxically increasing the risk of venereal disease.

I essentially agree with the AAP's 1999 guidelines that there is little evidence to demonstrate substantive medical harm from circumcision, but also no substantive medical benefit in its favor. Under this scenario, I would personally let my son decide whether or not to undergo a purely elective surgical procedure. I am upset that the AAP has now declared the medical benefits of circumcision to outweigh the risks without having adequate data on the risks.

[Borgholio]

Post your evidence and enlighten us with your wisdom!

The evidence was posted by the OP and arguments from both camps are found on Wikipedia or a general Google search, including whether or not your "fact" about mutilation is really any fact at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision

https://www.google.com/search?q=circumcision

But at this point, I'm done trying to argue. You know where I stand on the matter.

[Borgholio]

Because really, if you can achieve them through other methods then snipping becomes pointless.

I agree, and as I've said, when the time comes, if there's no need to snip my son, I won't.

[Korto]

Well what's the rate of getting UTIs over the next 20 years with snipped males vs un-snipped? I think waiting 20 years to let him decide is a bad move if (and I mean if, since there are no numbers either way), he could get a greater number of infections over those 20 years.

So your argument here is "We don't know one way or another whether it actually does any real good, therefore I'll do something irreversible"? Can you see how poor an argument that is?

Interestingly, circumcision HAS been legally ruled mutilation, in Germany at least. German Court rules religious circumcision a crime

I was circumcised. I'm not angry at my parents for the decision. It was standard practise, and there's no point worrying about it now, but I do sometimes wonder about if it wasn't done, whether I would have more sensation during sex. The important thing to remember about circumcision is it's an irreversible decision, and one that doesn't have to be made, and can have bad consequences for making it therefore, if you make it, you should have a damn good reason.

Spot? What spot? I came in here pro-snipping with plenty of evidence that it's a good thing. Most of you are against it for merely subjective reasons.

Merely subjective? Subjective doesn't mean "Less important", it means "Bloody hard to measure".

[Jub]

Post your evidence and enlighten us with your wisdom!

The evidence was posted by the OP and arguments from both camps are found on Wikipedia or a general Google search, including whether or not your "fact" about mutilation is really any fact at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision

https://www.google.com/search?q=circumcision

But at this point, I'm done trying to argue. You know where I stand on the matter.

So what do you agree or disagree with in those articles? I'm not doing your work for you.

[Zadius]

@Borgholio

What if a study was done that found that girls who had their labia minora trimmed had a lower rate of genital infections and were less likely to contract HIV, would you advocate for routine labial modification of young girls?

[kc8tbe]

What if a study was done that found that girls who had their labia minora trimmed had a lower rate of genital infections and were less likely to contract HIV, would you advocate for routine labial modification of young girls?

The difference here is it's well accepted that female genital multilation (which is what you are describing) has very serious medical complications and a negative impact on female sexual function. There are quantifiable medical reasons not to do the procedure that outweigh the risks associated with any venereal disease we know of. But to play devil's advocate, if tomorrow we have an epidemic of female super-ebola and the only way to stop it is to modify the labia minora then yes, I would advocate for that.

The AAP is claiming that we now know of enough medical benefits associated with male circumcision to outweigh the medical risks that we know of. I think the evidence is shaky because (1) the benefits were not measured in a society with Western hygeine and sexual practices, and (2) the long-term complications of male circumcision have yet to be systematically assessed. Note that the AAP stops short of describing male circumcision as medically necessary, probably because hygeine and condom use are effective against the things circumcision is supposed to prevent.

[Zadius]

What if a study was done that found that girls who had their labia minora trimmed had a lower rate of genital infections and were less likely to contract HIV, would you advocate for routine labial modification of young girls?

The difference here is it's well accepted that female genital multilation (which is what you are describing) has very serious medical complications and a negative impact on female sexual function. There are quantifiable medical reasons not to do the procedure that outweigh the risks associated with any venereal disease we know of. But to play devil's advocate, if tomorrow we have an epidemic of female super-ebola and the only way to stop it is to modify the labia minora then yes, I would advocate for that.

The specific form of FGM I described would be pretty comparable to male circumcision in terms of surgical complications and it's effects on sexual function. In fact, there are female adult movie performers who are having this very surgery done for cosmetic reasons (they believe larger labias are less attractive). As for your devil's advocate point, circumcision is not the only way to stop UTIs and HIV transmission; in fact, it is a piss-poor way to do it compared to other methods which you allude to below.

The AAP is claiming that we now know of enough medical benefits associated with male circumcision to outweigh the medical risks that we know of. I think the evidence is shaky because (1) the benefits were not measured in a society with Western hygeine and sexual practices, and (2) the long-term complications of male circumcision have yet to be systematically assessed. Note that the AAP stops short of describing male circumcision as medically necessary, probably because hygeine and condom use are effective against the things circumcision is supposed to prevent.

Agreed. All of that combined with the fact that circumcision results in clear decrease in sexual function (the foreskin indisputably reduces friction during sexual activity) should be enough to at least pass the decision on to the actual owner of the organ and wait until he's old enough to assess the costs and benefits.

[kc8tbe]

In fact, there are female adult movie performers who are having this very surgery done for cosmetic reasons (they believe larger labias are less attractive).

Well, you learn something every day.

[Simon_Jester]

Well what's the rate of getting UTIs over the next 20 years with snipped males vs un-snipped? I think waiting 20 years to let him decide is a bad move if (and I mean if, since there are no numbers either way), he could get a greater number of infections over those 20 years.

If the average number of infections is, say, 0.1... I don't think reducing the statistical number of UTIs by 0.1 justifies nonconsensual surgery "for your own good." UTIs are generally pretty darn survivable after all. We're not talking "10% chance of dying of cancer if you don't get rid of this" or anything.

(if not 0.1, substitute some number, you know what I mean)

That tends to be how I see it. Most of the negatives in this thread are subjective (not-measurable)...feeling violated, feeling mutilated, lack of sexual sensitivity, etc... All the positives are measurable scientifically and statistically. I'm not so "pro-snippage" that I'm going to back the position regardless of evidence. If by the time I have a son, there's evidence that says snipping will cut 5 years off your life...well hell, my boy ain't getting snipped. But based on my personal history and on current evidence, I see no reason to be against it outright.

My own feeling is that unless it's blindingly obvious one way or the other, I'd rather default to "non-snip" since circumcisions are way easier than foreskin reconstructions. The medical community has been waffling back and forth on circumcision for a century or more, and a lot of the relevant parameters depend more on lifestyle and context than anything else: "10% less chance of getting AIDS" means a lot more in South Africa than in the US, as far as health benefits are concerned.

Sure, so rather than including snipping as part as a general practice of hygiene, you ignore it and rely only on the other methods because of a personal opinion that it is body mutiliation (as opposed to legal or scientific definitions). Well, whatever makes you happy. I suppose those parents who believe that vaccinations do more harm than good have a point worth considering as well. I mean giving your child live viruses on purpose? Jabbing them with a sharp needle and making them cry because it's too much work to care for them when they develop a fever and bronchial infection? Barbaric.

Borg, please stop and think about this for a minute.

If the harm is a needle jab, and the benefit is "no bronchitis?" Bronchitis fucking sucks. And most people get it sooner or later. So yay for flu shots.

Circumcision is a lot more serious than getting stuck with a needle- even if you personally do not value that body part, it is a body part. There is a much more significant risk of surgical complications, ranging from "need future surgery to correct" to "penis falls off." You don't want your boy to be the 0.001% of kids who dies of a UTI before getting a chance to decide about circumcision, sure- but I assume you also don't want him to be the 0.001% of kids whose penis never quite works right after the circumcision goes wrong.

(Numbers made up- just there as food for thought, not serious statistics)

And the degree of benefit is really uncertain. When we control for lifestyle, when we think about First World environments, and so on... it is not simple. And the question deserves better than an overly simplistic analogy.

[loomer]

So, in order to avoid STDs and UTIs, snippy snippy.

Or you could just teach your fucking kids to use condoms (say, does the difference in transmission of STDs between circumcised and uncircumcised men remain when you involve condoms? I bet not.) and how to wash their goddamn junk (or, since the risk is highest in infancy, act like a responsible parent and change their diapers properly). But I guess that'd require more effort.