Circumcision Study

couldn't resist the chance to 1) support my view and 2) make the guys cringe again :cheese:

A couple of guys got "the procedure" on my ship when I was in the Navy. They were issued those little packets of smelling salts in case amorous thoughts started to arouse their imagination. (pun intended, ladies) But, of course, that early morning phenomenon, known to males around the globe, usually turned into a screaming scramble to find one of those little packets of salts.

comparing a circumcision to a mastectomy is like comparing cutting a fingernail too short to removing the arm.

I have no problems with circumcision as elective surgery, just like I don't care is someone wants their nose shortening, breasts enlarged, teeth sharpened, etc.

But a reduced risk of STD transmission, if real, is no justification for performing the operation on children, who should not be at risk of catching an STD that way to begin with.

In any case the proposed protection is much less than that afforded by using a condom.

dumbfounded, you are the bomb! 😜

Actually mario, well put. I did wonder about pointing out that Mama wasn't really discrediting my views, but since I'd already posted essentially what my views were it hardly seemed worth while.

A meta-analysis is just a way of combining the results of several related studies into one data set. If done properly (and they frequently aren't) you can create a "synthetic study" that has a large and varied enough sample to robustly test a hypothesis that would not be possible in any of the separate studies. Kind of like if a dozen clinics across the country conducted similar surveys of some condition, none of them separately would be able to determine if there was a geographical component to the condition, but a meta-analysis of all of them might.

I certainly won't deny Mama's observation that the second example I gave also casts doubt on circumcision in prevention of HIV, but that's ducking the point. The first article I came across concerning HIV and circumcision was from a senior and respected member of the medical community saying there was "grade 1" evidence for the operation, which is clearly not consistent with the statement that the idea is "thoroughly discredited", and the first (actually only) paper I could find that discussed circumcision and condom use recorded an increase in condom use among circumcised men, not the decrease predicted. In fact that result could easily be enough to explain any "protective" effect of circumcision against HIV.

As Mama didn't mention it, I'll also highlight this point from the Hargreave piece I cited earlier.

"The most effective immediate public health MC programmes in Africa will need to target 18–20 years old men. In the longer term there is a need for infant circumcision programmes. In order to implement more widespread MC there is a need to make the surgical procedures as simple as possible so that safe operations can be performed by paramedical staff. The WHO manual of Male Circumcision under local anaesthetic was written with these objectives in mind. Included in the manual are three adult techniques and four paediatric procedures. The adult procedures are the dorsal slit, the forceps guided and the sleeve resection methods. Paediatric methods included are the plastibell technique, the Mogen and Gomco shield method and a standard surgical dorsal slit procedure. Each method is described in a step by step manner with photographic and line drawing illustrations. In addition to the WHO manual of surgical technique a teaching course has been developed and using this course it has been possible in one week to train a circumcision surgeon who has had no or minimal previous surgical experience."
http://www.nature.com/aja/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/aja201059a.html

What Hargreave is discussing is an initial programme of elective circumcision on adults to possibly be followed by a non-elective programme on infants, both to be potentially carried out by doctors with minimal surgical experience.

:gulp:

So, yes, I can easily understand why doctorsagainstcircumcision.org (DAC) are concerned, but their statement (linked to by Mama) is dated 2008 and principally relies on a 2003 review by the Cochrane Centre. Much work has been done since then, which in itself disputes the DAC's claim that the HIV/circumcision link has been "disproved", and is ample testimony to continued interest in the hypothesis from the medical community.

This clearly is not a case of the media "bigging up" some crackpot idea well past its time, or of public policy being shaped by uninformed lobbying or punditry(?). Much of the medical community is actively supporting and pursuing circumcision as a counter to the spread of STDs including HIV, often to an extent I am not comfortable with, and as much as I agree with DAC in principle, I find their statement disingenuous at best.

we do alot of silly stuff here, which i love. but now and then we also have a genuine and intellegent discourse like this, these are real gems to me as i learn so much from them. thank you all.

your son is 5? and your prents are still hounding you over this decision? that sounds, to me, more like an obsession with being right and enforcing their will on you than love and caring for a grandchild. i had my son circumcised for reasons i have shared here in the past, but it is not critical to the child either way, and is a personal decision. I could understand your parents attitude if they were (or are as i don't know for sure) devoute Jews, but the health reasons are not so strong as to justify the level of harassment you endure. in your position i fear i would play hard ball and any time the subject was brought up i would abruptly end the phone call or visit immediately. after a few times they would realize that if the want to see you or their grandson ever then the subject is off limits. your level of angst is understandable mama, my (unsolicited) advice is to take a stand and stick with it until your rights as a parent at respected. and if that doesn't happen be prepared to shut the door for your own sanity. just a thought.

you are a far better woman than i am mama. i wouldn't tollerate the subject being broached anymorer period. an dletting them know now that they can try to talk the kid into it later will just start a campaign of brainwashing and undermining of your athority if they believe that strongly in the necessity of the proceedure any means to their end will be justified in their minds. i hope not, but i wouldn't chance it.

sorry you went through such a painful experience scot. why did you decide to get it done at that point? if you don't mind me asking? if you do mind then I retract the question.

There are different forms of female circumcision. A form of female circumcision called excision involves the removal of all or part of the clitoris, and in some cases other external genitalia. In the most extreme form of circumcision, called infibulation, the clitoris and both labia are removed and the two sides of the vulva are sewn together- except for a small opening for urine and menstrual blood to go through (Heise 1993). Another, less severe form of circumcision involves small incisions in the skin covering the clitoris. Eighty- five percent of worldwide female circumcision involves this less severe form or excision, and fifteen percent includes infibulation. Infibulation and excision cause both immediate and long term health risks. The immediate consequential health risks of infibulation or excision are shock, hemorrhaging, infection, pain, urinary retention, and damage to the urethra (Heise 1993).

In a study performed in Cairo, Egypt, 79.3 percent of genital surgeries happened at home. Only 0.3 percent of the operations were done in hospitals. Most operations are done without anesthesia or sterile instruments which often causes Septicemia, tetanus, or urinary tract infections. Unhygienic salves used to heal the wound also cause infection. Reproductive health risks include a loss of sexual sensation, chronic urinary tract infections, and painful intercourse (Heise 1993). The resulting scar tissue of infibulation also obstructs birth, and the consequential tears and hemorrhaging are "likely contributors to the very high rates of maternal mortality in Sudan and Somalia" (Lane and Rubinstein 1996). Pelvic inflammatory disease caused by chronic infection and/ or scar tissue blocking the fallopian tubes causes sterility, which has extremely high rates in areas that practice infibulation.

http://www.siue.edu/~jfarley/nicho490.htm

the link is where the paragraphs above are from.