Had routine circumcision been in place-48% reduction in STD's

Where are you getting your facts??

 

this is found on the first page of this thread!!

 

Jonny2mad - In Britain, many men (particularly upper class men) were circumcised until National Heath decided no longer to pay for it in the 1950s. So there are a lot of younger guys (under 50) in England who are uncut, while their fathers are cut. I suspect that it is still done in the upper classes in England today. Check out the Eton gym classes.

I don't have any figures that the STD rate is remarkably higher in the US (where perhaps 80% of adult guys are cut), versus England.

My nephew's boys (now under 3) here in California were not circumcised (their father was), but that was because they both were home birthed by midwives. Their parents decided to wait to see if either of them had foreskin problems before deciding to circumcise. I can accept that approach. 15-20% of uncut men cannot retract their foreskins - some live with it; for others it is painful and creates infection problems underneath and they get circumcised. From my perspective, as a cut guy, sex is much better circumcised than it ever would be if the foreskin could not retract.

 

That is a bogus study... The auther has no credit in the psychological community. There is not whay that this study can be generalized to the entir world.... It has a ver limited location it doesn't mean anything.

 

Your kidding right. LOL>
just becuase they arn't your next door neightbours does not mean that STD is another country doesnt' mean anything. These men are breathing living, compliant, healthy men who have a penis, How are these studies bogus, just becuase they are black living in another country! THATS BULL! It doesnt matter if they are living in a ?? the fact IS THAT ALL HUMANS ARE PRETTY MUCH BUILT THE SAME and these studies relate to all MEN!

FACT IS that when a person is in contact with a male who has a forskin the virus can get trapped beneathe the foreskin making it easier to carry to their partner. Whereas the circ penis doesn't trap the virus underneathe. Making it harder to spread the virus!!!

This also takes into account preventative measures but like i had said b4 not all preventative measures are 100%

Studies are still being done so that the pediatrics board will have enough concrete evidence to put this as a preventative measure with all the others!!!!

 

Yeah, but this still doesn't address the fact that you are more likely to contract an STD because of behaviour, not whether or not your are cut.

If a person is of age to be sexually active then that is the time for them to decide if they want to be cut.

or to just wear a rubber...

An uncut penis being more likely to contract and spread an STD doen't mean that the penis is defective, it just means maybe someone with an uncut penis should pay more attention to what they are doing with it.

If my T.V set acts funny whenever i throw soda on it, should i start erecting a barrier in front of the T.V. to keep it safe from flying soda or remove the part of the T.V. that keeps getting hit with soda?

or maybe i just stop throwing soda at it...

If you want to slow the spread of STDs then educate people about safe sex, don't blame uncut penises for doing what they've been doing for millions of years.

It's not your body's fault if you catch herpes, it's your fault and/or your partner's...

 

Exactly.... these studies do not take sexual behavior, prefence and other factors into account. I do research and you can make statisticts say what ever you want them too if you are creative eneough with your writing. You have to look deeper than face value when reading research documents. You also have to look at how, when, where and with whom the research was conducted all these have to be taken into account when looking and studies like this one.

 

Exactly.

You might as well start a thread saying:

Had routine castration been in place-100% reduction in testicular cancer

or

Had routine vasectomy been in place-100% reduction in teenage pregnancies


Circumcision is a cosmetic surgery that might have some health benefits, but in the end it is cosmetic. For all practical purporses circumcising your child is more about appearance than health.

This arguement is absurd.

Shit, if you remove my colon i'll probably have a less chance of catching colon cancer....

 

when it comes to safeguarding children to prevent them from possibly dieing from AIDS or an incurable STD. Yes i do think its better we safeguard our children.

Again
This also takes into account all the other preventative measure (condoms, abstinence)! Sometimes the condom breaks =people get pregnant If that is true than they can get an std or even in fact AIDS.. THATS WHY ITS A PREVENTATIVE MEASURE, AS IS CONDOMS..like i said b4. nothing is 100%

 

But why would you mutilate the body of a child based on research that is not valid?

 

yawn......................
maybe if you would've read this post from the beginning you would know the pro and the cons!

this research is only not valid to anti-circ people! who refuse to comprehent MEDICAL PROOF!

 

And in SubSaharan Africa, there are studies that womyn who have their labia removed are less likely to "Carry" STDs to men. So, by that logic, female genital mutilation is also OK. Right? I mean, there are studies done by the areas where FGM is common which PROVE a reduction in STDs.

Who wants their lab cut to shreds? Eyez? You want to volunteer youserlf or your daughters first? Or would that be disgusting? It is NO LESS disgusting to cut a little, innocent boy's foreskin.

And, dudes who are already cut. THIS IS NOT A DISS ON YOU. You, for all intents and purposes, had no say in the matter. Don't defend something we know is wrong, because you have to protect your own altered penis. IT WASN'T YOUR FAULT and no one blames the man who was cut, against his will, as a child. Any more than we blame womyn who were mutilated as children.

I see a LOT of "my penis is great" among the guys who are cut. I need to make it very clear, that no one is blaming the VICTIM here. And if someone strapped you down to a "circ board" rammed a sugar coated pacifier in your mouth, ignored your screams, and attacked you with a knife or, God help us, a "Plastibel" and mutilated you, it was NOT your fault, nor your decicion.

OK.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16184582/

 

Do you live in UGANDA?

 

I have read the post from the begining and there are alot of opinions but no evidence. I am not going to mutilate my child based on someone opinion. I think that is close minded.

 

HERE: This is applicable to those of us who DON’T live in UGANDA. And mostlikely those who do, too. 1: Pediatrics. 2004 May;113(5):e435-9.

Related Articles, Links​

Breastfeeding and the risk of postneonatal death in the United States.

Chen A, Rogan WJ.

Epidemiology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709, USA.

OBJECTIVE: Breastfed infants in the United States have lower rates of morbidity, especially from infectious disease, but there are few contemporary studies in the developed world of the effect of breastfeeding on postneonatal mortality. We evaluated the effect of breastfeeding on postneonatal mortality in United States using 1988 National Maternal and Infant Health Survey (NMIHS) data. METHODS: Nationally representative samples of 1204 infants who died between 28 days and 1 year from causes other than congenital anomaly or malignant tumor (cases of postneonatal death) and 7740 children who were still alive at 1 year (controls) were included. We calculated overall and cause-specific odds ratios for ever/never breastfeeding among all children, conducted race and birth weight-specific analyses, and looked for duration-response effects. RESULTS: Overall, children who were ever breastfed had 0.79 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.67-0.93) times the risk of never breastfed children for dying in the postneonatal period. Longer breastfeeding was associated with lower risk. Odds ratios by cause of death varied from 0.59 (95% CI: 0.38-0.94) for injuries to 0.84 (95% CI: 0.67-1.05) for sudden infant death syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: Breastfeeding is associated with a reduction in risk for postneonatal death. This large data set allowed robust estimates and control of confounding, but the effects of breast milk and breastfeeding cannot be separated completely from other characteristics of the mother and child. Assuming causality, however, promoting breastfeeding has the potential to save or delay approximately 720 postneonatal deaths in the United States each year.

PMID: 15121986 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]



and related to this



How cir leads to BREASTFEEDING complication. Angel weren’t you “unable” to breastfeed? http://www.mothering.com/sections/news_bulletins/december2005.html#circ

Perhaps leaving your son the say Nature intended him to be would have allowed you to FEED HIM the way Nature intended. But, INTERVENTION and artificiality seems to be something some have NO problem incorporating in their lives, even if it means the morbitity and mortality of their OWN children.



"The pain of circumcision is too severe to be controlled

by a mild analgesic", they concluded, even though most

circumcisions in the United States are done without

pain killers. Babies do experience great and persistent

pain during and after the surgery, based on crying,

increased heart and breathing rates and other measurements,

which also seems to interfere with breastfeeding in some

babies.

Pediatrics, April 4, 1994-Hemorrhage-

Excessive bleeding is one of the two most frequent complications, after pain. While usually managed within a hospital setting, it can require transfusions, with the attendant blood supply risks for HIV and other disease organisms. However, sometimes babies die as a result, such as the baby mentioned in the Des Moines (Iowa) Register which reported on November 20, 1982 the bleeding death of an infant following circumcision. Another similar incident was reported in the June 26, 1993 issue of the Miami Herald.

Long-Term Adverse Outcomes

• Poor surgical result is not recognized until years later. Adverse consequences of infant circumcision on men’s health must be recognized by physicians, parents & legislators.(21)
• Circumcision is a subtraction, removing one-third or more of entire penile skin - tragic loss of erogenous tissue.(22)
• When sexually functioning tissue is removed, sexual functioning is altered. Penile changes are documented.(23)
• Of 313 circumcised male respondents, 49.5% cited a sense of parental violation, 62% expressed feelings of mutilation, and 84% reported some degree of sexual harm [progressive loss of glans sensitivity, excess stimulation needed to reach orgasm, painful coitus and impotence].(24)
• Body image survey found 20% of circumcised respondents cited dissatisfaction with their circumcision.(25)

Effects of Pain

• Newborn infant responses to pain are similar to but greater than those in adult subjects. The persistence of specific behavioral changes after circumcision in neonates implies the presence of memory.(26)
• Infant circumcision causes severe, persistent pain. Acetaminophen does not ameliorate pain of circumcision.(27)
• Main structures for memory are functional in neonates and circumcision pain may have long-lasting effects.(28)

Maternal Bonding / Breastfeeding

• Circumcision affects mother-infant interaction.(29)
• When an infant is subjected to intolerable, overwhelming pain, it conceptualizes mother as participatory and responsible regardless of mother’s intent. Consequences for impaired bonding are significant.(30)
• These are the first data suggesting a protective effect of breastfeeding against UTI.(31)
• Breasts and breastmilk also produce large quantities of a hormone (GnRH) that may aid in development of a newborn’s brain.(32)
• Infants feed less frequently after circumcision; observed deterioration may contribute to breast- feeding failure.(33)
• A stressful, painful event such as circumcision appears to affect the feeding patterns.(34)

HEY, do you CARE? (MS)


Questionable Benefits

• Good hygiene can offer many advantages over circumcision.(35)
• Circumcision has no significant effect on the incidence of common sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).(36)
• Circumcision is not harmless and cannot be recommended without unequivocal proof of benefit.(37)
• Not one confirmed UTI case in a normal male infant. All cases in infants with clear urinary birth defects.(38)
• Antimicrobial management of UTI in infants is routine and outcome generally good. It is inappropriate at this time to recommend circumcision as a routine medically indicated procedure.(39)
• Reported benefits in preventing cancer and infant UTIs are insignificant compared to surgical risks.(40)
• Performing 100,000 mutilative procedures on newborns to possibly prevent cancer in one elderly man is absurd.(41)

Medical Ethics

• It must be recognized that the child is normal as born and that circumcision inflicts loss of a normal body part and leaves a scar. This is contrary to the motto of medicine, “First Do No Harm.”(42)
• The unnecessary removal of a functioning body organ in the name of tradition, custom or any other non-disease related cause should never be acceptable to the health profession...and breaches fundamental medical ethics.(43)
• Children too young to give consent must be treated as individuals. The child must live with the outcome of decision.(44)

-Infection-

"Infection occurs after circumcision in up to 10% of

patients."

Williams and Kapila, Complications of Circumcision

Brit J Surg v80, Oct 1993, p1231-1236.Infection is the other of the two most frequent medical complications, after pain. Again death is not common, but it can be the result, as can a range of other problems. For example, in 1986 the circumcision of a baby born in Alaska resulted in severe infection and toxic shock. The baby sustained profound brain damage and kidney damage. He was blinded, and will likely never walk or talk. The legal matters have been delayed because the hospital "lost" his records.



"It is an incontestable fact at this point that there are more

deaths each year from complications of circumcision than from

cancer of the penis."

S Gellis, MD, Circumcision

Am J Dis Ch, v132 #12 December 1978. p1168. -Surgical Errors-

"The nature of circumcision dictates that errors of omission

and commission, i.e.: too little or too much, in assessing how

much foreskin to remove are likely to happen, and one of the

commonest complaints is of an unsatisfactory cosmetic result."

Williams and Kapila, Complications of Circumcision

Brit J Surg v80, Oct 1993, p1231-1236.Complete removal of the penis may be the only way to control infection and bleeding, in some cases. -Psychological Problems-

"Any surgical interference with the child's body may serve as

a focal point for the activation, reactivation, grouping and

rationalization of ideas of being attacked, overwhelmed, or

castrated."

Anna Freud, The Role of Bodily Illnesses in the Mental

Life of Children, Int'l University Press, 1952. p75. "Institutionalized child abuse like circumcision, which in

this country legitimizes the sexual abuse of about 60% of male

infants, is in my opinion, one of the primary causes of

unconscious male rage and violence."

Aaron Kipnis, Ph.D., Male Privilege or Privation?

ReSource, Summer 1992, p1.



"The most important influence on violence is experience. The

way in which people are treated in infancy and childhood has a

great deal to do with how they treat others."

Dorothy Otnow Lewis, MD, A Touch for Evil

Boston Globe Magazine, July 7, 1991. p12.



"Circumcision is perceived by the child as an aggressive

attack on his body, which damaged, mutilated and in some cases

totally destroyed him. The feeling of 'I am now castrated'

seems to prevail in the psychic world of the child. As a

result he feels inadequate helpless and functions less

efficiently."

Cansever G, Psychological Effects of Circumcision

Br J Med Psychology 1965, #38 p321-331.



"...immediately after the anaesthesia wore off, he said over

and over: 'They cut my penis. I wish I were dead'. The rest of

the day the patient never left the mother's side. Thereafter

his previous temper tantrums developed into destructive rages.

During the treatment he played numerous killing games, in

which his father was the principle victim. The operation

represented a castration by his father."

Levy D M, Psychic Trauma of Operations in Children

Am J Dis Ch January 1945, 69 (1) p7-25.



"(Sexual) abuse seems to be a biology altering experience. It

changes the brain's stress response system." Putnam said, and

Teicher added that brain wave differences between abused and

non-abused are as significant as "between normal people and

those who have Alzheimer's disease or schizophrenia."

USA Today, May 24, 1994.There is a wide range of reactions males can have as a result of their circumcisions. Many men choose to ignore it. Many men cannot. The Levy study quoted above conclusively linked circumcision to suicidal thoughts and feelings. We'll never know the rate of suicides successfully completed in response to circumcision.

The incidence of psychological harm has never been scientifically researched, despite the clear indications of possible harm, and the ongoing creation of new victims each and every day.



I’ve got PLENTY more.

 

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/144/12/1155

This is an abstract from a real study not a news story from MSN.

 

As a cut male, I have no sense of parental violation, no feeling of mutilation, no feeling that I have lost something, except a little of something that could cause me and those I make love to harm. And as I have said before, I have a "loose" circumcision which gives me the best of both worlds.

 

http://www.aboutcirc.com/feelings.htm

 

I'm surprised Cutted hasn't jumped on this story yet, I didn't even look for this, I went to the BBC to read the news and this is the main story above anything else:

Circumcision 'cuts' HIV infection

Circumcision can cut the rate of HIV infection in heterosexual men by 50%, results from two African trials show. The findings are so striking, the US National Institutes of Health decided it would be unethical to continue and stopped the trials early.

It supports a previous South African study which reported similar results.

Experts said it was a significant breakthrough but could not replace standard methods of preventing infection such as condoms.


The two trials of around 8,000 men took place in Uganda and Kenya were due to finish in July and September 2007 respectively.

But after an interim review of the data by the NIH Data and Safety Monitoring Board decided to halt the trials as it was unethical not to offer circumcision in the men who were acting as controls.

Bleeding less likely

The trial in Kenya found a 53% reduction in new HIV infections in heterosexual men who were circumcised while the Ugandan study reported a drop of 48% Results last year from a study in 3,280 heterosexual men in South Africa, which was also stopped early, showed a 60% drop in the incidence of new infections in men who had been circumcised.

There are several reasons why circumcision may protect against HIV infection.

Specific cells in the foreskin may be potential targets for HIV infection and also the skin under the foreskin becomes less sensitive and is less likely to bleed reducing risk of infection following circumcision.

When Aids first began to emerge in Africa, researchers noted that men who were circumcised seemed to be less at risk of infection but it was unclear whether this was due to differences in sexual behaviour.

A modelling study done by international Aids experts earlier this year showed that male circumcision could avert about six million HIV infections and three million deaths in sub-Saharan Africa.

A further trial in Uganda to assess the risk of HIV transmission to female partners is due to report in 2008 but the effect among men who have sex with men has not yet been studied.

Implementation

Dr Kevin De Cock, director of the HIV/Aids department of the World Health Organization told the BBC the results were a "significant scientific advance" but were not a magic bullet and would never replace existing prevention strategies.

"We will have to convene a meeting which we hope will happen quite soon to review the data in more detail and have discussions about the implications.

"This is an intervention that must be embedded with all the other interventions and precautions we have. Men must not consider themselves protected. It's a very important intervention to add to our prevention armamentarium."

Dr De Cock said that countries in Africa who wanted to use this approach would still have to decide what age groups to target and there would have to be training and hygienic practices in place.

"This is about as good epidemiological data as we can request. There will be many other research questions about implementation but this is very persuasive."

NIH director Dr Elias Zerhouni said: "Male circumcision performed safely in a medical environment complements other HIV prevention strategies and could lessen the burden of HIV/Aids, especially in countries in sub-Saharan Africa where, according to the 2006 estimates from UNAids, 2.8 million new infections occurred in a single year."

Dr Jeckoniah Ndinya-Achola, co-principal investigator at the University of Nairobi, Kenya said: "The Ministry of Health of the Kenyan government is already holding discussions about how this can be made available. It will need a certain amount of improvement to existing facilities."

But Tom Elkins, Senior Policy Officer at the National AIDS Trust warned: "There is a real danger in sending out a message that circumcision can protect against HIV. This is not the case and could lead to an increase in unprotected sex.

"There is still a long way to go in providing comprehensive prevention programmes in many countries, and resources should go into normalising the use of condoms, which are the most effective method currently available for preventing HIV."




http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6176209.stm