Any Tangible Medical Benefits for Circumcision?

[Gavinchi]

Hello everyone's,

 

I come here anticipating an argument I will inevitably have with my very religious in-laws once my fiancé and I decide to have a child. I can foresee us arguing about whether or not my future child ought to be circumsized. Are there any real health benefits for having this surgery done? Besides the small hygiene benefits? Or isn't it a purely religious practice that somehow caught on to be the norm? I see it as unnecessary and cruel.

[Velocity_Boy]

Hello everyone's,

 

I come here anticipating an argument I will inevitably have with my very religious in-laws once my fiancé and I decide to have a child. I can foresee us arguing about whether or not my future child ought to be circumsized. Are there any real health benefits for having this surgery done? Besides the small hygiene benefits? Or isn't it a purely religious practice that somehow caught on to be the norm? I see it as unnecessary and cruel.

 

 

Well, most MD's will indeed recommend it, as there appears to be some signficant advantages insofar as hygeine is concerned. Inefection and bacterial control, as well as less-risk of STD's.

 

http://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/guide/circumcision

[quickquestion]

The fact is, a baby's consent should not be violated in such a way. Especially not because of some ancient-backwoods barbaric religious doctrine.

 

Let's ask ourselves, if religion didn't exist....would Scientists go around butchering baby genitals against their consent, because of some (very minimal) theoretical minor health benefits?

 

Let's also ask ourselves something else...Do we forbid kids playing outside, in order to improve their theoretical hygiene. Do we ban sex, in order to reduce the risk of STDs.

Why not just make everyone slaves, and butcher their penises while they are still alive, because some religious book said so and it happens to have minuscule health benefits.

There is a significant correlation between going to jail, and having balls and testosterone. Why not forcibly remove and butcher everyone's balls, for the very significant health benefits of not going to jail.

Edited April 12, 2017 by quickquestion

[fiveworlds]

Well, most MD's will indeed recommend it, as there appears to be some signficant advantages insofar as hygeine is concerned. Inefection and bacterial control, as well as less-risk of STD's.​

 

 

Wrong, there is no medical benefit to circumcision anymore in biblical times there might have been but not anymore since you can just wash. Also condoms are just as good at reducing the risk of STD transmission. Circumcision gets rid of the foreskin which plays a vital role in peventing the desensitization of the penis, is a natural lubricant and contains millions of nerve ending which make sex more pleasurable. In fact the only reason circumcision caught on is because of sex phobia and the mentality of a generation that thought masturbation was wrong.

[Function]

Hello everyone's,

 

I come here anticipating an argument I will inevitably have with my very religious in-laws once my fiancé and I decide to have a child. I can foresee us arguing about whether or not my future child ought to be circumsized. Are there any real health benefits for having this surgery done? Besides the small hygiene benefits? Or isn't it a purely religious practice that somehow caught on to be the norm? I see it as unnecessary and cruel.

 

Phimosis and a short frenulum might be good medical indications (though in the last case, a frenuloplasty is more indicated)

 

This is, of course, not performed for those reasons on babies; circumcisions of newborns are imo violations of their rights

Edited April 12, 2017 by Function

[Raider5678]

Honestly, talk with your fiance.

I highly doubt your son will ever really care other then the 24 hours after the circumcision. If your fiance wishes it, I would do it. I doubt it will affect either of you much at all.

The risk of a UTI is 20x as high if he isn't circumcised, but the risk of a UTI is so minimal anyways that shouldn't be a concern. Unless it happens. Then your son is gonna hate you for all it's worth(Really. Really. Really, agonizing and excruciating pain, that makes it brutal to do even the simplest thing while it's infected. Least for me.)

Other then that, condoms are more effective and basic hygiene can probably help. In the event your son doesn't personally take care of it though, there may be problems.(Again. Unlikely.)

 

This is a decision between you and your wife. If she doesn't want it done, then don't. If she does, I don't see any reason why you shouldn't. There's always risk and benefit.

There's the risk something might happen if you get it done, and there's risk something might happen if you don't.

 

Her in-laws should have no say in this.

 

Now, if it's a female, don't even think about it.

Stupid, dumb, cruel, and a human right's violation. As well as illegal. Don't do it, it's bad. Very bad. It's barbaric. Now most religions denounce it, but in the event that they're from some weird cult, then don't listen.

[fiveworlds]

Phimosis and a short frenulum

 

 

Both occur in small children not grown adults. ​​I had phimosis it is about as painful as a headache the pain goes away if you leave it alone and it doesn't even last that long.

 

 

The risk of a UTI is 20x as high if he isn't circumcised, but the risk of a UTI is so minimal anyways that shouldn't be a concern.

 

 

Most of the time men will mistake a swolen blood vessel for a UTI which circumcision won't help at all.

Edited April 12, 2017 by fiveworlds

[Function]

Honestly, talk with your fiance.

I highly doubt your son will ever really care other then the 24 hours after the circumcision. If your fiance wishes it, I would do it. I doubt it will affect either of you much at all.

The risk of a UTI is 20x as high if he isn't circumcised, but the risk of a UTI is so minimal anyways that shouldn't be a concern. Unless it happens. Then your son is gonna hate you for all it's worth(Really. Really. Really, agonizing and excruciating pain, that makes it brutal to do even the simplest thing while it's infected. Least for me.)

Other then that, condoms are more effective and basic hygiene can probably help. In the event your son doesn't personally take care of it though, there may be problems.(Again. Unlikely.)

 

This is a decision between you and your wife. If she doesn't want it done, then don't. If she does, I don't see any reason why you shouldn't. There's always risk and benefit.

There's the risk something might happen if you get it done, and there's risk something might happen if you don't.

 

Her in-laws should have no say in this.

 

Now, if it's a female, don't even think about it.

Stupid, dumb, cruel, and a human right's violation. As well as illegal. Don't do it, it's bad. Very bad. It's barbaric. Now most religions denounce it, but in the event that they're from some weird cult, then don't listen.

 

UTI in men is always complicated and anatomical defects should be considered, whether circumcised or not. (Which is why men with UTIs should principally always consult a doctor)

 

A child will not blame his parent for not having him circumcised.

 

This is not a decision between him and his wife, in my opinion. If the child must be circumcised for medical reasons stated above (phimosis, short frenulum), then there is an exception; still it would be wise to wait until the child is old enough to give informed consent himself.

Both occur in small children not grown adults. ​​I had phimosis it is about as painful as a headache the pain goes away if you leave it alone and it doesn't even last that long.

 

Both may persist very well when transitioning into adulthood. You may have had balanitis or something else, but I think you should look up the definition of phimosis. Real phimosis lasts until treated somehow. Same with too short frenulum.

 

Some phimoses may be treated simply by stretching the foreskin daily, and it might become less tight (which is the problem in phimosis). If this doesn't work, surgery is indicated. Overstretching has a risk, though: rupture and bleeding. The bleeding itself will be intense, but will not be the worst. The worst would be the healing and scarring, making the tissue even less flexible. Same with a too short frenulum (once again, this might be resolved a bit with stretching, but usually requires surgery: frenuloplasty)

 

Lots of children and babies are born with what is referred to as phimosis, but really isn't; most of the time it's the foreskin stuck to the glans, but this normally resolves by itself.

Edited April 12, 2017 by Function

[zapatos]

The fact is, a baby's consent should not be violated in such a way. Especially not because of some ancient-backwoods barbaric religious doctrine.

A baby cannot give consent.

 

Let's ask ourselves, if religion didn't exist....would Scientists go around butchering baby genitals against their consent, because of some (very minimal) theoretical minor health benefits?

 

Let's also ask ourselves something else...Do we forbid kids playing outside, in order to improve their theoretical hygiene. Do we ban sex, in order to reduce the risk of STDs.

 

Why not just make everyone slaves, and butcher their penises while they are still alive, because some religious book said so and it happens to have minuscule health benefits.

 

There is a significant correlation between going to jail, and having balls and testosterone. Why not forcibly remove and butcher everyone's balls, for the very significant health benefits of not going to jail.

I'm glad you are here to have a serious conversation.

 

In fact the only reason circumcision caught on is because of sex phobia and the mentality of a generation that thought masturbation was wrong.

Citation please.

 

 

 

Wrong, there is no medical benefit to circumcision anymore in biblical times there might have been but not anymore since you can just wash.

Perhaps a Google search of medical benefits would be appropriate.

 

The American Academy of[/size] Pediatrics (AAP) says the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks. However, the AAP doesn't recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns. The AAP leaves the circumcision decision up to parents and supports use of anesthetics for infants who have the procedure.[/size]

Circumcision might have various health benefits, including:

• Easier hygiene. Circumcision makes it simpler to wash the penis. Washing beneath the foreskin of an uncircumcised penis is generally easy, however.
• Decreased risk of urinary tract infections. The overall risk of urinary tract infections in males is low, but these infections are more common in uncircumcised males. Severe infections early in life can lead to kidney problems later on.
• Decreased risk of sexually transmitted infections.Circumcised men might have a lower risk of certain sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. Still, safe sexual practices remain essential.
• Prevention of penile problems. Occasionally, the foreskin on an uncircumcised penis can be difficult or impossible to retract (phimosis). This can lead to inflammation of the foreskin or head of the penis.
• Decreased risk of penile cancer. Although cancer of the penis is rare, it's less common in circumcised men. In addition, cervical cancer is less common in the female sexual partners of circumcised men.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/circumcision/basics/why-its-done/prc-20013585

[John Cuthber]

There are some pros and cons to this.

For the most part, the "important" ones affect adults.

So there's plenty of time to allow "junior" to grow up and form his own opinion about it.

 

So, why pretend that you need to make the decision for him?

[Endy0816]

Its a ton cheaper and they won't remember it?

 

I'm not sure "blame" would be the word, but if I elected to have it done later I'm sure I'd be thinking an unkind thought or two.

[Velocity_Boy]

The fact is, a baby's consent should not be violated in such a way. Especially not because of some ancient-backwoods barbaric religious doctrine.

 

Let's ask ourselves, if religion didn't exist....would Scientists go around butchering baby genitals against their consent, because of some (very minimal) theoretical minor health benefits?

 

Let's also ask ourselves something else...Do we forbid kids playing outside, in order to improve their theoretical hygiene. Do we ban sex, in order to reduce the risk of STDs.

 

Why not just make everyone slaves, and butcher their penises while they are still alive, because some religious book said so and it happens to have minuscule health benefits.

 

There is a significant correlation between going to jail, and having balls and testosterone. Why not forcibly remove and butcher everyone's balls, for the very significant health benefits of not going to jail.

Wow...So many Strawman Arguments in one single rant I have not seen since back in my 4chan days!

 

 

And all of them ignoring the original question. Impressive!

 

You need to read the link I provided. And probably take your anti religion rants over to the, well, the religious forum.

 

Just a thought.

Wrong, there is no medical benefit to circumcision anymore in biblical times there might have been but not anymore since you can just wash. Also condoms are just as good at reducing the risk of STD transmission. Circumcision gets rid of the foreskin which plays a vital role in peventing the desensitization of the penis, is a natural lubricant and contains millions of nerve ending which make sex more pleasurable. In fact the only reason circumcision caught on is because of sex phobia and the mentality of a generation that thought masturbation was wrong.

Not wrong. Read my link.

 

Are you gonna refute WebMD?

 

And condoms is not the question. Just because there are other methods of protection against STD and other infections does not mean circumcision is not a valid method as well. Your desensitization rigamarole was just that. Unfounded and very subjective. And again, not answering the OP question.

 

Your final claim is also laughably wrong. Circumcision predates your sex phobia era by thousands of years. And anyway, there never was such an era. And what generation, exactly, thought masturbation was wrong? LOL again. And, sigh....Again, off topic.

 

That was one terrible post, amigo. I rarely downvotes but you earned one this time.

[CharonY]

Things are actually not that straightforward. For starters WebMD is not really a medical authority on anything, though they do base their articles on decent consensus. The issue really is that of a cost-benefit calculation, including ethical consideration. While there is evidence that it confers health benefits, they are more relevant under certain conditions (such as in conjunction with phimosis, as already mentioned) or in certain high-risk populations. That is, the actual beneficial effect can vary significantly. For example, the benefits of protection against HIV was mostly found in high HIV areas, the benefits are likely to be far lower in societies where primary route of infection are needles and where condoms are more routinely used. The situation can actually be worse if people believe that circumcision is an effective means of protection and forego condoms altogether.

 

It should also be mentioned that while speculations have been made how circumcision could be lower risks of STIs, it is not quite certain how it actually works. As such it is still possible that other coavariates may play a role. Either way, the observed benefits, as observed from epidemiological studies, are clearly population-dependent.

 

Accordingly there are conflicting recommendations. While the American Academy of Pediatricians now for the first time think that the benefits outweigh any risks, the Canadian counterpart (CPS) is more critical and would only endorse it in high-risk populations. However, neither recommend universal circumcision.

 

But as John rightly commented, for these benefits, adult male circumcision would also work, which would clear the ethical issue. One exception is probably urinary tract infections, but then lowering a low incidence may also not be worthwhile in most situations.

Edited April 13, 2017 by CharonY

[Gavinchi]

Thank you for the insight, everyone

[John Cuthber]

Its a ton cheaper and they won't remember it?

 

 

It would be just as cheap in adult men if you decided that you didn't need hospital conditions or an anaesthetic.

The "he won't remember it" could be applied to all sorts of child abuse.

Do you consider that fact to detract in some way from the moral repugnance of the abuse?

[Function]

The "he won't remember it" could be applied to all sorts of child abuse.

Do you consider that fact to detract in some way from the moral repugnance of the abuse?

 

Indeed. Above all, "he won't remember it" doesn't add up. Consider this: the psychological well-being of babies, toddlers, children is even compromised when they hear their parents fighting (even when not actively seeing it), or even when they don't hear, see, ... them fighting, but they sense something is wrong. It leaves its marks.

 

So now imagine the possible psychological impact of circumcision.

[Manticore]

From:https://www.avert.org/professionals/hiv-around-world/sub-saharan-africa/overview

 

"Following the discovery that male circumcision could reduce the risk of sexual transmission of HIV from females to males by 60%, in 2007, the World Health Organisation (WHO) and UNAIDS recommended voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC) as a key component of HIV prevention in countries with a generalised epidemic.

 

Studies from 2009-2011 indicated that circumcising 80% of men in 14 priority countries in Eastern and Southern Africa in 5 years could avert 3.4 million new infections over the next 15 years and save $16.5 billion in treatment costs.

 

As a result, the WHO and UNAIDS launched the Joint Strategic Action Framework for accelerating the scale-up of VMMC for HIV prevention in Southern and East Africa, calling for 80% coverage of adult male circumcision by 2016.

 

By 2013, 5.8 million of the estimated 20 million men needed to achieve 80% coverage had been reached by VMMC programmes, requiring a further scale up of existing efforts."

Edited April 13, 2017 by Manticore

[John Cuthber]

the World Health Organisation (WHO) and UNAIDS recommended voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC) ...

 

 

"voluntary" is the important word there.

Babies don't volunteer.

[Function]

"voluntary" is the important word there.

Babies don't volunteer.

 

Let's ask Katniss Everdeen if she'd still volunteer

Edited April 13, 2017 by Function

[Raider5678]

 

Indeed. Above all, "he won't remember it" doesn't add up. Consider this: the psychological well-being of babies, toddlers, children is even compromised when they hear their parents fighting (even when not actively seeing it), or even when they don't hear, see, ... them fighting, but they sense something is wrong. It leaves its marks.

 

So now imagine the possible psychological impact of circumcision.

I've experienced child abuse.

I think there's a difference to circumcision and child abuse.

At one point, the majority of boys were circumcised. I don't think that every single one of them had horrible emotional trauma. I doubt it affected them.

It's like bumping your head.

Sure, it hurts. Its painful. But do you really think that it's going to traumatize you?(granted you don't hit it that hard.)

 

Also. How many of you men, would have volunteered at lets say the age of 10, to have your dick put to the knife. Regardless of medical benefits.

Any volunteers?

Someone?

[Function]

I've experienced child abuse.

I think there's a difference to circumcision and child abuse.

At one point, the majority of boys were circumcised. I don't think that every single one of them had horrible emotional trauma. I doubt it affected them.

It's like bumping your head.

Sure, it hurts. Its painful. But do you really think that it's going to traumatize you?(granted you don't hit it that hard.)

 

Also. How many of you men, would have volunteered at lets say the age of 10, to have your dick put to the knife. Regardless of medical benefits.

Any volunteers?

Someone?

 

That's why I was referring to domestic abuse/violence between parents; I wasn't referring to active child abuse. It is undeniable that indeed, circumcision will leave no, or negligible, impact on babies and children when compared to abuse.

 

None would volunteer at the age of 10, but children of age 10 are generally not considered to be fully competent of shared decision making and giving informed consent, in which cases parents join in to make the decisions for their children. A consensus age of competence and consent is 12 years old. Now, of course, when you'd ask a lot of 12-year-olds if they'd want to be circumcised, none of them would want to; ergo, none of them would undergo one. On the other hand, when asking a lot of 12-year-old circumcised boys if they regret their parents' choices, probably not much would answer that they do. Alas, circumcision can be performed as per demand of parents.

 

However ... If you'd ask the former group if they'd blame their parents for having them circumcised if they would have, I'm not certain a lot of them would say they wouldn't, without being properly informed about the positive and negative consequences (and perhaps even with being informed).

 

I find it extremely important, no matter what, that, extra casu extremis (such as emergencies), the interests of the child prevail over those of the parents and the procedure should be postponed until the child has full capabilities of understanding the procedure and its consequences, both positive and negative.

 

Sidenote about the interests of childs prevailing: that's a common rule which allows doctors e.g. to perform transfusions in children who are witnesses of Jehovah when their parents refuse that they be transfused with blood during surgery if needed when the children are not considered as being fully accountable, or in emergency settings.

 

Of course, when a child is considered fully adequate in consent (commonly aged 12 and up), he could of course give consent of not undergoing a transfusion ... After being considered as fully accountable, that is.

Edited April 13, 2017 by Function

[Raider5678]

 

That's why I was referring to domestic abuse/violence between parents; I wasn't referring to active child abuse. It is undeniable that indeed, circumcision will leave no, or negligible, impact on babies and children when compared to abuse.

 

None would volunteer at the age of 10, but children of age 10 are generally not considered to be fully competent of shared decision making and giving informed consent, in which cases parents join in to make the decisions for their children. A consensus age of competence and consent is 12 years old. Now, of course, when you'd ask a lot of 12-year-olds if they'd want to be circumcised, none of them would want to; ergo, none of them would undergo one. On the other hand, when asking a lot of 12-year-old circumcised boys if they regret their parents' choices, probably not much would answer that they do. Alas, circumcision can be performed as per demand of parents.

 

However ... If you'd ask the former group if they'd blame their parents for having them circumcised if they would have, I'm not certain a lot of them would say they wouldn't, without being properly informed about the positive and negative consequences (and perhaps even with being informed).

 

I find it extremely important, no matter what, that, extra casu extremis (such as emergencies), the interests of the child prevail over those of the parents and the procedure should be postponed until the child has full capabilities of understanding the procedure and its consequences, both positive and negative.

 

Sidenote about the interests of childs prevailing: that's a common rule which allows doctors e.g. to perform transfusions in children who are witnesses of Jehovah when their parents refuse that they be transfused with blood during surgery if needed when the children are not considered as being fully accountable, or in emergency settings.

 

Of course, when a child is considered fully adequate in consent (commonly aged 12 and up), he could of course give consent of not undergoing a transfusion ... After being considered as fully accountable, that is.

I think the general idea, is that the child can't give consent.

[DrP]

It doesn't need to - why even bother if the debateable 'benefits' are so slight. Wait until it's an adult and let it decide.

 

I have never had that operation and wouldn't want it at all. I have never had any problems... in fact, I think my problem with toilet seats and basins not being deep enough would be far worse a discomfort without the extra skin there for added protection against the cold damp porcelain.

[Endy0816]

If you do it young enough you are still within the window before long-term memories are forming. I understand some choose to wait until the child is older though. It isn't that long of a window unfortunately :/

 

There are also purely cosmetic procedures performed on children that strangely don't attract the same level of outcry.

 

It did obviously get its start in religion, but that shouldn't have any bearing on our own reasoning process. Doesn't matter that washing got its start in ritual purification. We can rationally evaluate the evidence and decide whether it is a good idea based on its own merits.

[John Cuthber]

 

Doesn't matter that washing got its start in ritual purification.

Why do you suppose that might be the case?

How did they have a notion of "pure" before they started washing?

There are cases of animals washing themselves and their food but these are not normally regarded as evidence of some sort of spirituality.