Circumcision, like Vaccines, the socially responsible choice says Mayo Clinic and Science

[rodentslayer]

http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/circumc...tudy-1.1757650

All over the news today. Hopefully the emotional response which keeps boys from being circumcised in the name of sameness as the father will finally be put in the same bin of crazy as the antivacciners and religious prayer is healthcare nuts.

[xcorps]

Why would a doctor from the Mayo Clinic compare circumcisions to vaccines? Are urinary tract infections in infants contagious?

Why did the article blame the lack of circumcisions on Latins and lack of government coverage of the procedure?

Why did the OP not use a coherent sentence?

[Phier]

Why would a doctor from the Mayo Clinic compare circumcisions to vaccines? Are urinary tract infections in infants contagious?

As a pro-circumcision guy you could draw a comparison based on it being "preventive" and it is preventive for more than UTI's. Its no where near on the same level as vaccinations though, and I DNRTA.

[Euphoric]

As a pro-circumcision guy you could draw a comparison based on it being "preventive" and it is preventive for more than UTI's. Its no where near on the same level as vaccinations though, and I DNRTA.

By that logic, why not preemptively remove the spleen, the hymen, the extraneous muscles, ligaments and bones (including the coccyx), the male nipple, and hell, while we are at it, we might as well remove female breasts because that doesn't have any real use anymore what with civilization and all, aside from being bouncy and soft.

Though I actually agree with your position. Honestly, circumcision is more hygienic and it makes your look bigger. Seriously guys.

[Jom]

That was a very one-sided article; it mentioned that the advantages of circumcision outweighed the disadvantages, went on the list the advantages, but didn't mention a single disadvantage of the procedure. I'm tempted to use it the next time I'm teaching how to spot bias.

[neoptolemos]

That was a very one-sided article; it mentioned that the advantages of circumcision outweighed the disadvantages, went on the list the advantages, but didn't mention a single disadvantage of the procedure. I'm tempted to use it the next time I'm teaching how to spot bias.

This actually.
Another circumcision thread which is entirely not political except if a health policy is/will be based on legislation for promoting or condemning the practice I may add.


@Kyriakos
Before questioning sumskilz's informative post you should have at least checked wikipedia and then post your refusal.

The history of the migration and evolution of the practice of circumcision is followed mainly through the cultures and peoples in two separate regions. In the lands south and east of the Mediterranean, starting with Sudan and Ethiopia, the procedure was practiced by the ancient Egyptians and the Semites, and then by the Jews and Muslims, with whom the practice traveled to and was adopted by the Bantu Africans. In Oceania, circumcision is practiced by the Australian Aborigines and Polynesians.^[64] There is also evidence that it was practiced in the Americas, but little detail is available about its history.^[19][58]

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


FYI if the first church didn't want to make "recedence" on the issue because this practise was "bizzare" for the Greeks, the Hellenized people and Romans then Christians would have followed the same tradition

[Garbarsardar]

That was a very one-sided article; it mentioned that the advantages of circumcision outweighed the disadvantages, went on the list the advantages, but didn't mention a single disadvantage of the procedure. I'm tempted to use it the next time I'm teaching how to spot bias.

Indeed. Here is a much more balanced presentation:

http://www.circinfo.com/guide_to_dec...dications.html and http://www.circinfo.com/guide_to_dec...dvantages.html

In short, here are medical conditions that indicate circumcision like foreskin conditions, there are also social, occupational or psychological indications, but absent a clear indication it offers nothing more than good hygiene can provide, and also has some risks such as meatitis.

[Kyriakos]

My view is and always is likely to be that cutting out a bit of an infant's genitals is not at all a scientific act unless very particular (as in extremely rare) conditions are in existence which would lead it to benefit from such a traumatic and potentially dangerous somatically as well, process.

But given that this originated in ancient Judea, a place hardly known for its medical or other science (in fact quite the opposite), i think it is pretty horrible that it still exists in our world. There are countless first-witness accounts of the trauma caused to the baby. Even Franz Kafka himself provides a quite bleak presentation of one such event, where the rabbi traditionally used his mouth to clean the cut part from the blood (which iirc still happens when rabbis in Israel do this instead of doctors in a hospital setting).

I have to assume that this harms the Jewish people more than anything (and of course also the islamic states that have it).

[sumskilz]

But given that this originated in ancient Judea

Actually, it didn't...

Even Franz Kafka himself provides a quite bleak presentation of one such event, where the rabbi traditionally used his mouth to clean the cut part from the blood (which iirc still happens when rabbis in Israel do this instead of doctors in a hospital setting).

Not a rabbi, a mohel. Most mohels are certified by the Israeli ministry of health and have some medical training. The described practice was traditional because it was believed to be hygienic. Now that it's known that it isn't, it's only practiced by some of the more extreme fundamentalist groups.

[Kyriakos]

^Hm, so this egyptian(?) glyph supposedly proves what? That a pitiful practice which potentially ruins lives is better cause it (supposedly) also took place in Egypt? Furthermore the apostles themselves make no mention to any egyptian root of this practice, but i suppose they were just dumb and knew nothing about it. Moreso they specifically asked that the practice is not used in non-Jewish christians at all.

Let alone that even in the glyph you posted it is not at all evident if this is something that similar; for all you know it is castration. At least the guy on the left seems rather unpleased with what is happening to him given that someone else has to hold him and all - while the guy in the right seems a bit manipulated, i mean that is quite a hand... (and castration exists in various main Egyptian myths anyway, such as the Osiris one).

[Ciciro]

^Hm, so this egyptian(?) glyph supposedly proves what? That a pitiful practice which potentially ruins lives is better cause it (supposedly) also took place in Egypt? Furthermore the apostles themselves make no mention to any egyptian root of this practice, but i suppose they were just dumb and knew nothing about it. Moreso they specifically asked that the practice is not used in non-Jewish christians at all.

That's because the Greeks really, really didn't want circumcisions, so Paul said fine, whatever, anything to get more converts.

[sumskilz]

^Hm, so this egyptian(?) glyph supposedly proves what?

The evidence for circumcision in Egypt predates the existence of Judah by well over a thousand years. Reliefs depict the steps in the circumcision process which seem to be the same as the later Jewish and Arab practices. The Egyptian hieroglyph for penis is circumcised.

Furthermore the apostles themselves make no mention to any egyptian root of this practice, but i suppose they were just dumb and knew nothing about it. Moreso they specifically asked that the practice is not used in non-Jewish christians at all.

Herodotus knew it was an Egyptian practice. The only people ever referred to as uncircumcised in the Hebrew Bible are the Philistines who were of Aegean origin.

EDIT: I forgot to mention the least ambiguous evidence - circumcised mummies.

[Kyriakos]

Ok, now my degree of respect for ancient Egypt was cut a bit short (a bit of a pun, sorry ).

Anyway I remain of the view that this practice can only cause harm to those who have it done to them. I really suspect that all the Jewish and Islamic people who have it done to them would be a lot better without that trauma in their infant age. Infants cry at the slighest of pain. Having a part of their genitals cut off, well, is obviously going to be a massively traumatic event for a being which cannot even speak yet.

[Himster]

Removing a part of a person's body obviously reduces chances of infection. A person with his toes removed is very unlikely to have a toe infection, but it's still not a good idea, it's rather more drastic than circumcision granted, but still removing a body-part as a preemptive caution against infection is over kill. Unnecessary surgery on children (who can't give consent) is....... far worse.

[Facupay]

I believe that a person's body should not be permanently modified through surgery without said person's consent unless there is a grave need (emergency surgery for example).

There is no pressing need to circumcise children (unless the child has phimosis or other problems) so it's safe to wait until it has 18 -or lower, age of consent is a very debatable topic- and allow the adult to make an informed decision about his own body.

Also in the same source there is also dissent:

Canadian doctors, however, have expressed a radically different opinion when it comes to circumcision.The Canadian Paediatric Society, which outlined its position in 1996, says that “the overall evidence of the benefits and harms of circumcision is so evenly balanced that (the CPS) does not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns.”
And the CPS policy appears to reflect circumcision rates in Canada. A February 2013 study in the medical journal Canadian Family Physician put the circumcision rate in Canada at 32 per cent.

[Sir Adrian]

Much like shaving you pubic hair or enlarging your breasts, circumcision offers no actual medical advantages to a healthy individual, it is solely esthetic in nature. That a clinic which specializes in circumcision would attempt to promote it via biased articles and that a new user's first and only post would be to promote the article does not surprise me. That respected users believe the circumcision = good/bad for your health is deeply disappointing however.


That being said this does not belong in the mudpit.

[Kyriakos]

Hm ok?

So in your view it is not "bad" for the person's health to suffer massive trauma by surgery to his genitals as an infant. Infants cannot even have anesthesia yet. I bet virtually everyone would faint if someone tried to cut a bit of their own genitals, and that is without them being a toddler.

Somehow the above synopsis would seem enough to counter your view, for most people? :\

[Ciciro]

Hm ok?

So in your view it is not "bad" for the person's health to suffer massive trauma by surgery to his genitals as an infant. Infants cannot even have anesthesia yet. I bet virtually everyone would faint if someone tried to cut a bit of their own genitals, and that is without them being a toddler.

Somehow the above synopsis would seem enough to counter your view, for most people? :\

One could also argue births are a traumatic event, so we shouldn't have babies so we dont have to put them through it.

[Kyriakos]

One could also argue births are a traumatic event, so we shouldn't have babies so we dont have to put them through it.

Maybe take into account that birth seems to be pretty needed so that a person is...well...born?
Cutting a bit of his genitals is about as needed as cutting a girl toddler's breasts off to fend for the possibility of breast cancer, and on a similar scale of good medicinal practice in the absense of any particular existent life-threatening situation.

[Caelifer_1991]

Hey guys I just learned of a radical but totally effective procedure by which to end all human infections and disease, cut off the head of infants. No really, it turns out, if you cut off their head, then within about 8 seconds of the procedure, they can no longer develop life-endangering infections and diseases. Should be treated no different to vaccines I say. There's a slim chance the procedure might be somewhat unhygenic however, so of course its required that the practitioner suck the blood from the neck of the infant and lick around it a little bit to prevent complications, if he gets tired then the nurses can join in.