Danish circumcision ban to go to parliament

[Shadowferal]

I agreed with your logic on all of that. It's true. If you were to poll physicians, not a single one would tell you that circumcision would yield lower transmission rates on ANY STDs.

Except for physicians in the World Health Organization and those in the US.

There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Three randomized controlled trials have shown that male circumcision provided by well trained health professionals in properly equipped settings is safe. WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence.

[Techno-Druid]

Except for physicians in the World Health Organization and those in the US.

There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Three randomized controlled trials have shown that male circumcision provided by well trained health professionals in properly equipped settings is safe. WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence.

To them, and Earp, to say this amounted to a 60 percent reduction was misleading. Converting the difference into a percentage "generates a big-seeming number," they said, but there was less to this than meets the eye.

"The absolute decrease in HIV infection between the treatment and control groups in these experiments was just 1.31 percent, which is likely to have no appreciable effect at the demographic level," they said.

Circumcision in the Western World is wholly unnecessary and serves no purpose beyond cosmetic reasons. Circumcision should be entirely in the hands of the person getting it when they reach an age of competency, not their parents. Hell, even if your argument is that is reduces HIV/AIDs, why (in the developed world) would that be a reason to circumcise infants, a demographic that does not engage in any sexual activity.

Not to mention we live in a part of the world where condoms and testing for STDs are pretty readily available, pretty much making any benefit that may come from circumcision obsolete.

[Underverse]

Except for physicians in the World Health Organization and those in the US.

There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Three randomized controlled trials have shown that male circumcision provided by well trained health professionals in properly equipped settings is safe. WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence.

This is true for areas where nutrition is inadequate, infections abound, and hygiene is subpar. A primary driving force behind decreased HIV infection upon circumcision is penile microbiome. The microbiome is greatly affected by diet and nutrition, infection status, and hygiene. In females, vaginal dysbiosis (microbiome imbalance) is strongly associated with HIV susceptibility. In males, HIV susceptibility is strongly associated with high loads of certain species of anaerobic bacteria under the foreskin, which will likely be qualified as penile dysbiosis not too long from now. Therefore it is no surprise that depriving microbes of an environment in which to propagate reduces HIV infections in rural nations. However, one must also understand that men without 'penile dysbiosis' do not have this dramatically increased risk for HIV transmission, and therefore not all men will benefit equally from circumcision. That is, for some men, it may be entirely pointless. But since we don't understand the full science behind the observation, we just circumcise everyone regardless of risk.

These results cannot and should not be generalized to developed nations such as Denmark, where nutrition is far better, rates of female dysbiosis (and probably male dysbiosis) are significantly lower, and hygiene standards are increased.

[Shadowferal]

Actually, they said, 1.31%. You didn't read all but what was cherry-picked.

"Cherry picked" is what you're claiming because you have nothing to go on but your belief. (Which like many beliefs, are probably fact-proof)

But it seems to be declining in the US

Circumcision for male infants is becoming less common in the U.S., according to new data published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings. The paper also finds that over their lifetime, half of all uncircumcised males will contract a medical condition related to their foreskin.

Their findings further back up a 2012 public statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics in support of widespread education initiatives and access to infant male circumcision.

"Infant circumcision should be regarded as equivalent to childhood vaccination," said Brian Morris, coauthor of the new report and professor emeritus in the School of Medical Sciences at the University of Sydney, in a press release. "As such, it would be unethical not to routinely offer parents circumcision for their baby boy. Delay puts the child's health at risk and will usually mean it will never happen."

Clinical research has found circumcision can safeguard an infant from a number of health complications, most notably urinary tract infections. Kidney damage develops in about half of infants who contract a UTI. The adult lifetime risk for a UTI is approximately 1 in 3 for uncircumcised men.

Another study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association reviewed more than 500 studies, finding that circumcision reduces risk for HIV transmission in heterosexual men by 60 percent, genital herpes by 30 percent, and cancer-causing strains of HPV by 35 percent.

Some research suggests that circumcision in infancy actually lowers the risk for prostate cancer in adulthood. A study of 3,400 men found those who were circumcised before their first sexual intercourse were 15 percent less likely to develop prostate cancer than men who were not.

[Techno-Druid]

I'm happy it's declining. On the subject of circumcision in regards to urinary tract infections...

This claim is based on one study that looked at charts of babies born in one hospital (Wiswell 1985). The study had many problems, including that it didn't accurately count whether or not the babies were circumcised, whether they were premature and thus more susceptible to infection in general, whether they were breastfed (breastfeeding protects against UTI), and if their foreskins had been forcibly retracted (which can introduce harmful bacteria and cause UTI) (Pisacane 1990). There have been many studies since which show either no decrease in UTI with circumcision, or else an increase in UTI from circumcision. Thus circumcision is not recommended to prevent UTI (Thompson 1990). Girls have higher rates of UTI than boys, and yet when a girl gets a UTI, she is simply prescribed antibiotics. The same treatment works for boys.

[Underverse]

"Cherry picked" is what you're claiming because you have nothing to go on but your belief. (Which like many beliefs, are probably fact-proof)

But it seems to be declining in the US

Circumcision for male infants is becoming less common in the U.S., according to new data published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings. The paper also finds that over their lifetime, half of all uncircumcised males will contract a medical condition related to their foreskin.

Their findings further back up a 2012 public statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics in support of widespread education initiatives and access to infant male circumcision.

"Infant circumcision should be regarded as equivalent to childhood vaccination," said Brian Morris, coauthor of the new report and professor emeritus in the School of Medical Sciences at the University of Sydney, in a press release. "As such, it would be unethical not to routinely offer parents circumcision for their baby boy. Delay puts the child's health at risk and will usually mean it will never happen."

Clinical research has found circumcision can safeguard an infant from a number of health complications, most notably urinary tract infections. Kidney damage develops in about half of infants who contract a UTI. The adult lifetime risk for a UTI is approximately 1 in 3 for uncircumcised men.

Another study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association reviewed more than 500 studies, finding that circumcision reduces risk for HIV transmission in heterosexual men by 60 percent, genital herpes by 30 percent, and cancer-causing strains of HPV by 35 percent.

Some research suggests that circumcision in infancy actually lowers the risk for prostate cancer in adulthood. A study of 3,400 men found those who were circumcised before their first sexual intercourse were 15 percent less likely to develop prostate cancer than men who were not.

Again, this research is coming from low-income nations. A reduction in disease transmission is also readily observed - and to a much greater extent - when simple barrier methods such as condoms are used. There is no reason whatsoever to opt for permanent tissue removal when you can just put on a condom.

The professor emeritus from USidney is also wrong on this. It's not even close to the same thing as vaccination, which first of all is far, far less invasive and secondly is far, far more effective. We also have a lot of other ways of dealing with these diseases that are better than circumcision - for example, an HPV vaccine (lol) which isn't recommended to boys in some countries because conservatives don't want them to have more sex (lol). He's clearly a circumcised old-timer who is trying to rationalize his own mutilation.

- - - Updated - - -

If you're interested in seeing some arguments against circumcision, here is what a few medical professionals have to say (go to the section of the website 'for professionals' for an analysis of data and arguments):

https://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/

- - - Updated - - -

In the flaccid penis, this tissue folds over on itself, covering the glans to varying degrees in each individual. As the penile shaft elongates with erection, the foreskin fold everts and is taken up along the shaft, while still retaining enough slack to maintain mobility of the penile skin sheath. With circumcision, however, the extensive loss of penile skin leaves insufficient tissue for comfortable expansion of the penis with erection. This can result in tight, painful, or bowed erections; tearing or bleeding at the scar site or on the shaft skin; or pulling of hairy skin from the scrotum and pubic area onto the shaft of the erect penis.[4-8] Australian researchers found that circumcised men had shorter erect penises by a mean length of 8mm than intact men (p<0.05),[9] which may be due to tethering of the penis by excess skin tension.

In the case of heterosexual intercourse, once the intact penis is inserted, the vaginal walls hold the skin of the penis relatively stable, allowing the shaft of the penis to glide in and out of its own skin sheath. In contrast, the taut, immobile skin of the erect circumcised penis lacks this natural gliding action with the motions of intercourse, creating an excess of friction directly on the vaginal walls, and potentially causing increased discomfort for both partners.[10] These dynamics also apply to anal intercourse.

The mobility of the intact penile skin also plays a facilitative role in foreplay, masturbation, and intromission (insertion of the penis), all of which are adversely impacted by circumcision.(8,11) One physician described the latter function in this way: “Penetration in the circumcised man has been compared to thrusting the foot into a sock held open at the top, while, on the other hand, in the intact counterpart it has been likened to slipping the foot into a sock that has been previously rolled up.”[12] Several researchers have noted that circumcision causes compensatory changes in masturbatory technique.[13,14] Whereas the intact male can slide the touch-sensitive foreskin back and forth over the glans to self-stimulate, the circumcised male must apply friction directly to the less sensitive glans and shaft of the penis. When masturbating, circumcised men have been found to significantly more often require the use of artificial lubrication, and stimulation to the point of pain to achieve ejaculation.[14]

Some things that aren't considered by the simplistic 'fewer infections, so chop away' model pushed by many (circumcised) pro-circumcision professionals. There are many more, but I don't want to paste in several pages of text.

Does anyone really think we would evolve with such a useless, destructive organ as claimed by some?

[Deleted]

For fuck's sake..in the US circumcision is fairly routine in the US (and even encouraged), or are you suggesting that we in the US are nothing but a bunch of baby abusers??

[im not allowed to post links]American Academy of Pediatrics Evaluation[/url] of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, and the benefits of newborn male circumcision justify access to this procedure for those families who choose it.

The American Medical Association fully opposes any ban on circumcision; The resolution was sponsored by the AMA's California delegation and is in response to legislative initiatives recently proposed in California that would ban infant male circumcision and penalize physicians who performed it, according to the AMA.

In July, a judge ruled that a proposed circumcision ban in San Francisco was illegal and could not be put on the city's election ballot.

The California delegation said the medical reasons for circumcision are "compelling enough that many physicians and other health authorities feel the procedure is justified," and that prohibiting the practice would be an "intrusion into legitimate medical practice and the informed choices of patients."

Interest in newborn circumcision has increased in recent years because three large randomized trials in Africa have shown that, in adult men, the procedure reduces the risk of acquiring HIV and other sexually transmitted infections.
-----------------------------

Well, when you cut off parts of babies then, yes, you are a bunch of baby abusers. Its funny how only in the US doctors seem to think that there are any benefits to cutting off baby parts, must be that they make a lot of money from it.

[Deleted]

*shudders* Glad that this is just sarcasm...

too bad its not sarcasm with boys...

[Lochton]

Well, when you cut off parts of babies then, yes, you are a bunch of baby abusers. Its funny how only in the US doctors seem to think that there are any benefits to cutting off baby parts, must be that they make a lot of money from it.

Gotta be a good income with being a doctor in the US.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure circumcision is just some skin, but lets compare it to cutting off noses and fingertips.

The foreskin does have a function, you know?

[Deleted]

Gotta be a good income with being a doctor in the US.

- - - Updated - - -



The foreskin does have a function, you know?

no he doesnt. he is a circumcised person who spreads information about something he has no clue about

[Gohzerlock]

http://www.historyofcircumcision.net...id=48&Itemid=0

Yes... interesting... "story".

[Shadowferal]

Well, when you cut off parts of babies then, yes, you are a bunch of baby abusers. Its funny how only in the US doctors seem to think that there are any benefits to cutting off baby parts, must be that they make a lot of money from it.

The US, the UN...World Health organization...

You guys are just as bad as any radical fundamentalist...when it comes to replacing the truth with your own beliefs.

[Unholyground]

Fortunately, your opinion isn't valid in the US.
I imagine if Denmark goes through with this, it'll be as enforced as Iceland...which may even drop whatever law they have.

Still doesn't change the fact that it is child abuse to cut a peice of your child off.

[Shadowferal]

Still doesn't change the fact that it is child abuse to cut a peice of your child off.

Just like any radical...replacing facts with your own beliefs.

[ranzino]

The US, the UN...World Health organization...

You guys are just as bad as any radical fundamentalist...when it comes to replacing the truth with your own beliefs.

which "truth" ? even your US based info says circumcision is only of any use in shithole countries.

[Unholyground]

Just like any radical...replacing facts with your own beliefs.

I don't have beliefs, genital mutilation is a form abuse end of story troll.

[Techno-Druid]

http://www.historyofcircumcision.net...id=48&Itemid=0

Yes... interesting... "story".

In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement, and preventing the recurrence of the practice in those whose will power has become so weakened that the patient is unable to exercise entire self-control.

The worst cases among young women are those in which the disease has advanced so far that erotic thoughts are attended by the same voluptuous sensations which accompany the practice. The author has met many cases of this sort in young women, who acknowledged that the sexual orgasm was thus produced, often several times daily. The application of carbolic acid in the manner described is also useful in these cases in allaying the abnormal excitement, which is a frequent provocation of the practice of this form of mental masturbation.

Plain facts, pp. 294-6

J.H. Kellogg, Plain facts for young and old: Embracing the natural history of hygiene and organic life, 2nd edition, Burlington (Iowa), 1888, facsimile reprint (New York: Arno, 1974)

Fuck man... that's just...

[Levelfive]

The US, the UN...World Health organization...

You guys are just as bad as any radical fundamentalist...when it comes to replacing the truth with your own beliefs.

As far as the WHO goes, they recommend it for adolescent boys and men in "high burden countries" as one part of a more comprehensive strategy that includes education about hygiene and condoms:

"Male circumcision provides only partial protection, and therefore should be only one element of a comprehensive HIV prevention package which includes: the provision of HIV testing and counseling services; treatment for sexually transmitted infections; the promotion of safer sex practices; the provision of male and female condoms and promotion of their correct and consistent use." http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/

I wasn't able to find recommendations for infant circumcisions anywhere in their literature, though I may have missed it, but I don't think anyone is objecting to the procedure for people who are old enough to give informed consent.

[Lochton]

The US, the UN...World Health organization...

You guys are just as bad as any radical fundamentalist...when it comes to replacing the truth with your own beliefs.

I wouldn't mind a link for the UN one, for, I am sceptic on that.

[Pickynerd]

Gotta be a good income with being a doctor in the US.

- - - Updated - - -



The foreskin does have a function, you know?

It's a cheap procedure, 100 bucks? Isn't the most comfortable thing to have done, yet people do it, wounder why?

Yeah, but now we wear clothing, I don't need a built in vagina. People that have gone through with circumcision say that it still feels amazing, and you last longer, also it is easier to clean up.

What were your positives again? You jiz before you can get it out of your pants? Awesome...