What's new
By:

Circumcision ?

AKMVP said:
It is not only me, European pediatricians disagree too.

Preventive procedures on healthy people should follow "more and stricter justification" than medically necessary procedures, and even stricter justification should be required for children, "who cannot weigh the evidence themselves and cannot legally consent to the procedure."

- While the AAP says circumcision prevents urinary tract infections (UTIs), the European doctors counter that only one percent of boys will get these in their first years of life, and there are no randomly-controlled clinical trials proving that circumcision prevents them.

- The AAP says circumcision can stave off penile cancer, but the European docs counter that "the evidence is not strong; the disease is rare and has a good survival rate; there are less intrusive ways of preventing the disease; and there is no compelling reason to deny boys their legitimate right to make their own informed decision when they are old enough."

- The AAP says circumcision can offer protection against genital herpes and genital warts. The Europeans say that conclusion was based on studies in Africa that don't apply in the West; doesn't take into account syphilis, gonorrhea and chlamydia; and again is only relevant to adults, so "the decision of whether to circumcise can be postponed to an age when boys are old enough to decide for themselves."

- Perhaps most importantly, the AAP, relying on three studies done in Africa, suggested circumcision can have a preventive effect against HIV/AIDS. The Europeans argue that conclusion has been "contradicted by other studies, which show no relationship between HIV infection rates and circumcision status. The African findings are also not in line with the fact that the United States combines a high prevalence of STDs and HIV infections with a high per- centage of routine circumcisions. The situation in most European countries is precisely the reverse: low circumcision rates combined with low HIV and STD rates... There are alternative, less intrusive, and more effective ways of preventing HIV than circumcision, such as consistent use of condoms."

- The Europeans also noted the possible problems with circumcision -- infections, hemorrhages, metal strictures, deaths and (partial) amputations.

- And lastly, the foreigners say not to underestimate the foreskin's role in sexy time: "the foreskin is a richly innervated structure that protects the glans and plays an important role in the mechanical function of the penis during sexual acts. Recent studies [which the AAP did not take into account] ..suggest that circumcision desensitizes the penis and may lead to sexual problems in circumcised men and their partners.
Click to expand...

"Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result." -Winston Churchill
 
Doctors oppose infant circumcision
18. mar. 2013 13.08 English

The circumcision of infants entails a risk of serious physical injury, or even death, and should be banned, according to 38 leading doctors.

The acclaimed medical journal Pediatrics is today carrying an article by Dane Morten Frisch, a consultant at Statens Seruminstitut (SSI) and adjunct professor at the Sexology Research Centre at Aalborg University, with the simple message: Stop circumcising newborn baby boys.

Frisch believes that the risks in circumcising newborn baby boys exceed the health benefits and that the practice, which is traditional among Jews and Muslims, should therefore be stopped.

“The message of the article is that boys themselves should make decisions about their own bodies,” Frisch told DR News.

Risk of death
Frisch estimates that two to three per cent of boys experience problems related to circumcision.

“In acute cases, things can go very wrong – in the worst case, the child can die. But there are also acute types of problems in the form of bleeding and infections, and later on there are problems of a psychological nature, of a physical nature, of a sexual nature,” explained Frisch.

The article is not just the view of a single Danish doctor. It has been signed by 38 other leading consultants, researchers and professors from Europe and Canada.

Huge debate
The article is now sparking an international debate. While around 75 per cent of American men are circumcised, in the summer a court in Germany ruled that circumcision of infants constitutes assault.

“American paediatricians are the only ones in the world to have issued a report concluding that circumcision has more advantages than disadvantages. We are in complete disagreement with this,” said Frisch.
 
Need I say more?

AKMVP said:
Scientific data which is weak and unproven and probably was funded by big pharmaceutical companies in need of baby foreskins. And all coming from USA
Click to expand...

How to debate with someone who genuinely believes such things. Obviously facts and science doesn't work.
 
The Blue Elephant said:
Humans have no need for circumcision since humans started walking on two legs and began wearing pants. Nails aren't vestigial, foreskin is. The scientific data cannot be any more clear. You can find a couple contrary articles here and there that are against circumcision but the consensus is clear (you can even find a recent Harvard study that fish oil causes prostate cancer). At the end of the day some people are going to believe what they want to believe. You can keep believing Greedy Jewish doctors are taking foreskin make money while I stick with the scientific facts.
Click to expand...
I honestly don't see how a foreskin is any more or less vestigial than finger nails. How would I be handicapped in anyway in our modern society if I did not have fingernails. Seems like I would simply save 99 cents every time I lost the clippers. I cannot think of a more apt analogy than this.

I don't believe in greedy jewish doctor conspiracies but cultural bias is a legitimate explanation for infant circumcision when I can't find another reason to justify the procedure.

In fact the link you provided (which I did read through thoroughly) I noticed that you conveniently chopped off the end of their recommendation.
After a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence, the American Academy of Pediatrics found the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision.
Click to expand...
I feel that I am doing my part to have a rational dialogue so please don't call me a nut-job.
 
Since you like doctors opinion more then I suggest you should read this statement. It is long, 11 pages and it is by doctors who oppose circumcision.

https://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/2013-04-24_Commentary.pdf

Just first page is enough to confirm what I already claimed - AAP task force for male circumcision was biased and had financial interest. But you keep believing that people like that have no "special" interest posting their studies and conclusions and call it a science? I feel bad for you Blue, really bad.

Susan Blank, MD, MPD, chair of the Task Force, an infectious disease specialist,
who has a well documented religious and cultural bias in favor of male circumcision.
·
Andrew Freedman, MD, a pediatric urologist, who has reported that he
circumcised his own son on a kitchen table, for religious cultural reasons, and who
derives twenty percent of his practice from treating boys for circumcision generated problems;

Douglas Diekema, MD, an AAP bioethicist, who
twice first in 1996 and again in 2010 on behalf of the AAP, proposed a billable “ritual nick” to the genitals of
female children, despite the existence of international and U.S. federal law
forbidding this practice;

Steven Wegner, MD, JD, a
doctor lawyer, who serves on the AAP Committee on
Health Care Financing, whose presumed focus in this instance was on
the circumcision income flow, over $1.25 billion, annually $2.25 billion or more
if circumcision could be made mandatory or universally subsidized by Medicaid.

It is abundantly clear that the members of the task force were chosen with a view to
obtaining an outcome favorable for the continued practice of circumcision of American male children and to provide for third
party payment to physician and hospital providers.
 
heyhey said:
I honestly don't see how a foreskin is any more or less vestigial than finger nails. How would I be handicapped in anyway in our modern society if I did not have fingernails. Seems like I would simply save 99 cents every time I lost the clippers. I cannot think of a more apt analogy than this.

I don't believe in greedy jewish doctor conspiracies but cultural bias is a legitimate explanation for infant circumcision when I can't find another reason to justify the procedure.

In fact the link you provided (which I did read through thoroughly) I noticed that you conveniently chopped off the end of their recommendation.

I feel that I am doing my part to have a rational dialogue so please don't call me a nut-job.
Click to expand...

That was directed at AKMVP who says that pharmacological companies are stealing foreskins to make money.

Fingernails provides rigidity to the ends of nails. Go online look at the pros and cons at having nails then look at the same for foreskin. If you don't see a difference I cannot help you anymore.
 
AKMVP said:
Since you like doctors opinion more then I suggest you should read this statement. It is long, 11 pages and it is by doctors who oppose circumcision.

https://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/2013-04-24_Commentary.pdf

Just first page is enough to confirm what I already claimed - AAP task force for male circumcision was biased and had financial interest. But you keep believing that people like that have no "special" interest posting their studies and conclusions and call it a science? I feel bad for you Blue, really bad.

Susan Blank, MD, MPD, chair of the Task Force, an infectious disease specialist,
who has a well documented religious and cultural bias in favor of male circumcision.
·
Andrew Freedman, MD, a pediatric urologist, who has reported that he
circumcised his own son on a kitchen table, for religious cultural reasons, and who
derives twenty percent of his practice from treating boys for circumcision generated problems;

Douglas Diekema, MD, an AAP bioethicist, who
twice first in 1996 and again in 2010 on behalf of the AAP, proposed a billable “ritual nick” to the genitals of
female children, despite the existence of international and U.S. federal law
forbidding this practice;

Steven Wegner, MD, JD, a
doctor lawyer, who serves on the AAP Committee on
Health Care Financing, whose presumed focus in this instance was on
the circumcision income flow, over $1.25 billion, annually $2.25 billion or more
if circumcision could be made mandatory or universally subsidized by Medicaid.

It is abundantly clear that the members of the task force were chosen with a view to
obtaining an outcome favorable for the continued practice of circumcision of American male children and to provide for third
party payment to physician and hospital providers.
Click to expand...

Thanks for providing peer reviewed unbiased proof from a website called doctorsagainstcircumcision.com. I bet you get your opinion of homosexuals from godhatesfags.com.
 
The Blue Elephant said:
That was directed at AKMVP who says that pharmacological companies are stealing foreskins to make money.

Fingernails provides rigidity to the ends of nails. Go online look at the pros and cons at having nails then look at the same for foreskin. If you don't see a difference I cannot help you anymore.
Click to expand...
Right and a foreskin provides lubrication and elasticity(which would have solved my problem with puberty)
 
The Blue Elephant said:
Thanks for providing peer reviewed unbiased proof from a website called doctorsagainstcircumcision.com. I bet you get your opinion of homosexuals from godhatesfags.com.
Click to expand...

So now you are saying that doctors from 50 states in USA, 12 provinces in Canada and 6 other continents are lying?
 
Last edited:
The Blue Elephant said:
Laying golden eggs provided by the money Jewish Doctors get from selling foreskins.
Click to expand...

Since the 1980's many hospitals have been providing infant foreskins to a number of bio-research laboratories, pharmaceutical companies, and of course cosmetic companies. In Mothering Magazine in the Winter of 1997 issue Paul M. Fleiss, MD stated that "the marketing of purloined baby foreskins is a multimillion-dollar-a-year industry." With inflation and the growing number of cosmetic companies using foreskin fibroblasts that number is surely even higher today.
 
AKMVP said:
Since the 1980's many hospitals have been providing infant foreskins to a number of bio-research laboratories, pharmaceutical companies, and of course cosmetic companies. In Mothering Magazine in the Winter of 1997 issue Paul M. Fleiss, MD stated that "the marketing of purloined baby foreskins is a multimillion-dollar-a-year industry." With inflation and the growing number of cosmetic companies using foreskin fibroblasts that number is surely even higher today.
Click to expand...

"Paul Murray Fleiss, M.D. (born September 8, 1933)[1] is an American pediatrician and author known for his unconventional medical views."

I love his Wikipedia profile. Granted it is Wikipedia.
 
Last edited:
heyhey said:
We are having another child. We will know the gender next week but we are fairly certain(cycles and what not) that it is a boy. I really feel that circumcision equates to genital mutilation and won't be doing it. When I was talking to my family about it(we're all cut)most of them were horrified that we plan on not doing it.

Is there any scientifically verifiable medical reason to do it, and if so then why don't we see serious complications with uncircumcised wee wees in Europe?
Click to expand...

These national medical organizations are all against infant circumcision:

Canadian Paediatric Society
https://www.cps.ca/en/documents/position/circumcision
"Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed."

https://www.caringforkids.cps.ca/handouts/circumcision
"Circumcision is a 'non-therapeutic' procedure, which means it is not medically necessary."
"After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions."

Royal Australasian College of Physicians
https://www.racp.edu.au/index.cfm?objectid=65118B16-F145-8B74-236C86100E4E3E8E
" After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand."
(almost all the men responsible for this statement will be circumcised themselves, as the male circumcision rate in Australia in 1950 was about 90%. "Routine" circumcision is now *banned* in public hospitals in Australia.)

British Medical Association
https://bma.org.uk/-/media/Files/PDFs/Practical advice at work/Ethics/Circumcision.pdf
"to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate."

The Royal Dutch Medical Association
https://knmg.artsennet.nl/Diensten/...rapeutic-circumcision-of-male-minors-2010.htm
"The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organisations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children's rights to autonomy and physical integrity. Contrary to popular belief, circumcision can cause complications - bleeding, infection, urethral stricture and panic attacks are particularly common. KNMG is therefore urging a strong policy of deterrence. KNMG is calling upon doctors to actively and insistently inform parents who are considering the procedure of the absence of medical benefits and the danger of complications."

More opposition to circumcision of children:

https://www.crin.org/resources/infodetail.asp?id=31830
"[30 September 2013] - At a meeting today in Oslo, the children's ombudspersons from the five Nordic countries (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, and Iceland), and the children's spokesperson from Greenland, in addition to representatives of associations of Nordic paediatricians and pediatric surgeons, have agreed to work with their respective national governments to achieve a ban on non-therapeutic circumcision of underage boys."

German Pediatric Association
https://www.intactamerica.org/german_pediatrics_statement
(very long, but very much against circumcision, and includes the following)
"Therefore it is not understandable that circumcision of boys should be allowed but that of girls prohibited worldwide. Male circumcision is basically comparable with FGM types Ia and Ib that the Schafi Islamic school of law supports"

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/12/peds.2012-2896.abstract
"The other claimed health benefits, including protection against HIV/AIDS, genital herpes, genital warts, and penile cancer, are questionable, weak, and likely to have little public health relevance in a Western context, and they do not represent compelling reasons for surgery before boys are old enough to decide for themselves."
(signed by 38 senior physicians, about half of them presidents or chairs of national pediatric or urological organisations).

Drops in male circumcision since 1950:
USA: from 90% to 55%
Canada: from 48% to 17%
UK: from 35% to about 5% (about 1-2% among non-Muslims)
Australia: 90% to 12.4% ("routine" circumcision has recently been *banned* in public hospitals in all states)
New Zealand: 95% to below 3% (mostly Samoans and Tongans)
South America and Europe: never above 5%

Things can go badly wrong too. The record payout for a botched circumcision is $22.8 million. It was said at the time that the victim "will never be able to function sexually as a normal male and will require extensive reconstructive surgery and psychological counseling as well as lifelong urological care and treatment by infectious disease specialists."
Sure, cases like that are very rare, but why should they happen at all? If you look up the galleries of botched jobs, one thing that may surprise you is just how many jobs were botched cosmetically, rather than medically. Skin tags, skin bridges, sideways curvature, and hair growing half way up the shaft are not normal, but would not be counted as medical complications.
News from April 2009: A jury in Atlanta has awarded $1.8 million to a boy whose penis was severed in a botched circumcision five years ago. The Fulton County jury also awarded the boy's mother another $500,000.

This WHO document talks about the risks of neonatal circumcision:
https://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2010/9789241500753_eng.pdf

Table 7.2. Potential complications of the three most commonly used infant male circumcision devices (p 51)

For those with a strong stomach, it also has graphic pictures of botched jobs (p57 Mogen, p66 Gomco, pp73-75 Plastibell).

It's worth remembering that no-one except for Muslim and Jewish people would even be having this discussion if it weren't for the fact that 19th century doctors thought that :
a) masturbat1on caused various physical and mental problems (including epilepsy, convulsions, paralysis, tuberculosis etc), and
b) circumcision stopped masturbat1on.

Both of those sound ridiculous today I know, but that's how they thought back then, and that's how non-religious circumcision got started. If you don't believe me, then check out this link: https://www.noharmm.org/docswords.htm
Heck, they even passed laws against "self-pollution" as it was called.

It's not like it can't wait - there are just two countries in the world where more than 50% of baby boys are circumcised: the USA (at 55%) and Israel. Other countries circumcise, but generally anywhere from the age of seven to puberty or late adolescence.

Here's another reason not to do it to newborns:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23656698
"For studies including boys born after 1995, there was a strong correlation between country-level (n = 9) autism/ASD prevalence in males and a country's circumcision rate (r = 0.98). A very similar pattern was seen among U.S. states and when comparing the 3 main racial/ethnic groups in the U.S."


If our son wants to be circumcised when he's 18 (16 if he knows what he's doing), I'll pay for it and help him find a good surgeon. Until then, he stays intact. His body - his decision. If he wants to be circumcised later, it's easy to fix - safer, less painful, and better cosmetic results. If we'd had him circumcised, and he wanted to be intact, it's a problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top