Botched circumcision on Ontario newborn

[blankall]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Yet there are ways to try and prevent STIs that make a practice like circumcision completely redundant. Championing it as an effective method for preventing disease when there are better and easier ways to do so seems very odd to me. Why are we continuing to cut off pieces of kids when we could be teaching them how to care for/protect themselves properly instead? How is that a better option?

The reality is that no one single method of STI prevention is effective, as people slip up. They always have, and they always will.

It, therefore, makes the most sense to play the odds and use as many forms of prevention at once. Each method of prevention is like a net. The more nets you have, the more your odds of success increase. We aren't looking at one option vs another. It's all the options working in unison.

I'm not saying everyone should have it done. However, people should be made a aware of the facts. And the facts are that from a medical perspective, the health benefits outweigh the risks.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by troutman

I disagree that anything is "clear". I can post just as many links from other medical organizations recommending the opposite. Where do you get your information?

This little known North American organization called the CDC....

U.S. health officials on Tuesday released a draft of long-awaited federal guidelines on circumcision, saying medical evidence supports the procedure and health insurers should pay for it.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines stop short of telling parents to have their newborn sons circumcised. That is a personal decision that may involve religious or cultural preferences, said the CDC's Dr. Jonathan Mermin.
But "the scientific evidence is clear that the benefits outweigh the risks," added Mermin, who oversees the agency's programs on HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/cdc-gui...isks-1.2128659

So while you may disagree that the evidence is "clear". the CDC does not.

[Coach]

I don't understand why, if the evidence was clear, they wouldn't recommend it for everyone.

[Ducay]

Pros:
Small reduction in UTI risk
Small reduction in STI risk
Cleaner, easier to maintain

Con:
Reduction in sensitivity
Much more complicated to masturbate
No built in sleeve for incidental toilet bowl contact.
Less penile mass (thus inertia)


While somewhat done in humour, the only real "pro" for 99% of the population is the cleanliness factor. While on the con side, those are all real problems. No way I take that many guaranteed negatives for the cleaning-ease advantage.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I don't understand why, if the evidence was clear, they wouldn't recommend it for everyone.

From a policy point of view there are going to be multiple perspectives and considerations besides purely medical ones. This includes cultural and ethical choices. The term ethics encompasses a wide variety of concepts and areas of grey and doesn't just mean right vs. wrong.

The guidelines do not outright call for circumcision of all male newborns, since that is a personal decision that may involve religious or cultural preferences, Dr. Jonathan Mermin, director of the CDC's National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD and TB Prevention, told the Associated Press.

But "the scientific evidence is clear that the benefits outweigh the risks," Mermin said.

Conversely, if it was overly dangerous or held no medical benefits they would be recommending against it, which they aren't.

Basically, they are saying it is the individual's choice, which echoes my own stance on the issue. I just think people should know the facts before making that choice. There are several posters in here purposely downplaying the proven medical benefits.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Pros:
Small reduction in UTI risk
Small reduction in STI risk
Cleaner, easier to maintain

Con:
Reduction in sensitivity
Much more complicated to masturbate
No built in sleeve for incidental toilet bowl contact.
Less penile mass (thus inertia)


While somewhat done in humour, the only real "pro" for 99% of the population is the cleanliness factor. While on the con side, those are all real problems. No way I take that many guaranteed negatives for the cleaning-ease advantage.

I thank my mom's Catholic roots almost daily for this.

For the masturbation issue, I always wondered why other people needed some form of lube. Now I know.

Man you guys got a raw deal...

[GGG]

Originally Posted by blankall

This little known North American organization called the CDC....



http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/cdc-gui...isks-1.2128659

So while you may disagree that the evidence is "clear". the CDC does not.

I think you are reading more into this then is there. You have the guy in charge of AIDS saying the benefits outweigh the risks.

The report does not state this. It's quite neutral on the matter

[Coach]

Originally Posted by blankall

From a policy point of view there are going to be multiple perspectives and considerations besides purely medical ones. This includes cultural and ethical choices. The term ethics encompasses a wide variety of concepts and areas of grey and doesn't just mean right vs. wrong.



Conversely, if it was overly dangerous or held no medical benefits they would be recommending against it, which they aren't.

Basically, they are saying it is the individual's choice, which echoes my own stance on the issue. I just think people should know the facts before making that choice. There are several posters in here purposely downplaying the proven medical benefits.

It just seems weird to me that an organization like the CDC would take something like that into account in their medical and scientific recommendations. You can just as easily include a qualifier like "there are obvious religious and cultural reasons one way or the other, but medically speaking, we recommend it."

Why is a medical organization bothering itself with including religious or cultural reasons for/against this as part of it's recommendations? It would be like the CDC acknowledging the irrationality of anti-vaxers and thus, not recommending that all children be vaccinated. Just an odd position from an authority that should really only be concerning themselves with the scientific affects of something. You either condone it or you don't, and if you aren't sure, then the evidence isn't "clear".

[GGG]

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/preventio...rcumcision.pdf

Here's the actual link for people to read. CDC indifferent on circumcision would be a better title. They also state that in the effects there were no cases of death reported in the groups they looked at.

It also states resistance to hpv as a benefit but ideally that should be handled through vaccination.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by MattyC

It just seems weird to me that an organization like the CDC would take something like that into account in their medical and scientific recommendations. You can just as easily include a qualifier like "there are obvious religious and cultural reasons one way or the other, but medically speaking, we recommend it."

Why is a medical organization bothering itself with including religious or cultural reasons for/against this as part of it's recommendations? It would be like the CDC acknowledging the irrationality of anti-vaxers and thus, not recommending that all children be vaccinated. Just an odd position from an authority that should really only be concerning themselves with the scientific affects of something. You either condone it or you don't, and if you aren't sure, then the evidence isn't "clear".

In North America the incidence of HIV is not so high that the costs and taking away choice make it worth it for everyone.

The CDC has clearly condoned it. They just haven't recommended that everyone have it done.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by GGG

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/preventio...rcumcision.pdf

Here's the actual link for people to read. CDC indifferent on circumcision would be a better title. They also state that in the effects there were no cases of death reported in the groups they looked at.

It also states resistance to hpv as a benefit but ideally that should be handled through vaccination.

From these guidelines:

In 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) changed from a neutral stance on circumcision to a position that the data then
available were insufficient to recommend routine neonatal male circumcision.

The Academy also stated, “It is legitimate for the
parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to medical factors, when making this choice” [61].

Male circumcision is a proven effective prevention intervention with known medical benefits. Financial and other barriers to access to
male circumcision should be reduced or eliminated.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think you are reading more into this then is there. You have the guy in charge of AIDS saying the benefits outweigh the risks.

The report does not state this. It's quite neutral on the matter

No.

The medical benefits are conclusive. The American Academy of Pedatrics states that the reasons against it are "cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions,".

This is ironic, as many in this thread are stating the medical effects are negative and the only reason to have it done are for "barbaric" cultural practices.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by blankall

In North America the incidence of HIV is not so high that the costs and taking away choice make it worth it for everyone.

The CDC has clearly condoned it. They just haven't recommended that everyone have it done.

I'm not saying if it was clear they'd make it mandatory, I'm saying that if it was clear they would support everyone doing it. There's a very clear difference between those things.

I would assume they recommend that people wear condoms when having sex other than for reasons of procreation. And I doubt that separate religious views on condoms, or any contraceptive, have any impact on whether they recommend it or not. Why the distinction here? Is it because one of the potential complications is exactly this scenario and they don't want to be complicit in something like that?

Not being sarcastic I'm genuinely curious.

Originally Posted by blankall

No.

The medical benefits are conclusive. The American Academy of Pedatrics states that the reasons against it are "cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions,".

This is ironic, as many in this thread are stating the medical effects are negative and the only reason to have it done are for "barbaric" cultural practices.

Again, why should an organization like the AAP care about people's religious or cultural affiliations? It's an academic medical institute. You either recommend it as a medical practice or you don't. Cultural issues should have no bearing on this stance. People who will do it for traditional reasons will do it regardless of the health impacts.

[karl262]

I couldn't do something to a baby that is so painful that they go into shock and pass out. "oh but they wont remember it" just doesn't fly. If a baby doesn't remember anything anyways, then whats the point of reading to and playing with your little one? Why are those things plus a host of other positive development techniques based on newer research very important, but shocking pain (I couldn't imagine the pain, it truly would be horrendous) won't affect anything at all? Perhaps there are marginally better physical health benefits, but there has to be better preventative and treatment techniques for possible problems down the road than infringing on a persons bodily autonomy.

[Yamer]

So...much...phrasing.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I'm not saying if it was clear they'd make it mandatory, I'm saying that if it was clear they would support everyone doing it. There's a very clear difference between those things.

I would assume they recommend that people wear condoms when having sex other than for reasons of procreation. And I doubt that separate religious views on condoms, or any contraceptive, have any impact on whether they recommend it or not. Why the distinction here? Is it because one of the potential complications is exactly this scenario and they don't want to be complicit in something like that?

Not being sarcastic I'm genuinely curious.



Again, why should an organization like the AAP care about people's religious or cultural affiliations? It's an academic medical institute. You either recommend it as a medical practice or you don't. Cultural issues should have no bearing on this stance.

The AAP is responsible for recommending policy decisions. Policy decisions take into account a variety of factors, including cultural issues. Why not ban all religious and cultural practices that don't create a net economic/health benefit? That's the way policy works.

Once again, if there were no medical benefit, they wouldn't be recommending that the government provide greater access to it either.

[automaton 3]

Canadian Paediatric Society recently (September 8, 2015) updated their position:

"...While there may be a benefit for some boys in high-risk populations and circumstances where the procedure could be considered for disease reduction or treatment, the Canadian Paediatric Society does not recommend the routine circumcision of every newborn male."

http://www.cps.ca/en/documents/position/circumcision

[troutman]

Originally Posted by blankall

This little known North American organization called the CDC....



http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/cdc-gui...isks-1.2128659

So while you may disagree that the evidence is "clear". the CDC does not.

Fine. The CDC oversees "programs on HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases". The CDC guidelines relate to research in Africa.

The CPS does not recommend circumcision (Sept 2015):

http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision

This issue is far from settled.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by karl262

I couldn't do something to a baby that is so painful that they go into shock and pass out. "oh but they wont remember it" just doesn't fly. If a baby doesn't remember anything anyways, then whats the point of reading to and playing with your little one? Why are those things plus a host of other positive development techniques based on newer research very important, but shocking pain (I couldn't imagine the pain, it truly would be horrendous) won't affect anything at all? Perhaps there are marginally better physical health benefits, but there has to be better preventative and treatment techniques for possible problems down the road than infringing on a persons bodily autonomy.

It's hard enough even having to watch them get a needle. We just took our little one in for her first vaccine shots and it took every little bit of restraint not to grab her and make a run for it... lol.

If I had a son that was going to get circumcised, I would have been half way to Mexico by the time anyone realized we were gone.

[blueski]

I don't understand why "reduction in sensitivity" is listed as a con. Won't you last longer for the win?