Even if the studies saying there is a correlation with STD's/cancer are true (which I doubt), what other body part do we remove due to the chance of illness down the road? If we gave all women mastectomies the incidence of breast cancer would plummet, but nobody is advocating that. How about preventative prostate removal in men? That would save many men's lives. And yet we actually live with our bodies as is unless part removal becomes necessary.
He's also wrong about the gall bladder, as it pretty much empties every time you eat something in modern era. Yes, gall stones generally form from stasis, but repeated 'down times' between meals X 40 years does the cumulative trick. We also know that people with a removed gall bladder live fine, but there's a reason why a good number of them end up with chronic diarrhea.
I'm not sure if your a misinformed doctor or not but I'll tell you something thats 100% the truth.
My grandfather-lived 99 years
His brother lived 93 years
My father lived 79 years
One of my father brothers is 83 years and counting
One of my sisters aged 55
And myself (so far 49 years) have all had our gallbladders removed'(yeah,crazy family)
Not only do I not get diarrhea (odd time with the flu but that's it) but I have never heard of one of my family members complain about it.
Sorry man,I call bull##### on this, I can eat nails since my surgery and not even have a burp...best thing that ever happened to me was to get rid of my gallbladder.
I'm not sure if your a misinformed doctor or not but I'll tell you something thats 100% the truth.
My grandfather-lived 99 years
His brother lived 93 years
My father lived 79 years
One of my father brothers is 83 years and counting
One of my sisters aged 55
And myself (so far 49 years) have all had our gallbladders removed'(yeah,crazy family)
Not only do I not get diarrhea (odd time with the flu but that's it) but I have never heard of one of my family members complain about it.
Sorry man,I call bull##### on this, I can eat nails since my surgery and not
even have a burp...best thing that ever happened to me was to get rid of my gallbladder.
You are calling out a doctor using anecdotal evidence. Wow. I also want to know what kind of family advertises to each other every time they get diarrhea.
The Following User Says Thank You to Knut For This Useful Post:
You are calling out a doctor using anecdotal evidence. Wow. I also want to know what kind of family advertises to each other every time they get diarrhea.
What evidence?
I'll stand by the fact i don't believe a gallbladder or not has ##### to do with diarrhea...comeon docter do-do.
I'll stand by the fact i don't believe a gallbladder or not has ##### to do with diarrhea...comeon docter do-do.
From a basic pathophysiology class the gall bladder contains concentrated bile which assists in the digestion of lipids (fats) in the duodenum in the small intestine. This allows for the fats to be digested in a process that I don't remember the name of but if someone eats fatty foods without a gall bladder they will get off grey coloured feces which can be described as runny.
You may be the exception for whatever reason but to say that there are just useless organs floating around in your body is just a weird statement to make.
I would never do it to a baby boy, there are simply not enough good reasons and unnecessary risk/pain to the child. Most people do it simply because it was done to them and for aesthetic reasons. They will deny this and find some study about aids in Africa to support their beliefs but ultimately its either religious in nature, aesthetic, but rarely because of any logical reason.
My 2 cents from my time and perspective working in public health
We use to get the odd letter regarding this issue. The CMA currently does not recommend it but there are a few public health journals that do advocate a slight benefit to the procedure. The science behind it shows that the tissue is rich in immune cells, similar to all cells that are near our openings and vital areas. The higher concentrations of immune cells serve to protect us from STI and other infections (besides sexual function, the male organ is used to void waste and we males have a tendency to stick it into foreign places). On the flip side though, HIV specifically targets the immune cells, hence the findings that those that are circumcised may have a decrease risk in getting HIV/AIDS as the uncut members present a more target rich environment for the virus.
Keep in mind, as I last recall, almost all of the studies that do show a benefit in the protection against HIV were from the African countries (better experimental population as there are high rates of HIV, and condom use is low). Even then, the debate is on how significant this benefit really is. In our society, the use of a condom, not only to prevent STIs by pregnancies as well, reduces the benefits of circumcision to just about statistically negligible levels.
Therefore, it really boils down to personal choice. I wouldn't make this decision about preventing HIV or other STIs. Just like any medical procedure, there will be inherent risks associated with it. However complications are very low as it is a very common procedure. The removal of the foreskin will lead to some loss of stimulation. How much so is up for debate as some say it's minimal while others say it's significant (as it's a feeling, unless there was a way to do a before and after, measurement is very subjective). There is also a matter that this is an elective procedure so you’ll have to pay for it yourself. If it's a religious/traditional choice, I won't argue with it as that's your choice on how to raise your kids. Lastly, the rate of circumcision is falling and it’s under 40% now.
For me then, I wouldn't have my son go through it as I see it as a choice issue. It's his body and he should have the final say. Sure boys have to be sure to take a little more care cleaning their unit, but the same could be said about leaving ones wisdom teeth in place. If he decides when he's older that he wants to be cut, then he can make that decision himself.
My 2 cents
P.S. and to answer the original OP, the fault is the medical doctor that performs the medical procedure unless there were some additional circumstances
__________________
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to LChoy For This Useful Post:
I have told this story in other threads about getting the tip snipped, but I know someone who is having to look into getting circumcised as an adult because his foreskin is not large enough and causes pain and will sometimes split.
This is just one circumstance and I know there are many stories on the internet detailing the negatives. My wife and I got our son done.
I know as of 2009, 32% was the rate for Canada for infants, which is part of a steady decline.
I've seen numbers for EU as low as 5%, while the US, Africa and middle east have high numbers, USA way above every other western nation.
Which is why I'm a bit bothered by the US rates, considering these are not because of religious reasons, simply for aesthetics, which we would never do to a girls genitals, but yet we do it for boys.
I have told this story in other threads about getting the tip snipped, but I know someone who is having to look into getting circumcised as an adult because his foreskin is not large enough and causes pain and will sometimes split.
This is just one circumstance and I know there are many stories on the internet detailing the negatives. My wife and I got our son done.
Yeah, I think if your son had to have it done as an adult for some reason, he'd wish that it would have been done as an infant. On the other hand, the percentage of men who need to have it done for medical reasons is so low, it's not really worth it to do as a routine thing.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
I know as of 2009, 32% was the rate for Canada for infants, which is part of a steady decline.
I've seen numbers for EU as low as 5%, while the US, Africa and middle east have high numbers, USA way above every other western nation.
Which is why I'm a bit bothered by the US rates, considering these are not because of religious reasons, simply for aesthetics, which we would never do to a girls genitals, but yet we do it for boys.
Seems the most recent numbers indicate somewhere around 50%-60% neonatal male circumcision rates, with possibly slight decrease in the last decade.
In Canada, while the latest number seems to be around around 32% nationally, it's as high as 44% in Alberta (the province with the highest rate of circumcision, and, probably not coincidentally, one of the most conservative provinces in the country):
But if you look at page 268, they show a far more interesting break-down of reasons for why the male circumsicion was conducted. To look like dad came in only second, while for health and hygiene came in 1st, at 44%. And the religious explanation for the circumcision was actually higher than I thought it would be.
If I could make a bit of a leap, and if the Canadian numbers reflect in any way reasons for why Americans might get it done (and they may not), circumcision for purely aesthetic reasons may not be the leading cause of having the operation done in the US. In fact, I would wager that, if the numbers were found, the hygiene excuse would still be #1 in the States, and the religious percentage would be even higher than it is in Canada. I also feel US conservatism probably has a role here somewhere, as well.
__________________
"An adherent of homeopathy has no brain. They have skull water with the memory of a brain."
Last edited by HPLovecraft; 11-21-2011 at 09:47 AM.
I didn't cut my son, since they wanted some ungodly fee to do it, with no real benefits.
Took a couple weeks to get used to washing it, but other than that hasn't bothered me once. He had a blocked pore (or something) near the foreskin once, and when we took him to the doctor, he swore it wasn't related to the foreskin, and happens all the time in kids - cut or not.
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
I didn't cut my son, since they wanted some ungodly fee to do it, with no real benefits.
Took a couple weeks to get used to washing it, but other than that hasn't bothered me once. He had a blocked pore (or something) near the foreskin once, and when we took him to the doctor, he swore it wasn't related to the foreskin, and happens all the time in kids - cut or not.
Do you need to pay to have at done at birth in Canada? I wasn't aware of that, but that may be another big reason why the rate is lower in Canada than the US.
This study I found on Wikipedia ( http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi...tract/99/1/138 ) mentions that, in the US, States in which Medicaid covers routine male circumcision (some states cover it still, apparently), the rate can be up to 24% higher than in states where you need to pay to have it done.
__________________
"An adherent of homeopathy has no brain. They have skull water with the memory of a brain."
Do you need to pay to have at done at birth in Canada? I wasn't aware of that, but that may be another big reason why the rate is lower in Canada than the US.
This study I found on Wikipedia ( http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi...tract/99/1/138 ) mentions that, in the US, States in which Medicaid covers routine male circumcision (some states cover it still, apparently), the rate can be up to 24% higher than in states where you need to pay to have it done.
It fluctuates between being covered and not being covered. When we had our son done it wasn't covered, it was like $240, cash only, over the doctors lunch hour.
The same doc who did my son did my brother in law when he was born (he is 13 or 14 now). It was over in about 10 minutes, they walked us through the cleaning and the kid was asleep in about 30 minutes.
