Circumcision, why is this a thing...

[DeluxeMoustache]

This is an issue where I see most people who are biased are so biased in accordance with what they are working with.

Biologically it is a provided by nature. Medically removing it is unnecessary.

Jim Jefferies opinion is not offensive to me, but woefully uninformed which is disappointing. He also has that bit about docking - I get that he is trying to be funny, but I don’t think it works like that for most people. Unless someone has an unusually large foreskin. I don’t know.

In his segment filmed in Israel, they didn’t bother giving any medical or social hand waving and simply credited it to God’s will.

[Peanut]

I give as much credence to Jim Jeffries opinions about circumcision as I do to Jenny Mcarthy’s opinions on vaccinations.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Peanut

I give as much credence to Jim Jeffries opinions about circumcision as I do to Jenny Mcarthy’s opinions on vaccinations.

The difference being he’s a comedian and she’s just an insane person.

[DuffMan]

chicks dig it, which is good enough for me. I'd have it done again, if my parents didn't already see to it many years ago for me.

[pseudoreality]

I find the hygiene argument hilarious. "Let's remove part of our son's penis so he doesn't have to wash." It's like a co-worker of mine who said her brother has his kids teeth pulled, because you know he has six kids. The implication was he was too busy to brush them.

[CliffFletcher]

In some cultures they pierce a baby's ear. Like circumcision, it's a moment or two of pain.

In both cases it's a custom that doesn't have a whole lot of purpose, but also doesn't do any genuine harm. It's just an odd thing to get worked up about.

[LChoy]

This topic is one of those things that will become controversial no matter what because it deals with:
- Parenting
- Ethics/morals/religion/consent
- The penis



For me, I have also recently had to think about this decision as we are expecting a boy early next year. I also have a background in health policy and work in an evidence based health organization

I will say to the OP that you question is quite timely, as the Canadian Paediatric Society very recently reviewed their position on newborn circumcision.

As of Sept 2015, the Society has maintained that they do not recommend the procedure for every newborn male. The American society has also reviewed their position, and also do not recommend it (citation needed)

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

Note the study is reviewing the procedure based on medical evidence only, and does not take into account of religious and ethical reasoning behind their decision

While there is some evidence that circumcision may convey some positive benefits, the risk/reward ratio is so balanced, and with availability of other procedures and options that can convey similar benefits (use of contraceptives, HPV vaccines), that it is challenging to make definitive recommendations for the entire male newborn population in Canada.

At the end of the day, it is ultimately the parents decision, and it should be made with all of the facts on the pros and cons of having the procedure done. If you do have the procedure, please ensure that it is done at the hospital by the OB doctor. While the numbers show most of the time everything is done correctly, the stats behind complications due to this procedure is higher than expected.

Lastly from a policy perspective, based on the decision, it is likely the procedure will remain uncovered by universal health care.

Originally Posted by Lchoy

I posted this in the last circumcision thread, but since this one is still going, I figure I post it here as well.

Just some addition information to answer some of the questions I've seen in this thread:

I attached the CPS benefit and risk table. This can help illustrate what the numbers show from their review:

TABLE 1: Potential risks and benefits of neonatal circumcision

Outcome/Effect size (reference)

Potential risks
Minor bleeding/ 1.5% (combined)
Local infection (minor)/ NNH = 67 [39]
Severe infection/ Extremely rare
Death from unrecognized bleeding/ Extremely rare
Meatal stenosis/ NNH 10–50 (<1% when petroleum
jelly is used)

Potential benefits
Prevention of phimosis/ NNT = 67 [7]
Decrease in early UTI/ NNT = 111 – 125 [16]
Decrease in UTI in males with
risk factors (anomaly or
recurrent infection)/ NNT = 4 – 6 [15]
Decreased acquisition of HIV/ NNT = 298 (65 – 1231 depending
on population) [28]
Decreased acquisition of HSV/ NNT = 16 [32]
Decreased acquisition of HPV/ NNT = 5 [32][35]
Decreased penile cancer risk/ NNT = 900 – 322,000 [36][37]
Decreased cervical cancer risk
in female partners/ NNT = 90 – 140 [35]

HPV Human papillomavirus; HSV Herpes simplex virus; NNH Number needed to harm; NNT Number needed to treat; UTI Urinary tract infection

Also I checked the latest American Pediatric Society recommendation. I was wrong in my post above as they do recommend for parents that choose it, as they also describe a benefit to having it done.

I think it's interesting that the Canadian society actually says not recommended for all boys, but the Americans just leave it as recommended if parents choose it. Similar findings, but the message is slightly different.

Also something interesting between Canadians and Americans is the rate of circumcision. Canada is about 30%, and Americans are closer to 60%. I don't have the figures internationally, but I would expect a higher rate in middle east countries, and lower for Europe, Australia, and Asia.

Lastly, the thing I most stress is to have the procedure done by trained professionals in a health care sitting:

Although this didn't help in the original post

Anyways, debate away as both the US and Canada regulatory body leaves the decision ultimately to the parents

LChoy

Bringing back something I posted in the last thread
Note that the official Canadian Paediatric Society policy was reaffirmed earlier this year (Feb 2018), upholding that the CPS does not recommend the routine circumcision of every newborn male.

LChoy

[Cain]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

In some cultures they pierce a baby's ear. Like circumcision, it's a moment or two of pain.

In both cases it's a custom that doesn't have a whole lot of purpose, but also doesn't do any genuine harm. It's just an odd thing to get worked up about.

I think this is a highly subjective coloring of it. It is still a permanent body modification for no real purpose. You can debate the loss of sensation all day, but even disregarding that totally, it is still infringing upon that childs right to make the choice themselves. Yes parents make a lot of choices for their children, but this is a quite permanent one with potential ramifications down the road.

I am shocked that people can so rightly see how doing an analogous procedure to a little girl (one of the minor forms of fgm) is abominable (and it is) but then turn around and be completely fine with it being performed on a little boy. Not sure on the reasoning, but the disconnect is very strange.

[V]

Most of the decisions we parents make are permanent with future ramifications.

Horrific mutilation. Haha.

We didn't our boys done because it was a hassle we didn't see the point of doing. So really, we were just lazy. I didn't realize there were crazy people out there losing their minds about this, though.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

In some cultures they pierce a baby's ear. Like circumcision, it's a moment or two of pain.

In both cases it's a custom that doesn't have a whole lot of purpose, but also doesn't do any genuine harm. It's just an odd thing to get worked up about.

A moment or two of pain to achieve a potential lifetime of reduced sensation done entirely against the will of the victim for literally no upside and against the recommendation of CPS. It's abhorrent to mutilate the genitals of your children and just because a tribe in Zimbabwe pierces their babies' ears doesn't make it okay.

Unless medically necessary, it's a violent assault on a helpless baby.

[Erick Estrada]

I was born in Europe so I'm a hooded monk. That said I don't have strong feelings about this either way (the pros and cons of each are pretty minor IMO) and the only reason I wanted it done to my boys is because most women (in North America) prefer it and it's easier to clean.

[OMG!WTF!]

But there are benefits to male circumcision. Lots of benefits to both the "victim" and the women they have sex with throughout their lives.

Evidence-based policy statements by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) support infant and later age male circumcision (MC) as a desirable public health measure. Our systematic review of relevant literature over the past decade yielded 140 journal articles that met our inclusion criteria. Together, these showed that early infant MC confers immediate and lifelong benefits by protecting against urinary tract infections having potential adverse long-term renal effects, phimosis that causes difficult and painful erections and “ballooning” during urination, inflammatory skin conditions, inferior penile hygiene, candidiasis, various sexually transmissible infections in both sexes, genital ulcers, and penile, prostate and cervical cancer. Our risk-benefit analysis showed that benefits exceeded procedural risks, which are predominantly minor, by up to 200 to 1. We estimated that more than 1 in 2 uncircumcised males will experience an adverse foreskin-related medical condition over their lifetime. Wide-ranging evidence from surveys, physiological measurements, and the anatomical location of penile sensory receptors responsible for sexual sensation strongly and consistently suggested that MC has no detrimental effect on sexual function, sensitivity or pleasure. United States studies showed that early infant MC is cost saving. The evidence supporting early infant MC has further strengthened since the positive AAP and CDC reviews.

Weird battle to fight for sure.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by V

Most of the decisions we parents make are permanent with future ramifications.

Horrific mutilation. Haha.

We didn't our boys done because it was a hassle we didn't see the point of doing. So really, we were just lazy. I didn't realize there were crazy people out there losing their minds about this, though.

Who is losing their mind?

If you didn't see the point of doing it, then you didn't do it because of that. Not because you were lazy. The default is to not do it...not remove something "just because".

Clearly there are millions of circumcised men operating around the world today fully functional and happy. It doesn't mean that it isn't worth examining why we are doing this and whether or not we should be. To be honest I find the unyielding justifications given for doing it fascinating. Troubling, but quite interesting.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I was born in Europe so I'm a hooded monk. That said I don't have strong feelings about this either way (the pros and cons of each are pretty minor IMO) and the only reason I wanted it done to my boys is because most women (in North America) prefer it and it's easier to clean.

Most men prefer large breasts so perhaps we should look into parents choosing to help their daughters out with that without consultation?

Cleaning is a non issue if you have a shower.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Cain

Cleaning is a non issue if you have a shower.

I don’t really have strong feelings one way or another either. But this part keeps bothering me. Obviously it isn’t a non issue because I know of several men who have had to have this procedure done for one reason or another.

[Zarley]

Why do you guys have such strong opinions on this?

It seems pretty inconsequential to me.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

I don’t really have strong feelings one way or another either. But this part keeps bothering me. Obviously it isn’t a non issue because I know of several men who have had to have this procedure done for one reason or another.

I don't really follow. There are medical reasons to get a circumcision. Cleaning isn't one of them.

[Matata]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

In some cultures they pierce a baby's ear. Like circumcision, it's a moment or two of pain.

In both cases it's a custom that doesn't have a whole lot of purpose, but also doesn't do any genuine harm. It's just an odd thing to get worked up about.

As an adult, I could be convinced to pierce my ear, but there is nothing you can say that would get me to voluntarily chop my hoodie off.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Cain

Most men prefer large breasts so perhaps we should look into parents choosing to help their daughters out with that without consultation?

Cleaning is a non issue if you have a shower.

You let me know when breast enlargement on infant female children is a thing and maybe then we can have a rational discussion comparing it to circumcision.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Cain

I don't really follow. There are medical reasons to get a circumcision. Cleaning isn't one of them.

Actually it is. Given average levels of hygiene there are more infections causing medical intervention with uncircumcised males. You do the typical best case scenario in your arguments. That's not the average or mean in any argument much less this one.