Registered User
No, I meant the *possible* health benefits to being done that are often cited. (Penile cancer etc.)
There are the same amount of negs & positives to be found for both decisions.but looking at the big picture, and based on current research, there are far more negatives than positives to routine circumcision of the newborn.
Registered User
GregMonarche, I've been reading back through the posts and I must say that I fully agree with you.
The comments on the penis being ugly if not circumcised, complaints about not being done ect are right on the ball. From all the comments I've heard from friends and family. It's great to see such a huge discussion on the topic and also that support for the parents who decided to circumcise their sons is around.
Ohh and Sorry for jumping in on this thread, couldn't help myself!
Snoopea
Registered User
I think whether it's "ugly" or not is in the eye of the beholder. Imagine if men started to label uncircumsized vaginas as "ugly"? I think that's a bit unfair. My boys do not have ugly penis's
Registered User
I don't think any penises are particularly attracive whether snipped or not!
But I agree with Snoopea in that it's great to be able to read everyone's thoughts here without anyone getting too judgemental... both our boys were done in the 1st few days of their lives, and neither was bothered by the procedure. We had various reasons for doing it, all of which have been covered here already.
It is a very personal thing though, and I don't think anyone has the right to try and change someone's mind one way or the other.
Registered User
I agree with the Bathsheba regarding the "ugly" issue. My darling DS doesn't have an ugly penis. I for one am all for keeping the Christmas wrapping on. DS was born with it, it's part of his perfect little body!
BellyBelly Life Subscriber
Well, not really.
An analysis research indicates that you need to perform six circumcisions to prevent one case of penile cancer; and two circumcisions to prevent one case of urinary tract infection.
The realistic rate of complications from circumcision performed by a competent practitioner is 10%; Some studies have quoted as low as 0.06%, while some as high as 60% (!) depending on the practitioner.
So that means, if you take circumcision as a way of preventing penile cancer, you need to run a 60% chance of penile complications, to prevent one case of a very rare form of cancer.
As far as infection is concerned, there is also significant body of research that suggests that while circumcision shows a reduction in the rate of UTIs in young boys, there are other ways. A circumcised penis is colonised by various bacteria more rapidly than an uncircumcised one, because it lacks the natural protection of the foreskin, and in babies, we are scrupulous in keeping the penis clean, and as a result, the glans of an uncircumcised penis is not colonised with "normal" bacteria until much later. As a result, it lacks the normal defense to the "abnormal" bacteria that are known to cause urinary tract infection. Some studies have suggested that a much safer solution would be to encourage rooming in and even co-sleeping between newly born babies and mothers, in order that the babies become colonised with natural flora more rapidly.
For more information, you can read a fairly comprehensive run-down on the evidence for and against circumcision at Neonatal Circumcision Revisited - this was a journal article from the Canadian Paediatric Society, around two years ago, and it is supported by both the American Paediatric Association and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners.
Last edited by Schmickers; July 16th, 2008 at 11:44 PM.
Registered User
Earlier in the thread it was said not having a foreskin meant the head skin thickened and became desensitised to sex - and now here, it has less protection. How funny this all is, LOL! As above, there is always info to contradict each contradiction. I've read many times the foreskin has much thinner (inner) skin, which allows in the nasties. So with it, bacteria gets in - and without it, bacteria gets in.
BTW... I stumbled on this site again tonight, when I was cleaning up my computer. Those more confused than ever may like to check it out:
CIRCUMCISION: An Evidence-Based Appraisal
I didn't go right through it, but did note that circumcision is growing again in popularity. (I *think* he quoted about 60%?) Which goes against the tiny couple of % the anti sites often quote.
Registered User
OH - and I meant to add... That I never claimed circumcised was more attractive - nor was it a valid reason for having it done. I just answered what I saw as a silly statement - that uncircumcised was more sexually attractive/pleasing to women.
As someone pointed out above - either way is attractive to different people - or even neither is.
BellyBelly Life Subscriber
Greg, I think you've misunderstood what I was saying, and certainly not read the article I linked to which explained it in more detail.
In terms of it's effects on sexual function, the process of keratinization, which is the thickening of the normally thin skin of the glans penis as a result of the loss of protection from the foreskin, is well documented. It's effects on sexual function are, as I mentioned, quite difficult to quantify.
In terms of protection from the UTI, the colonisation of the glans penis by bacteria following the removal of the foreskin is also, once more, well documented, and part of the same process - the fact that the naturally well-protected glans penis is exposed to the outside world. It is thought, as outlined in the article I linked to, that the reason thay circumcised penises protect against UTIs has nothing to do with hygeine, because in reality, an uncircumcised penis is much easier to keep clean than a circumcised penis, because the foreskin protects it. No, the real reason it appears that circumcision protects against UTIs is that the circumcised penis becomes colonised with normal flora more quickly, and these normal flora compete with the organisms that cause UTI, making it much harder for them to grow on the glans penis and contaminate it.
However, there are other solutions to this problem. As suggested in the article I linked to, there is no reason why the uncircumcised penis should not be colonised with normal flora as quickly as the uncircumcised penis, except that we are so scrupulous about hygeine with babies, and that most babies do not room in with their parents and as a result, do not have the kind of extended contact with other bodies that they need to develop this normal flora.
I think the moral of the story is that we need to think about striking a balance between keeping a baby clean (good idea) and keeping it isolated from the world around it (bad idea) and that the evidence points to this being as significant a factor as circumcision on the prevention of UTIs.
Also to be considered, as I mentioned above, based on the available statistics, you need to perform two circumcisions to prevent one case of UTI. This entails a 20% chance of penile complications arising from circumcision for each UTI you have prevented by circumcising. Is this an acceptable risk? I think that when you consider the (relatively minor) risks of a UTI, especially given that they are easily treatable, probably not.
And attractiveness? I agree with you Greg, that's a pretty silly reason to perform surgery on a penis. If you want to perform cosmetic surgery, wait until the child is 18 and then ask them whether they want to be circumcised to look "more" or "less" attractive.
Earlier in the thread it was said not having a foreskin meant the head skin thickened and became desensitised to sex - and now here, it has less protection. How funny this all is, LOL! As above, there is always info to contradict each contradiction. I've read many times the foreskin has much thinner (inner) skin, which allows in the nasties. So with it, bacteria gets in - and without it, bacteria gets in.
BTW... I stumbled on this site again tonight, when I was cleaning up my computer. Those more confused than ever may like to check it out:
CIRCUMCISION: An Evidence-Based Appraisal
I didn't go right through it, but did note that circumcision is growing again in popularity. (I *think* he quoted about 60%?) Which goes against the tiny couple of % the anti sites often quote.
BellyBelly Life Subscriber
And also - that Circinfo site you posted is a blatantly pro-circumcision website, which does little to try and support it's assertions. I'd be wary of any site which is not endorsed by one of the major Paediatrician associations, or any articles not drawn from peer-reviewed publications.
All of the above I have posted is my medical opinion. My personal opinion? I think that we are in the "dying days" of circumcision as a practice. I believe that within a generation it will be made illegal in first world countries without a valid medical reason, in much the same way that female circumcision has been made illegal. And I certainly acknowledge that female circumcision is a much more drastic and damaging procedure, I think the same justifications for banning it in females apply to males - the risks of damage to penile and sexual function, and the questionable benefits.
Registered User
Michael, I fail to see how you can justify banning circumcision in males, for the same reasons of female circumcision. Both, as you are well aware, are on opposite ends of the scale. Females are not circumcised, they are mutilated. Mutilation, and circumcision are completely seperate. Female "circumcision" as you call it, is akin to having the entire head of the penis removed, as well as the foreskin.
Last edited by Damo; July 17th, 2008 at 01:36 PM.
Moderator
Micheal, I think you're wrong that we're in the dying days. On the contrary circumcision seems to be gaining popularity again.
TBH I think that comparing male circumcision to FGM is rather dismissive of the horror of FGM. It's a comparison many people campaigning against FGM dislike because it encourages people to think of FGM as being on the same level as male circumcision. When people think that FGM is akin to male circumcision they then fail to recognise how awful it really is.
As Damo ponted out a clitoral excision is equivilent to removing the entire head of the penis not just a bit of skin.
Registered User
Michael I think your contribution to this thread provides a very good balance especially advising that any web site on circumcision be authorised by paediatricians. Well said
I also found that info really interesting about co-sleeping helping to maintain healthy bacteria populations on babies' bodies. It makes so much sense and is good to know that I'm providing this service for my co-sleeping toddler
Registered User
Michael, while I agree with you on most points, I too have to disagree with the reference to FGM.
Greg, I don't think that there will ever be the proportion of circ'ed boys in this generation compared to Gen X and early Gen Y'ers. I think we are only seeing a resurgence due to the fact that Gen X'ers are now becoming fathers themselves and are mostly going the purely cosmetic 'to look like Dad' route.
You do also have to ask yourself if there was such a need for it, why did it stop becomming a routine practice in newborns? Why are there so few Drs that still do it these days? There must have been a reason for it to stop as we all know the medical fraternity seems to hate change (or is that just in the obstetrict area?) so I find it highly unlikely that they stopped without a valid reason kwim?
I don't think it should be made illegal however, because it would discriminate against those who do it for religious purposes.
At the end of the day it is kind of pointless to even have a discussion about it because we will all do what WE think is best for OUR children and its none of our business what anyone else does with their children.
Registered User
I agree with this. I suspect that at the end of the day the medical profession were seeing more complications from being cut than benefits.
You do also have to ask yourself if there was such a need for it, why did it stop becomming a routine practice in newborns? Why are there so few Drs that still do it these days? There must have been a reason for it to stop as we all know the medical fraternity seems to hate change (or is that just in the obstetrict area?
BellyBelly Life Subscriber
I'd like to apologise to anyone whom I offended by my comparison of male circumcision to female circumcision. It was not my intent to compare the horror of female genital mutilation to male circumcision, and I understand the objections of the anti-FGM lobby to comparison with male circumcision, in terms of raising awareness of the harsh realities of this act.
However, FGM covers a wide spectrum of surgical procedures, from excision or cutting of the clitoral hood, to clitoridectomy, to female genital infibulation. In terms of this spectrum, the act of male circumcision is analogous to the excision of the clitoral head, whilst leaving the clitoris and labia intact.
That particular form of female genital mutilation, along with the other more severe forms, is illegal, because it is a human rights issue and potentially affects the sexual function of the child in later years, and there are no good justifications for performing it.
As I specified, the opinions in my last post were of a personal nature. Any surgical alteration of the genitals of a female child without medical cause is illegal in most first world countries, certainly all Western countries that I know of. It is my personal belief that this state of affairs will, in a generation, also apply to male circumcision.
From a purely professional point of view, there are simply no good benefits to male circumcision that outweigh the cost in terms of penile complications - at least in first world countries where there is access to effective forms of barrier contraception and sex education. As seen in this thread, the main reasons stated (in fact, for the most part, the only reasons stated) are:
- Avoidance of gential and urinary tract infection;
- Cosmetic reasons;
- Avoidance of penile cancer later in life;
So long as male circumcision remains legal in this country, then every parent has a right to elect to circumcise their son, but I question the wisdom of undertaking a procedure that carries with it a 10% risk of some sort of complication affecting the penis for purely cosmetic reasons - I know as a parent that I wouldn't do it. And as I have previously mentioned, there is a large body of research that suggests that there are far more cost-effective and less invasive ways to deal with those problems than routine circumcision.
Last edited by Schmickers; July 17th, 2008 at 03:45 PM. : Infibulation is a very difficult word to spell.
BellyBelly Life Subscriber
(My own emphasis)
Many of you disagree with the comparison of male circumcision to FGM, and as mentioned previously, I respect that. However, religious reasons are also used to justify FGM. It still occurs in this country, in particular amongst Sudanese women, once more, for "religious reasons". As long as we are in the realm of personal opinion, it is my personal opinion that "religious reasons" is no more a justification to perform a medical procedure on a male newborn without medical cause than it is to commit FGM. I agree, the degree of mutilation is vastly different - but at the end of the day, I honestly think that circumcision without good medical cause is wrong one way or the other.
Registered User
I tend to agree with that point as well Michael... you beat me to it. I would never challenge a parent performing circumcision for religious reasons but I do most respectfully and in the hope of not offending but I do personally believe that circumcision ought to be performed only for purely medical reasons... just like an appendectomy. It's just my opinion and my opinion is no better than any one else's.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks