Re: When circ's go bad...
Not true that only uncircumcised males get penile cancer. Also, most of the cases of penile cancer have been attributed to HPV (just like cervical cancer which they previously tried to blame on the foreskin as well):
"Penile cancer is one of the rarest cancers - rarer even than breast cancer in men - and figures for it are hard to come by. Circumcised men get penile cancer at about the same tiny rate as intact men. Studies that seemed to show a correlation had not been corrected for age; penile cancer is a disease of old men, and the old men with cancer in the studies had simply been born at a time when circumcision was less customary than when the younger men without cancer were born. When men of the same ages were compared, the correlation vanished."
http://www.circumstitions.com/Cancer.html
Male breast cancer amounted to 1,400 cases, with 260 deaths, so American men are more likely to suffer and die of breast cancer than penile cancer - yet no-one suggests neonatal amputation of a male's useless breasts to protect him against this malignancy. Also, according to statistics at the American Cancer Society, being a female with an intact labia is twice as dangerous (labia cancer) as having an intact foreskin (penile cancer). I wonder why no one removes male breast tissue and women's labia's at birth to prevent cancer later?
Figures from the American Cancer Society.
Originally Posted by hippienurse I was always totally against circ'ing as uncessary until I read a medical journal article (I was referred by a friend who is a doctor) about cancer of the penis. Basically 100% of men who get it are uncirc'ed. So, for this reason and this reason only will I have my boy circ'ed if I ever have one. I figure it is a bit of pain they won't conciously remember whereas most with that cancer have to have a penectomy or partial penectomy.
Nursing News