consult2

"If you are only presenting the risks and none of the BENEFITS THAT IS SUPPORTED BY RESEARCH, then you are misleading parents, and to me, that borderlines malpractice." Ok, I'll bite, what are these alleged "benefits" that are supported by valid scientific research?

Really? The US has the 6th highest HIV rates in the industrialized countries HIV cases % UNAIDS (2003) Circumcising countries: Zimbabwe........................24.6 Congo................................4.9 Malawi..............................14.2 Kenya.................................6.7 Chad..................................4.8 USA...................................0.6 Eithiopia............................4.4 Non-circumcising countries: Japan............................... Finland...............................0.1 Norway..............................0.1 Sweden.............................0.1 Germany...........................0.1 UN data from 2003 show the following AIDS rates for that year: Nation AIDS cases% Cirk rates/1995* Cirk rates/1975** USA.........................0.6........................60%.......................85% Australia...................0.1..........................8%.......................55% Canada....................0.3........................ France.....................0.4.......................... Netherlands............0.3.......................... UK...........................0.1.............................1%.........................1% Germany.................0.1.......................... Sweden.................0.1............................ Norway............. ....0.1............................. New Zealand........0.1...............................5%......................10(?) Finland................01........................... Japan................ Eithiopia...............4.4..............................100%......................100% So taking the estimated cirk rates of 20 years ago we find an amazing POSITIVE correlation between the cirk rates and the HIV rates

Really, perhaps you missed this in scienice 101? Note the last paragraph... http://www.uic.edu/classes/bios/bios100/labs/scimethod.htm The Principles of Science As this is a science class, it would be beneficial to start out with a discussion on just what is "science." Science is a methodical process which seeks to determine the secrets of the natural world by using the scientific method. The Scientific Method The scientific method is a process scientists must follow in determining the workings of the universe. There are five basic components to the scientific method: 1. From observations of the natural world, determine the nature of the phenomenon that is interesting to you (i.e. ask a question or identify a problem). 2. Develop one or more hypotheses, or educated guesses, to explain this phenomenon. The hypotheses should be predictive - given a set of circumstances, the hypothesis should predict an outcome. 3. Devise experiments to test the hypotheses. All valid scientific hypotheses must be testable. 4. Analyze the experimental results and determine to what degree do the results fit the predictions of the hypothesis. 5. Further modify and repeat the experiments. It is impossible to prove something to be true (this dips deeply into philosophy, but Truth is an ever-elusive principle.) One can create a theory with an overwhelming amount of support, but one valid piece of contrary evidence can strike it down. As such, science and scientific theories are an ever-evolving as new ideas and technologies allow us to create and test hypotheses in new and exciting ways.

The OPINIONS may be equal, but the facts and evidence are not--try following your brains. And the end of the day, WHY do something that has no proven benefit and proven harm? Which direction does one's brains lead?

Exactly! You got me.

""Well, I guess the CDC, World Health Organization, Unicef, and other, internationally recognized organizations that are dedicated to the PREVENTION of disease, are all wrong." Well the circumcision and HIV rates come from those organizations whose opinions you cite, so this begs the question: Why do their own stats contradict their opinions? Perhaps because "medical science" is mostly a consensus of OPINIONS (sometimes based on facts and evidence, and sometimes contradicted by it) and "science" is a consensus of the evidence?

And it is just as prevalent in areas that DO circumcise and those that don't --something does not compute logically.

"Well, I guess the CDC, World Health Organization, Unicef, and other, internationally recognized organizations that are dedicated to the PREVENTION of disease, are all wrong." Well, they certainly were on the latest swine-flu pandemonium they manufactured--and the bird flu, and... and Again, IF it is their OPINION that circumcision reduces HIV, WHY do we NOT see this reduction? Either their OPINIONS are wrong, or reality is wrong--so, which is it?

"An circumcision...is done with a lidocaine," very infrequently.. "does not cut into muscle, does not cut through a protective membrane that would expose major organs to possible infection and has minimal blood loss. It is considered a minor surgical procedure." not to the victim--and not to those who die from it directly or indirectly.--onlt to the perpetrators. "An appendectomy, is considered major surgery. It is done through general anesthesia and all of the risks of intubation, cutting through major muscles of the abdominal cavity, thus, placing the body at risk for adhesions, major infection, stitches, etc." So? one is UNNECESSARY and the other is necessary--what is your point?

.In SCIENCE, all it takes is ONE valid exception to make a theory invalid--you got them in Scand. and Japan--and the other rates for various countries are valid ENOUGH to complete the picture. So, again: IF circumcision reduces HIV by 50%, WHY do we not see this alleged reduction in the real world? If circumcision reduces HIV by 50%, HOW & WHY do we oft times see an increase in HIV --up to 88 fold?

Being a bit lazy are we?

"Some cried for a few minutes and then stopped. To me it did not seem that the lidocaine made much of a difference because that hurts being injected. It seems that they cried just as much either way." Of course! After the initial pain, they retreated in a trauma-induced coma-like state "My ex-boyfriend was not circ. and he was embarrased about it when we first got together. Since most men are circ. when you are one of the few that are not I think it can be embarassing for you. He always said that he wished it would have happened when he was a baby because now it would be a big ordeal." Not if you are educated and know that YOU are the lucky one--knowledge is a great confidence builder. HOW would it be a BIGGER ordeal now than as an infant?

"ETA - the actual number of intact men that end up 'having' to get circumcised as adults in the US is about 1 in 100. So we're circing, on average, 99 newborns who otherwise would have no problems, to save one person who *might* have problems that truly need fixing with circumcision." Actually the rate in foreskin-educated countries is a LOT less: First of all, for a man who was not circumcised as an infant the chances of him having to get circumcised as a adult are extremely rare. In fact it's only 6 in 100,000. (0.006%) Health officials of each Scandanavian country were queried about adult circumcision.. None of the health officials could provide precise data, because the numbers were so small that they weren't worth compiling. Each official stressed that foreskin problems were present but said they were largely treated medically-surgical solutions were extremly rare. "in Oslo, Norway, over a 26-year period in which 20,000 male babies were cared for, 3 circumcisions were performed-a frequency rate of 0.02%. In Denmark. 1968 children up to the age of 17 were examined over a period of several years. In this group, 3 circumcisions were performed-a frequency of 0.15%. In this study, in retrospect, the physicians believed that all three operations might have been avoided. Both of these studies related to the infrequency of circumcision and puberty, they did not deal with the issue in adulthood. Wallerstein, Edward, Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy. pg 128 In Finland -- a non-circumcising country -- the operative rate is only a tiny fraction of this percentage. A male's risk of being circumcised for any reason during his entire lifespan is less than one in 16,000. http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/circumcision/circumcision4.shtml The Finnish National Board of Health provided national case records for the year 1970 for both phimosis and paraphimosis. A total of 409 cases was reported for males 15 years and older,which represents only 2/100ths of 1% (0.023%) of the total male population in that age group. This means that 99.97% did NOT develop a problem. Moreover, according to Finnish authorities, only a fraction of the reported cases required surgery- a number too small to reliably estimate. Wallerstein, Edward, CIRCUMCISION: AN AMERICAN HEALTH FALLACY p.128 http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=269

"I tell them that there is a risk to permanent damage to the member from the procedure, infection that can have a major impact on urination, appearance, and future sexual performance." Do you tell them that there is a 100% chance of the loss of erogenous tissue and various rates of meatal stenosis-- removal of too much tissue, iatrogenic phimosis, glans amputation, and even death?

"The links ARE my sources...and they are from the CDC and well recognized professional medical journals with CURRENT RESEARCH." Thoise are the OPINIONS of medical organizations--not proven facts--and are contradicted by empirical evidence in the real world. "Appeal to authority" is not a valid argument especially when those organizations have a bad track record. "I graduated in May and the same information appeared in our textbooks as well as the teaching literature we give to parents at my hospital who inquire about circumcision." That is a sad commentary on the state of our medical education--stating unproven claims as scientific fact.

"There benefits that are medically documented for circumcision...such as a lowered chance of HPV and HIV infection." Really? Science demands that a theory fulfill its prediction every time, however the rates of both of these are HIGHER in circumcising countries than intact countries. HOW and Why is this possible IF circumcision reduces them? Logic and even common sense should be applied when looking at claims for benefits.

ALL circumcisions are less than perfect--they remove healthy, functional, normal erogenous tissue--the whole concept of needless infant circumcision is less than perfect--in fact harmful, and frankly, medically unethical...regardless WHO does them.

LOL, sorry I posted b4 I read you comment--and it seems you beat me to the punch.

How so?

One-sided--YES, because that is where the facts and logic lie.

No, simply stating the facts.

Functions? THESE.. http://www.norm-socal.org/lost.htm http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/lost.html *+1. The pleasures of the multifunctional foreskin, which comprises up to 50% (sometimes more) of the mobile skin system of the member. If unfolded and spread out flat, the average adult foreskin would measure about 15 square inches (the size of a 3 x 5 inch index card). This highly specialized tissue normally covers the glans like an eyelid covers the eye, protecting it from abrasion, drying, callusing (keratinization), and contaminants of all kinds. The effects on male and female sexuality resulting from the loss of such a large amount of the healthy working part of a normal member, its pleasure-producing nerves, and the subsequent keratinization of the glans have never been studied. *2. The pleasures of the frenar band of soft ridges - the primary erogenous zone of the male human body. The loss of this recently discovered belt of densely innervated, sexually responsive, and pleasure-producing tissue reduces the full range and intensity of sexual response. *+3. The pleasures of the foreskin's synergistic " gliding action" - the hallmark mechanical feature of the intact human member. This non-abrasive gliding of the member in and out of itself (elady partstion-inlady partstion) when masturbating or while within another body, facilitates smooth, comfortable, pleasurable intercourse for both partners. Without this remarkable gliding action, sex as nature intended it is impossible, and the corona of the surgically altered member malfunctions as a one-way valve, scraping natural lady partsl lubricants out into the drying air and making artificial lubricants essential for intercourse to be gentle, comfortable, and pleasurable. Circumcision makes normal sex impossible. *4. The pleasures of thousands of coiled fine-touch mechanoreceptors called Meissner's corpuscles, the single most important sensory component of the foreskin, encapsulated Vater-Pacinian cells, Merkel's cells, nociceptors, and branches of the dorsal nerve and the perineal nerve. Altogether, pathologists estimate that between 10,000 and 20,000 specialized pleasure-producing nerve endings of many types, which can feel slight motion and stretch, subtle changes in temperature, and nuance in texture, are lost. *5. The pleasures of frenulum, the highly erogenous V-shaped web-like tethering structure on the underside of the glans that is frequently amputated along with the foreskin, or severed, either of which destroys its important mechanical function and its capacity for creating pleasure. 6. The pleasures and value of approximately half of the temperature-responsive smooth muscle sheath called the dartos fascia. 7. The protection of the immunological defense system of the soft mucosa. This produces both plasma cells that secrete immunoglobulin antibodies and antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as the pathogen-killing enzyme lysozyme. 8. The protection of Lymphatic vessels, the loss of which reduces the lymph flow within that part of the body's immune system. 9. The value of Estrogen receptors - the purpose of which is not yet fully understood and needs further study. *10. The value of the apocrine glands of the inner foreskin, which secrete pheromones - nature's powerful, silent, invisible behavioral signals to potential sexual partners. The effect of their absence on human sexuality could be profound, but has never been studied. *11. The protection of the specialized epithelial Langerhans cells, a first line component of the body's immune system in a whole member. +12. The value of the pink to red to dark purple natural coloration of the glans. The connective tissue which protectively fuses the foreskin and glans together while the member develops, is ripped apart during circumcision, wounding the glans and the foreskin remnant, leaving them raw and subject to infection, scarring, pitting, shrinkage, and eventual discoloration. *+13. The pleasures of the full potential of the member length and member circumference because its double-layered wrapping of loose and usually overhanging foreskin is now missing, making the circumcised member truncated and thinner than a full-sized intact member. *14. The value of several feet of blood vessels, including the frenular artery and branches of the dorsal artery. The loss of this rich vascularity interrupts normal blood flow to the shaft and glans of the member, damaging the natural function of the member and altering its development.

You have summed it all up in this succinct and logical statement.

'My point about the money, is that compared to other inflated costs, it really isn't a significant amount - certainly not enough to make the cost a reason for doing/not doing circumcisions. OB has been known to bring much less profit to hospitals, and is considered a "loss leader" that will bring other business to most facilities - really!" Not for the OB's themselves--money made per hour, this is probably a significant portion of their income. http://www.circumstitions.com/Quotations.html#Wis "I have some good friends who are obstetricians outside the military, and they look at a foreskin and almost see a $125 price tag on it. Each one is that much money. Heck, if you do 10 a week, that's over $1,000 a week, and they don't take that much time." Dr.Thomas Wiswell quoted in the Boston Globe June 22, 1987 And in the large picture, it STILL is a multi-billion dollar industry.

" I simply debate that it is a parent's choice and we shouldn't make them feel bad about it." And I have to ask again, WHY SHOULD a parent have the right to deliberately cause unnecessary pain and harm to an unconsenting infant when there is not a single scientifically-credible benefit, and a lot of scientifically-credible evidence of unnecessary harm and pain? BTW, if your BIL feels so badly, remember HE has the choice to be circumcised..those not so fortunate are not able to do so---doesn't it all it all boils down to PERSONAL choice and human rights? IF a parent chooses to cause any OTHER form of deliberate harm, should we take extra caution to avoid making them feel badly for their decision to do so? If the answer is yes, then WHY is THIS particular decision also not subject to the same judgment?