Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LOL if a "woman" turns you down because part of your penis you were born with then she is CERTAINLY not marriage material and doesn't deserve the time of day with you.Even though it is safer and painless in infancy? That only makes liberal sense. Although a lot of men may be forced into having circumcision as an adult when they get turned down by women. I feel sorry for them. It's a bad decision to have to make.
Some men keep getting infections so they have to get it done, so it is medically necessary..as far as infancy , I think it is a personal family decision ( no one else should be involved )
Ah, the good old days of identifying jews by looking at their penises. It makes it easier to sort them out, eh?Ban on young boys’ circumcision proposed in Norway
Of course the tribe is freaking out....I hope it passes!
Disgusting adn ridiculous but the muslims run almost everything over there now anyway.
Really I think the only reason it exists in some religions is because of the hot climate and lack of running water in the desert areas where they originated.
the usefulness of a foreskin ended when the beings of the genus HOMINID ----
descended from the trees----and stood upright. ----ie, no longer getting scratched
up whilst swinging in the trees
Circumcision is NOT genital mutilation. It does not interfere with enjoyment or function. And it has no other implications if done with care at that early age.
In an age where folks are condoning "sex assignment" before puberty ---- I think there are more serious "abuses" to discuss. And GOVERNMENT shouldn't have a say in this. Because if the WRONG people get in charge, all those piercings and hormone therapies are gonna be on the table...
Of course it is genital mutilation. It is by definition. What the heck's the matter with you. You people are nuts. If there was a religion that required the loping off of the right earlobe of a newborn, do you think it would not be mutilation? You people are unbelievable.
It's minor cosmetic surgery. NOT mutilation. You have to have INTENT to cause harm or gross incompetency for it to be "mutilation". Doctors who perform this practice are not "mutilators"...
Newborn Male Circumcision
Newborn Male Circumcision
8/27/2012
After a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence, the American Academy of Pediatrics found the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision. The AAP policy statement published Monday, August 27, says the final decision should still be left to parents to make in the context of their religious, ethical and cultural beliefs.
Cut the hysterical rhetoric and take it up with the "nuts" at the Academy..
Male circumcision isn't mutilation, FGM now that's mutilation and is one of the most wicked and heinous crimes committed on a human being and any nation that tolerates FGM should be made international pariahs.
Male circumcision is performed for a variety of reasons, which also include if the foreskin is too tight.
Circumcision or non-Circumcision are both okay, with the latter as long as they keep their um member clean, then there's nothing wrong with non-Circumcision either.
However I wish people would stop referring to male circumcision as mutilation, if they want to see actual mutilation then have a stiff drink and have a look at the horror that's FGM which is essentially nothing but absolute butchery.
Really I think the only reason it exists in some religions is because of the hot climate and lack of running water in the desert areas where they originated.
the usefulness of a foreskin ended when the beings of the genus HOMINID ----
descended from the trees----and stood upright. ----ie, no longer getting scratched
up whilst swinging in the trees
Who is swinging in trees?
Circumcision is NOT genital mutilation. It does not interfere with enjoyment or function. And it has no other implications if done with care at that early age.
In an age where folks are condoning "sex assignment" before puberty ---- I think there are more serious "abuses" to discuss. And GOVERNMENT shouldn't have a say in this. Because if the WRONG people get in charge, all those piercings and hormone therapies are gonna be on the table...
Of course it is genital mutilation. It is by definition. What the heck's the matter with you. You people are nuts. If there was a religion that required the loping off of the right earlobe of a newborn, do you think it would not be mutilation? You people are unbelievable.
Circumcision is NOT genital mutilation. It does not interfere with enjoyment or function. And it has no other implications if done with care at that early age.
In an age where folks are condoning "sex assignment" before puberty ---- I think there are more serious "abuses" to discuss. And GOVERNMENT shouldn't have a say in this. Because if the WRONG people get in charge, all those piercings and hormone therapies are gonna be on the table...
Of course it is genital mutilation. It is by definition. What the heck's the matter with you. You people are nuts. If there was a religion that required the loping off of the right earlobe of a newborn, do you think it would not be mutilation? You people are unbelievable.
It's minor cosmetic surgery. NOT mutilation. You have to have INTENT to cause harm or gross incompetency for it to be "mutilation". Doctors who perform this practice are not "mutilators"...
Newborn Male Circumcision
Newborn Male Circumcision
8/27/2012
After a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence, the American Academy of Pediatrics found the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision. The AAP policy statement published Monday, August 27, says the final decision should still be left to parents to make in the context of their religious, ethical and cultural beliefs.
Cut the hysterical rhetoric and take it up with the "nuts" at the Academy..
Male circumcision isn't mutilation, FGM now that's mutilation and is one of the most wicked and heinous crimes committed on a human being and any nation that tolerates FGM should be made international pariahs.
Male circumcision is performed for a variety of reasons, which also include if the foreskin is too tight.
Circumcision or non-Circumcision are both okay, with the latter as long as they keep their um member clean, then there's nothing wrong with non-Circumcision either.
However I wish people would stop referring to male circumcision as mutilation, if they want to see actual mutilation then have a stiff drink and have a look at the horror that's FGM which is essentially nothing but absolute butchery.
There is little difference between male genital mutilation and Type I female genital mutilation.
FGM and male circumcision: should there be a separate ethical discourse? | Practical Ethics
Really I think the only reason it exists in some religions is because of the hot climate and lack of running water in the desert areas where they originated.
the usefulness of a foreskin ended when the beings of the genus HOMINID ----
descended from the trees----and stood upright. ----ie, no longer getting scratched
up whilst swinging in the trees
Who is swinging in trees?
Me -- occasionally. And believe me I don't think a foreskin would be much of an advantage.
I subscribe to the "you never miss what you didn't know" philosophy about the whole deal. UNLESS -- I find out I'm missing something important... Then I'd be pissed...
Circumcision is NOT genital mutilation. It does not interfere with enjoyment or function. And it has no other implications if done with care at that early age.
In an age where folks are condoning "sex assignment" before puberty ---- I think there are more serious "abuses" to discuss. And GOVERNMENT shouldn't have a say in this. Because if the WRONG people get in charge, all those piercings and hormone therapies are gonna be on the table...
Circumcision is NOT genital mutilation. It does not interfere with enjoyment or function. And it has no other implications if done with care at that early age.
In an age where folks are condoning "sex assignment" before puberty ---- I think there are more serious "abuses" to discuss. And GOVERNMENT shouldn't have a say in this. Because if the WRONG people get in charge, all those piercings and hormone therapies are gonna be on the table...
Yes it is mutilation and its also child abuse.
Infant male circumcision is genital mutilation | Martin Robbins
Complications from Circumcision
The Myths and Facts of Circumcision | Intact America
Mutilation is a loaded term, so let me be clear what I mean. I don't mean that circumcision is mutilation. If consenting adults want to modify their bodies by snipping a bit off here or adding a bit there, then that's their right, and beauty is very much in the eye of the beholder.
Infant circumcision is a completely different matter. Infant circumcision involves performing surgery without consent to permanently alter an individual's genitals. In many cases this is done without good medical justification, for example to force the infant to conform to the expectations of a particular religion. Just as we call sex without consent 'rape', circumcision without consent or reasonable justification should be called 'mutilation'.
Cutting off a part of a baby's penis is mutilation. There is little difference between MGM, as practiced in the U.S., and Type I FGM. In civilized countries, both should be banned completely. At a minimum the individual should be of an age to decide for himself or herself, not the parents.
DEFICIENCIES OF THE 2012 AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS REPORT ON CIRCUMCISION
- The AAP report conflicts with positions in other countries that recommend against circumcision or are discussing restricting it. Other countries recognize the inherent physical, sexual, and psychological harm of circumcision and that it violates medical ethics to cut off a natural, healthy, functioning body part.
- The effects of circumcision pain and changes in infant behavior after circumcision are not mentioned in the AAP report. Studies show that circumcision is significantly painful, traumatic, and affects the brain as evidenced by large increases in heart rate, blood pressure, and stress hormone levels during circumcision. Some infants do not cry because they go into shock. After circumcision there are changes in infant behavior, sleep patterns, activity level, more irritability, and there are disruptions in mother-child bonding and feeding. Anesthetics, if used, consist of injections into the penis and do not eliminate circumcision pain.
- All circumcision risks and ethical objections to circumcision are not mentioned in the AAP report. Circumcision has about two dozen surgical risks including, in rare cases, death. Some doctors and nurses refuse to perform or assist with circumcisions because of ethical considerations.
- The AAP report does not mention the anatomy and functions of the foreskin. Based on medical studies, circumcision removes up to one-half of the erogenous tissue on the penile shaft. The adult foreskin is a double layer, a movable sleeve equivalent to approximately twelve square inches. Medical studies have shown that the foreskin protects the penile head, enhances sexual pleasure, and facilitates intercourse. (Common sense check: If the AAP used common sense, they would realize that missing twelve square inches of erogenous tissue would have an adverse effect on sexual function.)The AAP deleted information about the functions of the foreskin in a pamphlet for parents.
- The AAP report does not examine the connection between circumcision and erectile dysfunction though it is reported in the medical literature. Cutting off the foreskin removes several kinds of specialized nerves and results in the thickening and progressive desensitization of exposed erogenous tissue that would normally be protected by the foreskin. In a 2011 survey, circumcised men were 4.5 times more likely than those who were not circumcised to use an erectile dysfunction drug.
- The AAP report does not mention psychological harm. Some dissatisfied men report wide-ranging psychological consequences of circumcision including anger, a sense of loss and sadness, and sexual anxieties. Reduced emotional expression and the avoidance of intimacy may also be related to circumcision.
Most circumcised men may seem satisfied because they accept cultural beliefs about circumcision and may not understand what circumcision is and the benefits of the foreskin. They may suppress certain feelings about circumcision because they are too painful. They also may not disclose these feelings due to fear of being dismissed or ridiculed.
- The AAP report is influenced by personal, cultural, financial, and professional conflicts of interest.These factors include committee members' circumcision status, number of circumcisions performed, circumcision status of any male children, and religious or ethnic background.
- The AAP report inflates the potential benefits by stating in its summary, for example, that circumcision "prevents" penile cancer. A closer look at the report text shows that the incidence of penile cancer is 0.58 case in 100,000 in the United States, where circumcision is common, and 0.82 case in 100,000 in Denmark, where circumcision is rare. According to studies cited in the report, between 909 and 322,000 circumcisions would be required to prevent one case of penile cancer. (Common sense check: Do these numbers support circumcision to "prevent" penile cancer?)
- The AAP report inflates the potential benefits by stating in its summary, for example, that circumcision "prevents" urinary tract infection (UTI). The report text states, "Given that the risk of UTI among this population [boys under age 2] is approximately 1%, the number needed to circumcise to prevent UTI is approximately 100." Therefore, 99 boys out of 100 receive no UTI "benefit" from circumcision. UTI is treatable with antibiotics. Good medical practice requires the least intrusive form of effective treatment. All the claimed "preventive health benefits" are debatable and insignificant.
- "Preventive [or potential] health benefits" are not actual health benefits. The overwhelming majority of males who are not circumcised will not get these infections or diseases. Therefore, circumcision does not give them any health benefit.
- Professionals have challenged many studies cited by the AAP report. For example, the AAP report mentions studies that claim reduced HIV transmission in Africa for circumcised men. However, (1) About 60 circumcisions were required to prevent one HIV infection. (2) The studies did not seek to determine the source of the HIV infections. Most HIV infections in Africa are transmitted by contaminated injections and surgical procedures. (3) The studies were not consistent with other evidence. (4) In Europe, where circumcision is rare, there is no increase in the incidence of HIV transmission. (5) Studies of African adults cannot be applicable to American infants.
- In its discussion of over three pages attempting to show that circumcision reduces STDs, the AAP report does not mention the word "condom." Condoms are much more effective (99%) than circumcision, less invasive, much less costly, and they protect women from infection. (Common sense check: If a condom is better than circumcision, why circumcise?)
- The AAP report even attempts to make an issue of penile hygiene. In all previous AAP reports, hygiene is not an issue. For example, according to the 1999 report, "there is little evidence to affirm the association between circumcision status and optimal penile hygiene."
- The AAP report ignores serious ethical questions connected with cutting off an important, healthy, and irreplaceable part of a child's body without medical justification.
- The AAP Committee on Bioethics report states, "Pediatric health care providers … have legal and ethical duties to their child patients to render competent medical care based on what the patient needs, not what someone else expresses… .[T]he pediatrician's responsibilities to his or her patient exist independent of parental desires or proxy consent." For these reasons, some physicians and nurses refuse to circumcise for ethical reasons. Yet the AAP report concluded that it is "legitimate" to circumcise if the parent requests it for nonmedical reasons. These two reports of the AAP are in conflict. This office wrote to a member of the AAP Committee on Bioethics requesting comment on this conflict. No response was received. (See bottom of page with letter to Susan Blank, Chair of the AAP Task Force on Circumcision.
- Circumcision violates the Golden Rule. Adults would not consent to having a healthy genital part cut off, with or without pain medication. Yet adults put a helpless, vulnerable, sensitive newborn child through this painful ordeal.
- According to an article in the medical literature, circumcision violates all seven principles of Medical Ethics. (Denniston, G., "Circumcision and the Code of Ethics," Humane Health Care International 12 (1996): 72-74)
- The AAP report lacks balance. It uses much more space discussing potential benefits as compared to potential harms. This is consistent with their "Statement of the Issue" which only refers to "possible benefits" and ignores harms. The "Literature Search Overview" also ignores topics and questions related to harms, which are different from risks and complications.
- In its recommendations for future research, the AAP report calls for research into potential benefits. There is no mention of future research into the harm. Unexplored areas include testing male infants, older children, and adults for changes in feelings, attitudes, and behaviors (especially antisocial behavior); physiological, neurological, and neurochemical differences; and sexual and emotional functioning.
For example, the effect of circumcision on male distrust, anxiety, and anger toward women is unrecognized and unexamined. Do the psychological and sexual consequences of circumcision affect America's uniquely high divorce rate? We do not know.
Circumcision is traumatic and changes the brain. Does circumcision affect the prevalence of autism and ADHD which both occur about four times more often in boys than in girls? We do not know.
Sudden infant death syndrome occurs more often in boys than in girls. The rise and fall of male infant mortality correlates with the rise and fall of the circumcision rate. Is circumcision a contributing factor? We do not know.
- The AAP report does not mention physician coercion and unauthorized circumcisions. The previous 1999 AAP report warned physicians that parents should not be coerced by medical professionals to choose circumcision, suggesting that some medical professionals have coerced parents to choose circumcision. In fact, some infants have been circumcised even though parents explicitly requested no circumcision.
- The AAP report ignores difficulties with informed consent. The report notes that informed consent "obligates the clinician to explain any procedure or treatment and to enumerate the risks, benefits, and alternatives so the patient can make an informed choice." (Of course, this cannot happen because the patient is the child.) A physician cannot do this if the physician is not aware of information omitted from the AAP report. Some physicians describe circumcision as not painful, just causing "discomfort." Few physicians know the functions of the foreskin and are aware of the sexual and psychological effects of circumcision.
- The AAP report attempts to shift responsibility for circumcisions to the parents, but physicians are the ones doing the cutting. This is the only instance where laypeople make the decision about whether or not to operate.
- The underlying flawed assumption is that the way to evaluate circumcision is to perform medical studies. This assumption reflects the values and biases of medical doctors. Most medical studies are flawed. Most of the world rejects circumcision as a harmful genital surgery. They do not need medical studies. All they need are feelings and common sense. Watch a circumcision video and trust your feelings. Does it make sense to cut off a natural, healthy, functioning body part? Would you want anyone else to make that decision about your body? Medical doctors often ignore feelings and common sense.
Yeah sure....Medical doctors often ignore feelings and common sense.
Professionals have challenged many studies cited by the AAP report. For example, the AAP report mentions studies that claim reduced HIV transmission in Africa for circumcised men. However, (1) About 60 circumcisions were required to prevent one HIV infection. (2) The studies did not seek to determine the source of the HIV infections. Most HIV infections in Africa are transmitted by contaminated injections and surgical procedures.
Twist it and turn it however you people want. Its mutilation and a non necessary surgery on a newborn child for no other reason than idiotic religious beliefs and superstitions and "tradition"....disgusting and barbaric.
The first time i saw a hairy pussy (age 12) i laughed.the first time I saw an uncircumcised penis------I laughed
Cutting off a part of a baby's penis is mutilation. There is little difference between MGM, as practiced in the U.S., and Type I FGM. In civilized countries, both should be banned completely. At a minimum the individual should be of an age to decide for himself or herself, not the parents.
DEFICIENCIES OF THE 2012 AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS REPORT ON CIRCUMCISION
- The AAP report conflicts with positions in other countries that recommend against circumcision or are discussing restricting it. Other countries recognize the inherent physical, sexual, and psychological harm of circumcision and that it violates medical ethics to cut off a natural, healthy, functioning body part.
- The effects of circumcision pain and changes in infant behavior after circumcision are not mentioned in the AAP report. Studies show that circumcision is significantly painful, traumatic, and affects the brain as evidenced by large increases in heart rate, blood pressure, and stress hormone levels during circumcision. Some infants do not cry because they go into shock. After circumcision there are changes in infant behavior, sleep patterns, activity level, more irritability, and there are disruptions in mother-child bonding and feeding. Anesthetics, if used, consist of injections into the penis and do not eliminate circumcision pain.
- All circumcision risks and ethical objections to circumcision are not mentioned in the AAP report. Circumcision has about two dozen surgical risks including, in rare cases, death. Some doctors and nurses refuse to perform or assist with circumcisions because of ethical considerations.
- The AAP report does not mention the anatomy and functions of the foreskin. Based on medical studies, circumcision removes up to one-half of the erogenous tissue on the penile shaft. The adult foreskin is a double layer, a movable sleeve equivalent to approximately twelve square inches. Medical studies have shown that the foreskin protects the penile head, enhances sexual pleasure, and facilitates intercourse. (Common sense check: If the AAP used common sense, they would realize that missing twelve square inches of erogenous tissue would have an adverse effect on sexual function.)The AAP deleted information about the functions of the foreskin in a pamphlet for parents.
- The AAP report does not examine the connection between circumcision and erectile dysfunction though it is reported in the medical literature. Cutting off the foreskin removes several kinds of specialized nerves and results in the thickening and progressive desensitization of exposed erogenous tissue that would normally be protected by the foreskin. In a 2011 survey, circumcised men were 4.5 times more likely than those who were not circumcised to use an erectile dysfunction drug.
- The AAP report does not mention psychological harm. Some dissatisfied men report wide-ranging psychological consequences of circumcision including anger, a sense of loss and sadness, and sexual anxieties. Reduced emotional expression and the avoidance of intimacy may also be related to circumcision.
Most circumcised men may seem satisfied because they accept cultural beliefs about circumcision and may not understand what circumcision is and the benefits of the foreskin. They may suppress certain feelings about circumcision because they are too painful. They also may not disclose these feelings due to fear of being dismissed or ridiculed.
- The AAP report is influenced by personal, cultural, financial, and professional conflicts of interest.These factors include committee members' circumcision status, number of circumcisions performed, circumcision status of any male children, and religious or ethnic background.
- The AAP report inflates the potential benefits by stating in its summary, for example, that circumcision "prevents" penile cancer. A closer look at the report text shows that the incidence of penile cancer is 0.58 case in 100,000 in the United States, where circumcision is common, and 0.82 case in 100,000 in Denmark, where circumcision is rare. According to studies cited in the report, between 909 and 322,000 circumcisions would be required to prevent one case of penile cancer. (Common sense check: Do these numbers support circumcision to "prevent" penile cancer?)
- The AAP report inflates the potential benefits by stating in its summary, for example, that circumcision "prevents" urinary tract infection (UTI). The report text states, "Given that the risk of UTI among this population [boys under age 2] is approximately 1%, the number needed to circumcise to prevent UTI is approximately 100." Therefore, 99 boys out of 100 receive no UTI "benefit" from circumcision. UTI is treatable with antibiotics. Good medical practice requires the least intrusive form of effective treatment. All the claimed "preventive health benefits" are debatable and insignificant.
- "Preventive [or potential] health benefits" are not actual health benefits. The overwhelming majority of males who are not circumcised will not get these infections or diseases. Therefore, circumcision does not give them any health benefit.
- Professionals have challenged many studies cited by the AAP report. For example, the AAP report mentions studies that claim reduced HIV transmission in Africa for circumcised men. However, (1) About 60 circumcisions were required to prevent one HIV infection. (2) The studies did not seek to determine the source of the HIV infections. Most HIV infections in Africa are transmitted by contaminated injections and surgical procedures. (3) The studies were not consistent with other evidence. (4) In Europe, where circumcision is rare, there is no increase in the incidence of HIV transmission. (5) Studies of African adults cannot be applicable to American infants.
- In its discussion of over three pages attempting to show that circumcision reduces STDs, the AAP report does not mention the word "condom." Condoms are much more effective (99%) than circumcision, less invasive, much less costly, and they protect women from infection. (Common sense check: If a condom is better than circumcision, why circumcise?)
- The AAP report even attempts to make an issue of penile hygiene. In all previous AAP reports, hygiene is not an issue. For example, according to the 1999 report, "there is little evidence to affirm the association between circumcision status and optimal penile hygiene."
- The AAP report ignores serious ethical questions connected with cutting off an important, healthy, and irreplaceable part of a child's body without medical justification.
- The AAP Committee on Bioethics report states, "Pediatric health care providers … have legal and ethical duties to their child patients to render competent medical care based on what the patient needs, not what someone else expresses… .[T]he pediatrician's responsibilities to his or her patient exist independent of parental desires or proxy consent." For these reasons, some physicians and nurses refuse to circumcise for ethical reasons. Yet the AAP report concluded that it is "legitimate" to circumcise if the parent requests it for nonmedical reasons. These two reports of the AAP are in conflict. This office wrote to a member of the AAP Committee on Bioethics requesting comment on this conflict. No response was received. (See bottom of page with letter to Susan Blank, Chair of the AAP Task Force on Circumcision.
- Circumcision violates the Golden Rule. Adults would not consent to having a healthy genital part cut off, with or without pain medication. Yet adults put a helpless, vulnerable, sensitive newborn child through this painful ordeal.
- According to an article in the medical literature, circumcision violates all seven principles of Medical Ethics. (Denniston, G., "Circumcision and the Code of Ethics," Humane Health Care International 12 (1996): 72-74)
- The AAP report lacks balance. It uses much more space discussing potential benefits as compared to potential harms. This is consistent with their "Statement of the Issue" which only refers to "possible benefits" and ignores harms. The "Literature Search Overview" also ignores topics and questions related to harms, which are different from risks and complications.
- In its recommendations for future research, the AAP report calls for research into potential benefits. There is no mention of future research into the harm. Unexplored areas include testing male infants, older children, and adults for changes in feelings, attitudes, and behaviors (especially antisocial behavior); physiological, neurological, and neurochemical differences; and sexual and emotional functioning.
For example, the effect of circumcision on male distrust, anxiety, and anger toward women is unrecognized and unexamined. Do the psychological and sexual consequences of circumcision affect America's uniquely high divorce rate? We do not know.
Circumcision is traumatic and changes the brain. Does circumcision affect the prevalence of autism and ADHD which both occur about four times more often in boys than in girls? We do not know.
Sudden infant death syndrome occurs more often in boys than in girls. The rise and fall of male infant mortality correlates with the rise and fall of the circumcision rate. Is circumcision a contributing factor? We do not know.
- The AAP report does not mention physician coercion and unauthorized circumcisions. The previous 1999 AAP report warned physicians that parents should not be coerced by medical professionals to choose circumcision, suggesting that some medical professionals have coerced parents to choose circumcision. In fact, some infants have been circumcised even though parents explicitly requested no circumcision.
- The AAP report ignores difficulties with informed consent. The report notes that informed consent "obligates the clinician to explain any procedure or treatment and to enumerate the risks, benefits, and alternatives so the patient can make an informed choice." (Of course, this cannot happen because the patient is the child.) A physician cannot do this if the physician is not aware of information omitted from the AAP report. Some physicians describe circumcision as not painful, just causing "discomfort." Few physicians know the functions of the foreskin and are aware of the sexual and psychological effects of circumcision.
- The AAP report attempts to shift responsibility for circumcisions to the parents, but physicians are the ones doing the cutting. This is the only instance where laypeople make the decision about whether or not to operate.
- The underlying flawed assumption is that the way to evaluate circumcision is to perform medical studies. This assumption reflects the values and biases of medical doctors. Most medical studies are flawed. Most of the world rejects circumcision as a harmful genital surgery. They do not need medical studies. All they need are feelings and common sense. Watch a circumcision video and trust your feelings. Does it make sense to cut off a natural, healthy, functioning body part? Would you want anyone else to make that decision about your body? Medical doctors often ignore feelings and common sense.
OK -- Fess up... What backwater holistic, conspiracy site did you lift all that from? REALLY, conflict of FINANCIAL INTEREST??? Some morons have a grudge to gripe about..
Yeah sure....Medical doctors often ignore feelings and common sense.
Feelings and common sense only work for people OBJECTIVE people with sense..
Professionals have challenged many studies cited by the AAP report. For example, the AAP report mentions studies that claim reduced HIV transmission in Africa for circumcised men. However, (1) About 60 circumcisions were required to prevent one HIV infection. (2) The studies did not seek to determine the source of the HIV infections. Most HIV infections in Africa are transmitted by contaminated injections and surgical procedures.
Crap thinking.. No appreciation of math, or the facts. It took 60 circumcisions to prevent one AIDS case because that is due to the underlying INFECTION RATE in those places. What a joke.. Nothing of value in that whole piece. From WHERE-EVER you were too embarassed to admit that you fetched it...
Cutting off a part of a baby's penis is mutilation. There is little difference between MGM, as practiced in the U.S., and Type I FGM. In civilized countries, both should be banned completely. At a minimum the individual should be of an age to decide for himself or herself, not the parents.
DEFICIENCIES OF THE 2012 AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS REPORT ON CIRCUMCISION
- The AAP report conflicts with positions in other countries that recommend against circumcision or are discussing restricting it. Other countries recognize the inherent physical, sexual, and psychological harm of circumcision and that it violates medical ethics to cut off a natural, healthy, functioning body part.
- The effects of circumcision pain and changes in infant behavior after circumcision are not mentioned in the AAP report. Studies show that circumcision is significantly painful, traumatic, and affects the brain as evidenced by large increases in heart rate, blood pressure, and stress hormone levels during circumcision. Some infants do not cry because they go into shock. After circumcision there are changes in infant behavior, sleep patterns, activity level, more irritability, and there are disruptions in mother-child bonding and feeding. Anesthetics, if used, consist of injections into the penis and do not eliminate circumcision pain.
- All circumcision risks and ethical objections to circumcision are not mentioned in the AAP report. Circumcision has about two dozen surgical risks including, in rare cases, death. Some doctors and nurses refuse to perform or assist with circumcisions because of ethical considerations.
- The AAP report does not mention the anatomy and functions of the foreskin. Based on medical studies, circumcision removes up to one-half of the erogenous tissue on the penile shaft. The adult foreskin is a double layer, a movable sleeve equivalent to approximately twelve square inches. Medical studies have shown that the foreskin protects the penile head, enhances sexual pleasure, and facilitates intercourse. (Common sense check: If the AAP used common sense, they would realize that missing twelve square inches of erogenous tissue would have an adverse effect on sexual function.)The AAP deleted information about the functions of the foreskin in a pamphlet for parents.
- The AAP report does not examine the connection between circumcision and erectile dysfunction though it is reported in the medical literature. Cutting off the foreskin removes several kinds of specialized nerves and results in the thickening and progressive desensitization of exposed erogenous tissue that would normally be protected by the foreskin. In a 2011 survey, circumcised men were 4.5 times more likely than those who were not circumcised to use an erectile dysfunction drug.
- The AAP report does not mention psychological harm. Some dissatisfied men report wide-ranging psychological consequences of circumcision including anger, a sense of loss and sadness, and sexual anxieties. Reduced emotional expression and the avoidance of intimacy may also be related to circumcision.
Most circumcised men may seem satisfied because they accept cultural beliefs about circumcision and may not understand what circumcision is and the benefits of the foreskin. They may suppress certain feelings about circumcision because they are too painful. They also may not disclose these feelings due to fear of being dismissed or ridiculed.
- The AAP report is influenced by personal, cultural, financial, and professional conflicts of interest.These factors include committee members' circumcision status, number of circumcisions performed, circumcision status of any male children, and religious or ethnic background.
- The AAP report inflates the potential benefits by stating in its summary, for example, that circumcision "prevents" penile cancer. A closer look at the report text shows that the incidence of penile cancer is 0.58 case in 100,000 in the United States, where circumcision is common, and 0.82 case in 100,000 in Denmark, where circumcision is rare. According to studies cited in the report, between 909 and 322,000 circumcisions would be required to prevent one case of penile cancer. (Common sense check: Do these numbers support circumcision to "prevent" penile cancer?)
- The AAP report inflates the potential benefits by stating in its summary, for example, that circumcision "prevents" urinary tract infection (UTI). The report text states, "Given that the risk of UTI among this population [boys under age 2] is approximately 1%, the number needed to circumcise to prevent UTI is approximately 100." Therefore, 99 boys out of 100 receive no UTI "benefit" from circumcision. UTI is treatable with antibiotics. Good medical practice requires the least intrusive form of effective treatment. All the claimed "preventive health benefits" are debatable and insignificant.
- "Preventive [or potential] health benefits" are not actual health benefits. The overwhelming majority of males who are not circumcised will not get these infections or diseases. Therefore, circumcision does not give them any health benefit.
- Professionals have challenged many studies cited by the AAP report. For example, the AAP report mentions studies that claim reduced HIV transmission in Africa for circumcised men. However, (1) About 60 circumcisions were required to prevent one HIV infection. (2) The studies did not seek to determine the source of the HIV infections. Most HIV infections in Africa are transmitted by contaminated injections and surgical procedures. (3) The studies were not consistent with other evidence. (4) In Europe, where circumcision is rare, there is no increase in the incidence of HIV transmission. (5) Studies of African adults cannot be applicable to American infants.
- In its discussion of over three pages attempting to show that circumcision reduces STDs, the AAP report does not mention the word "condom." Condoms are much more effective (99%) than circumcision, less invasive, much less costly, and they protect women from infection. (Common sense check: If a condom is better than circumcision, why circumcise?)
- The AAP report even attempts to make an issue of penile hygiene. In all previous AAP reports, hygiene is not an issue. For example, according to the 1999 report, "there is little evidence to affirm the association between circumcision status and optimal penile hygiene."
- The AAP report ignores serious ethical questions connected with cutting off an important, healthy, and irreplaceable part of a child's body without medical justification.
- The AAP Committee on Bioethics report states, "Pediatric health care providers … have legal and ethical duties to their child patients to render competent medical care based on what the patient needs, not what someone else expresses… .[T]he pediatrician's responsibilities to his or her patient exist independent of parental desires or proxy consent." For these reasons, some physicians and nurses refuse to circumcise for ethical reasons. Yet the AAP report concluded that it is "legitimate" to circumcise if the parent requests it for nonmedical reasons. These two reports of the AAP are in conflict. This office wrote to a member of the AAP Committee on Bioethics requesting comment on this conflict. No response was received. (See bottom of page with letter to Susan Blank, Chair of the AAP Task Force on Circumcision.
- Circumcision violates the Golden Rule. Adults would not consent to having a healthy genital part cut off, with or without pain medication. Yet adults put a helpless, vulnerable, sensitive newborn child through this painful ordeal.
- According to an article in the medical literature, circumcision violates all seven principles of Medical Ethics. (Denniston, G., "Circumcision and the Code of Ethics," Humane Health Care International 12 (1996): 72-74)
- The AAP report lacks balance. It uses much more space discussing potential benefits as compared to potential harms. This is consistent with their "Statement of the Issue" which only refers to "possible benefits" and ignores harms. The "Literature Search Overview" also ignores topics and questions related to harms, which are different from risks and complications.
- In its recommendations for future research, the AAP report calls for research into potential benefits. There is no mention of future research into the harm. Unexplored areas include testing male infants, older children, and adults for changes in feelings, attitudes, and behaviors (especially antisocial behavior); physiological, neurological, and neurochemical differences; and sexual and emotional functioning.
For example, the effect of circumcision on male distrust, anxiety, and anger toward women is unrecognized and unexamined. Do the psychological and sexual consequences of circumcision affect America's uniquely high divorce rate? We do not know.
Circumcision is traumatic and changes the brain. Does circumcision affect the prevalence of autism and ADHD which both occur about four times more often in boys than in girls? We do not know.
Sudden infant death syndrome occurs more often in boys than in girls. The rise and fall of male infant mortality correlates with the rise and fall of the circumcision rate. Is circumcision a contributing factor? We do not know.
- The AAP report does not mention physician coercion and unauthorized circumcisions. The previous 1999 AAP report warned physicians that parents should not be coerced by medical professionals to choose circumcision, suggesting that some medical professionals have coerced parents to choose circumcision. In fact, some infants have been circumcised even though parents explicitly requested no circumcision.
- The AAP report ignores difficulties with informed consent. The report notes that informed consent "obligates the clinician to explain any procedure or treatment and to enumerate the risks, benefits, and alternatives so the patient can make an informed choice." (Of course, this cannot happen because the patient is the child.) A physician cannot do this if the physician is not aware of information omitted from the AAP report. Some physicians describe circumcision as not painful, just causing "discomfort." Few physicians know the functions of the foreskin and are aware of the sexual and psychological effects of circumcision.
- The AAP report attempts to shift responsibility for circumcisions to the parents, but physicians are the ones doing the cutting. This is the only instance where laypeople make the decision about whether or not to operate.
- The underlying flawed assumption is that the way to evaluate circumcision is to perform medical studies. This assumption reflects the values and biases of medical doctors. Most medical studies are flawed. Most of the world rejects circumcision as a harmful genital surgery. They do not need medical studies. All they need are feelings and common sense. Watch a circumcision video and trust your feelings. Does it make sense to cut off a natural, healthy, functioning body part? Would you want anyone else to make that decision about your body? Medical doctors often ignore feelings and common sense.
OK -- Fess up... What backwater holistic, conspiracy site did you lift all that from? REALLY, conflict of FINANCIAL INTEREST??? Some morons have a grudge to gripe about..
Yeah sure....Medical doctors often ignore feelings and common sense.
Feelings and common sense only work for people OBJECTIVE people with sense..
Professionals have challenged many studies cited by the AAP report. For example, the AAP report mentions studies that claim reduced HIV transmission in Africa for circumcised men. However, (1) About 60 circumcisions were required to prevent one HIV infection. (2) The studies did not seek to determine the source of the HIV infections. Most HIV infections in Africa are transmitted by contaminated injections and surgical procedures.
Crap thinking.. No appreciation of math, or the facts. It took 60 circumcisions to prevent one AIDS case because that is due to the underlying INFECTION RATE in those places. What a joke.. Nothing of value in that whole piece. From WHERE-EVER you were too embarassed to admit that you fetched it...
No conception of math on your part. You are so indoctrinated that even cutting a part of a child's penis off does not appear a barbarism to you. Something that any normal person acknowledges.
I bet that you would, however, consider Type I FGM (foreskin/hood only removal) is in fact mutilation. You are a brainwashed hypocrite.
I simply forgot to add the link to the end of the long portion I posted. The link to the European medical group that debunked the AAP bullshit is below.
Here is the source which indicates that the report by the AAP is a joke and that it is contradicted by reports undertaken by European, Canadian and Australian medical associations that were not required to observe "biases" i.e. Jewish and Muslim barbaric customs.
Cultural Bias in the AAP’s 2012 Technical Report and Policy Statement on Male Circumcision | Commentaries | Pediatrics
Somebody's pretty obsessed with this.
Any woman that turns a guy down for that isn't worth dipping into anyway.Even though it is safer and painless in infancy? That only makes liberal sense. Although a lot of men may be forced into having circumcision as an adult when they get turned down by women. I feel sorry for them. It's a bad decision to have to make.
I've never heard of a guy getting a disease from his foreskin. Where are you getting that from?Hmmm. Actually it's not a bad procedure ever as an adult.
From an adult that had one.
Adult Circumcision Stories - Men Circumcised As Adults Tell It As It Is...
This should make women who demand a clean non diseased man feel better.
