Going for the snip

[Asher]

Originally posted by Sava
The difference being, this is his area of expertise... he's allow to talk from his ass.

Doctors can be wrong. They often are. Especially those in the southern US regarding cultural traditions. They get blinded by bias.

A lot of it comes from the US of "more operations = better" medical philosophy. Doctors can make money from circumcisions so why not do them when people ask? Why deter them?

In socialized medical systems, where costs are more of a concern, operations are not done if they're not needed. Hence, no neonatal circumcision...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Sava


Same with "climate change".

Given that you know as little about this as you do about climate change, this is a particularly a propos example

[Sava]

Originally posted by Asher

That doesn't PWN me. Every single one of those studies were done in Africa with many, many confounding factors that do not indicate a causal relationship.

Did Asher even read the AMA link to see the references to know which studies the piece is talking about? No. Because the references don't state which studies, where the studies where done, the methodology, or any other information...


Not only did I PWN you, but you are talking out of your ass now, PWNING yourself.



But please... post some more. You really have no credibility at all on this matter.

[Asher]

Did Asher even read the AMA link to see the references to know which studies the piece is talking about? No. Because the references don't state which studies, where the studies where done, the methodology, or any other information...

Because they're likely the same studies that are always cited. They're almost always done in Africa as observational studies.

Feel free to prove me wrong.

In the mean time, continue your squirming. Circumcision rates are falling, pediatric societies do not support neonatal circumcision for non-religious reasons, and studies regarding HIV transmission with circumcisions are conflicting and none have indicated a causal relationship at all.

You're cut and can't go back, so continue your absolutely ridiculous defense...

[Sava]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Given that you know as little about this as you do about climate change, this is a particularly a propos example

Aw... I was wondering when you would start with the personal stuff.

It was just a matter of time. Your arguments were so pathetic, it really wasn't much effort destroying you and Asher. I took much pleasure in trolling you.

But why resort to the insults? I explained my theory before about how the opposition to "snipping" is rooted in some perceived attack on your "manhood". Perhaps that's what is going on here.

Or maybe there is something else going on? Some other deeper issue?

Maybe just talk in general about your "manhood" is just a difficult topic for you.

Would you like to talk about it KH?

Maybe about your mother?

[KrazyHorse]

Sava, you're precious...

[RGBVideo]

Did Asher even read the AMA link to see the references to know which studies the piece is talking about? No.

Because they're likely the same studies that are always cited. They're almost always done in Africa as observational studies.

Feel free to prove me wrong.

Wow, you're really offering him an easy way of continuing rational discussion there. "I didn't bother reading stuff which could prove me wrong because I am likely right in my presumption that I'm right. Feel free to prove me wrong".

My opinion. It really doesn't matter as long as one takes proper care of himself.

[Asher]

Wow, you're really offering him an easy way of continuing rational discussion there. "I didn't bother reading stuff which could prove me wrong because I am likely right in my presumption that I'm right. Feel free to prove me wrong".

I'm offering him a way to cite the actual specifics of the studies, which he has not done. It's a very important detail that he neglects to mention, for obvious reasons, and I'm calling him out on it.

African observational studies are crap, for reasons I've outlined.

[RGBVideo]

I'm offering him a way to cite the actual specifics of the studies

OK, I misunderstood what you were saying there.

[Sava]

Well, all asshattery aside, this is not the black and white issue as most people see it as. It's not really a question of circumcision is either bad or good.

If people are so inclined, they can read the AMA link I provided. It sums up the risks of being uncut and benefits of being cut quite nicely.

Here it is again. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13585.html

It certainly isn't necessary. And it's not something that is "recommended". It's considered "elective". But the general consensus is, it reduces problems, so you should probably get it done. Though, it's optional. Having said that, I'd rather have it done at birth than later on in life.

Intelligent people can sort through the "I LOVE MY PENIS" crap and look at the summaries of the studies. Asher seems intent on ignoring reality. That's his prerogative. He wants to make this about citing the specifics on the studies... which is basically a giant strawman.

Anyone who wishes to view the specifics on the studies can find the information on their own. The reference material is cited in the article I posted.

But only a moron would sit here and split hairs about that.



And yet another victory for Sava.

Thanks

[Asher]

Circumcision is fun for everyone: http://www.cirp.org/library/procedure/plastibell/

More fun: http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/

http://www.cirp.org/news/columbusdispatch01-15-06/

No longer routine
Circumcision rates decline nationally, albeit more slowly in Midwest
Sunday, January 15, 2006

Dennis Fiely
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
reasons
baby
KRT / CHARLOTTE OBSERVER

For most central Ohio boys, life begins with cosmetic surgery. Shortly after birth, they are restrained, anesthetized and shorn of their foreskin.

Historically, circumcision has been a routine procedure in the United States, but the rate dipped to a 50-year low of 55.9 percent in 2003, the most recent figures available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Nationally, the rate dropped 7.2 percent between 2001 and 2003.

Health-care professionals attribute the decline to the lack of medical reasons for doing the procedure and a rise in the number of immigrants from countries where it is not performed.

In Ohio and the rest of the Midwest, the rate remains the nation’s highest at 77.8 percent, although it is dropping slightly here as well.

Central Ohio hospitals and pediatric practices report rates similar to the Midwest average.

For example: About 80 percent of the 1,200 boys born at Grant Medical Center each year are circumcised, said Dr. Craig W. Anderson, director of newborn medicine.

‘‘Five years ago, it was 90 percent."

Bob and Jane O’Shaughnessy chose not to circumcise their sons, who are 5 and 8.

‘‘There didn’t seem to be any good reason to put our children through the discomfort and pain," said Mrs. O’Shaughnessy, 33. ‘‘It seemed pointless to alter their bodies without any compelling medical benefits."

Their decision was influenced by the American Academy of Pediatrics and other major medical societies that don’t recommend the procedure.

"I would say that all pediatricians in town go with the academy’s party line: This is a cosmetic surgery. There is no medical reason to do it," said Dr. Nancy Hansen, chairwoman of Riverside Methodist Hospital’s department of pediatrics.

Many families choose circumcision for cultural reasons, Columbus doctors said.

"They don’t want their boys to look funny in the locker room," Hansen said.

Justin and Heidi Green of Hilliard chose circumcision for their two sons, ages 3½ years and 10 months, although they concluded that the procedure is medically unimportant.

"We wanted our sons to look like their dad," Mrs. Green said.

Hygiene often plays a role in the decision, but "that really isn’t a good reason to justify circumcision," said Dr. JoAnn Rohyans of Olentangy Pediatrics on the Northwest Side, and spokeswoman for the Ohio Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The declining national rate comes while recent research in South Africa indicates that circumcision might reduce the transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.

"Studies have shown that cultures practicing circumcision are less likely to have HIV," said Dr. Michael Para, an infectious-disease specialist at Ohio State University Medical Center.

"If we can say for sure that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV, then suddenly there clearly is a medical benefit."

For now, evidence is not strong enough to change medical-society policy statements.

Decreases in urinary-tract infections among infants and penile cancer among adults are not significant enough to warrant the procedure, according to the American Medical Association.

Pediatricians consider circumcision to be a simple and safe surgery. The complication rate is less than 1 percent, according to the AMA. The most-common complications are adhesions, bleeding, infection and disfigurement.

Seeing a picture of an infant strapped to a restraint board helped convince the O’Shaughnessys.

"That was the last straw," Mrs. O’Shaughnessy said. "We were not going to have that done to our babies."

Viewing an online video of the procedure troubled the Greens.

"After seeing that, my husband was overwhelmingly against it," Mrs. Green said, although the couple later changed their minds.

During the past decade, the injection of numbing medication has helped ease pain and trauma.

"About 75 percent of my babies sleep through it," Hansen said.

Pediatricians do most central Ohio circumcisions, although obstetricians, urologists, family doctors and mohels (in the Jewish rite) can also perform them.

"Parents have more knowledge and are asking more questions about it," said Anderson, of Grant Medical Center.

He added that some insurers are refusing to cover the elective procedure.

Medicaid, for example, has stopped paying for circumcisions in 16 states.

Bill Tulloss of the Cincinnati suburb of Evendale is lobbying Ohio to join the movement. Medicaid pays for one-third of Ohio births.

"It is just crazy that Medicaid is spending taxpayer money on something that is not necessary at a time when Medicaid expenditures are bankrupting the state," said Tulloss, a retired college math professor and a member of the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers.

The Ohio Medicaid program spent $4 million in federal and state money during the past three fiscal years to cover almost 62,000 circumcisions.

"It’s one of our smallest expenditures," said Dennis Evans, spokesman for the Department of Job and Family Services.

Dan Bollinger of West Lafayette, Ind., compiles circumcision rates from the CDC, hospital records and other sources for the International Coalition of Genital Integrity.

His statistics have been cited in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

"I have been showing a 1 to 2 percent annual decrease for the past 10 years, and I expect that to continue," said Bollinger, an industrial designer. "This is a steady social change that will be long-lasting."

Bollinger is not sure why the Midwest rate leads the nation.

He speculated that it is related to hospital construction in developing industrial centers when circumcision was introduced in the United States during the late 19 th century.

While some parents can readily accept or reject circumcision, others are caught in the middle.

"It was a big decision for us to make," Mrs. Green said. "We did a lot of research trying to figure out what to do. We didn’t want to make the wrong decision because we knew it would have a lifelong effect."

http://www.cirp.org/news/freelance-star11-13-05/

No need to circumcise most boys
Doctor says routine circumcision of baby boys is wrong

Date published: 11/13/2005

FOR THOSE OF YOU who read my last column and the letters to the editor that followed, you already know that my comments about anti-circumcision demonstrators at the recent American Academy of Pediatrics meeting in D.C. were not well received.

My column was about SIDS prevention, but I slipped in a little joke about the demonstrators being mostly "graying hippies" and having bumper stickers like, "Not Circumcised? You Lucky Stiff!"

While I was trying to be funny, and make light of the controversy at our conference, I apparently offended people all over the U.S. and Canada. And all this for a column that wasn't even about circumcision. Obviously, people feel very strongly about this issue.

The funny thing is, I agree with the demonstrators. I don't think circumcision should be routinely performed on newborns.

I don't do circumcisions. I was trained to, and had to do them while still in the Navy. But in our area, unlike where I trained in California, Ob/Gyn doctors perform most circumcisions. Even if they didn't, I still would not perform them.

Like the demonstrators, I believe that removing a healthy body part for cosmetic reasons is not appropriate. Well, let me rephrase that, because I have no problem at all with liposuction in a consenting adult. But in most cases of neonatal circumcision, we're talking about a helpless newborn losing a very sensitive part of the body for no good medical reason. Certainly there are religious reasons for some families--more on that later.

In the U.S., most people who choose to circumcise their newborns do it so that the penis looks "normal" and so that it will be cleaner. Neither of these reasons is valid. Isn't the "normal" penis the one that God created? Whatever happened to, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it?" In fact, 80 percent to 85 percent of the world's male population is not circumcised. So that is more "normal."

I hear fathers say they worry that if their son does not have it done, he'll wonder why he doesn't look like his dad. Well, that is just as easy to explain as questions like, "Dad, why do you have hair there and I don't?" Or, "Dad, why do you have blue eyes and I have brown eyes?"

Hygiene is also a nonissue for most people. There are rare cases, like soldiers out in the field for days and days without bathing, in which the uncircumcised penis is more prone to infection. But in most cases, boys who are "uncut" learn to care for their penises just like they learn to brush and floss their teeth, and it's no big deal.

Let me mention that there are religious reasons for circumcision in the Jewish and Islamic faiths. I consider that to be very different than the routine circumcision done just because everybody else is doing it.

In the Old Testament, circumcision is described as a symbolic act by which a Jewish male enters into a covenant with God. This is a long-standing tradition, and the bris ceremony is very important in the Jewish faith. However, I have learned that the practice is beginning to be questioned by many Jews (see jewishcircumcision.org).

It is unclear why Christians took up the practice, or why it occurs more in the U.S. than any other country in the world. There are Christian organizations such as Catholics against Circumcision (catholicsagainstcircumcision.org) which state that the New Testament has passages that recommend against the practice.

Several resources I read mentioned that the practice became more widespread in the late 1800s in the U.S., and was touted as a way to cure masturbation (which was thought at the time to cause insanity, blindness and all sorts of horrible things). The circumcised penis is certainly less sensitive, due to the loss of a ring of tissue near the tip of the foreskin, which is the most sensitive part of the penis. But, I'm not really seeing that this was a cure.

Anyway, routine circumcision goes on in many areas, despite the fact that the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Family Practitioners, and the American Medical Association have all published statements that do not support routine neonatal circumcision. These are echoed by medical organizations all over the world, including the Australian Association of Paediatric Surgeons, which put it like this: "We do not support the removal of a normal part of the body, unless there are definite indications to justify the complications and risks which may arise."

As the American Academy of Pediatrics notes in its position statement, there are potential medical benefits, but they are minimal and do not outweigh the risks. (You can read the statement online at aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;103/3/686).

There are definitely fewer urinary tract infections in male infants under 1 year of age who are circumcised. However, fewer than 1 percent of uncircumcised baby boys get UTIs, so the increased risk is still pretty minimal. The same goes for the increased risk of penile cancer in uncircumcised men. There is a slightly increased risk, but this cancer is quite rare.

Potential complications of circumcision are more likely and include bleeding, poor cosmetic results, adhesions (I see a lot of those), scarring of the urethral opening, infection, and very rarely, penile amputation or death.

Then there is another issue I never thought about until I started researching this article. In the U.S., 1.2 million circumcisions are performed each year, yet this is considered a medically unnecessary procedure. The cost adds up to somewhere between $150 million to $270 million per year. Just think of how that money could be better spent!

In Virginia, Medicaid still pays for circumcisions. If that money was saved, it could pay for many of the infant's immunizations, for example. Several states, including California, Arizona, Florida, Washington and Oregon, already have disallowed Medicaid coverage of circumcision.

Having to pay $100 upfront to be circumcised was certainly a big deterrent at my last practice in California. In California, circumcision is in the minority--approximately 33 percent of newborns are having it done. In Virginia, it is still more widespread than that, but seems to be decreasing in popularity. (Exact numbers are difficult to come by, but I think we are in the range of 75 percent).

It seems like I end almost every column this way: Be informed. Know the risks and benefits before you decide. If you choose to have the surgery performed on your newborn, be sure that analgesia is used. Lidocaine injected into the base of the penis is very helpful in reducing pain during the procedure. Also, giving the baby sugar on a pacifier decreases their pain response.

Hard to believe, but even a few years ago it was routine practice not to use any analgesia or anesthesia for newborns being circumcised.

Now, it's considered the standard of care.

If you choose not to circumcise your son, you don't need to do anything special to care for the penis--just normal bathing. Do not try to retract the foreskin! This should not be done until years later, and will happen naturally with time. For more information on care of the intact penis, see NOCIRC.org or doctorsopposingcircumcision.org.

DR. ROXANNE ALLEGRETTI welcomes reader comments and questions. Write her at Free Lance-Star, 616 Amelia St., Fredericksburg, Va., 22401 or e-mail at
Email: newsroom@freelancestar.com

Also, sexual function of the foreskin: http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/

My work here is done. Facts have come.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten


If you've already done the girl, what possible end could you be working towards? Getting her to make you a sandwich afterwards?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
You maroon.

Sava's an escaped Black slave?

[chequita guevara]

I wouldn't get my kids circumcized because it's entirely unncessary surgery whih has a possibility of leading to a disfiguring infection of the penis. The fact that I don't have one, however, doesn't bother me in the least. I'm not sure I could handle potentially better orgasms.

Again, anecdotal evidence exists both ways about increased and decreased sensitivity. My former roommate's uncle had to give up sex after having a circumcision for medical reasons in his 60s because he said it was too much sensation "now" (now being 16 years ago).

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
especially when you take into account the fact that women have, in general, more pleasurable experiences with circumcised men?

Contradictory statement quoted for posterity.