8 ms·

> the doctor has recommended my son undergo circumcision because studies have shown a reduction in the risk for serious diseases in circumcised men Source? Esp

> the doctor has recommended my son undergo circumcision because studies have shown a reduction in the risk for serious diseases in circumcised men Source? Especially that this risk reduction outweighs the risks of the procedure is not proven as far as I know.

deogeo 7y ago
Looks like most medical organizations range from advising against circumcision, to considering making it illegal, with the notable exception of the US [1]. As for the protection against disease: "Male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection among heterosexual men in sub-Saharan Africa [..] The effectiveness of using circumcision to prevent HIV in the developed world is unclear;" [2] Since newborns are unlikely to have sex [3], there should be no harm in waiting until puberty, and getting the boy's input on what is an irreversible change. [1] http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/ http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision [3] C'mon man.
- zaroth 7y ago
  Requiring a family to wait until a boy is past puberty to consider a circumcision would be harmful, because the procedure is more difficult to perform, and poses a more difficult (and memorable) recovery period. Parents have autonomy to make medical decisions for their infant children, and many are forced to make significantly more difficult decisions than a routine circumcision. I was curious about the CIRP site you linked to and the policy statements they are referencing. I double checked just the first referenced policy statement, which is from the Australian College of Paediatrics. [1] Interestingly, they reference a statement from 1996 which is no longer the current position. Evidence for the medical benefits of circumcision have gotten stronger, and the procedure has gotten safer and more likely to be performed with anesthesia. The updated statement [2] while still not advocating for routine circumcision for all male children, is, in particular, missing the passage which CIRP specifically highlighted in the 1996 position. This calls into question whether CIRP is interested in presenting a factual list of current statements, or if they have a particular agenda they are attempting to serve in presenting cherry-picked out-dated statements with a specific viewpoint. [1] - http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/acp1996/ http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/acp1996/ [2] - https://www.racp.edu.au/docs/default-source/advocacy-library/circumcision-of-infant-males.pdf https://www.racp.edu.au/docs/default-source/advocacy-library...
  - DanBC 7y ago
    There is no medical benefit to circumcision. There is risk of harm. Parents do make medical choices -- these would be situations where there is a benefit to treatment and where there is medical consensus that the treatment is worthwhile. That's not the case for circumcision where most doctors agree it shouldn't be performed other than for actual medical reasons like phimosis.
    - zaroth 7y ago
      > There is no medical benefit to circumcision. The WHO states, “There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%.”
      - deogeo 7y ago
        "...among heterosexual men in sub-Saharan Africa [..] The effectiveness of using circumcision to prevent HIV in the developed world is unclear;"
        zaroth 7y ago
        That’s a quote from Wikipedia where the footnote references an abstract which does not include that statement. Here’s what the abstract does say; > Following the three randomized trials in Africa demonstrating the protective effects of male circumcision on HIV infection, studies have reported other benefits of circumcision including protection from certain STIs, including human papillomavirus and herpes simplex virus 2. With data accumulating on the public health benefits of circumcision and the endorsement of circumcision from WHO, investigators have begun to evaluate the feasibility, safety and cost of implementation of large-scale circumcision programs. Limitations of circumcision have also been explored.
        DanBC 7y ago
        Circumcision does nothing to protect against herpes, hepatitis, chancroid, HPV, Chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis etc. So the child is being exposed to risk of death or disfigurement for a hypothetical benefit for one STI where there are existing better protections for that, and other STIs.
bsanr2 7y ago
The studies (showing risks in reduction of HIV and other STIs) are cited frequently by doctors and are controversial with people who take issue with circumcision. I personally find the conclusions of those studies suspect, but I'm not a doctor nor an expert, and this is the stance that many of them hold.
notus 7y ago
https://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/ https://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/

deogeo 7y ago

Looks like most medical organizations range from advising against circumcision, to considering making it illegal, with the notable exception of the US [1]. As for the protection against disease: "Male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection among heterosexual men in sub-Saharan Africa [..] The effectiveness of using circumcision to prevent HIV in the developed world is unclear;" [2] Since newborns are unlikely to have sex [3], there should be no harm in waiting until puberty, and getting the boy's input on what is an irreversible change. [1] http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/ http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision [3] C'mon man.

zaroth 7y ago
Requiring a family to wait until a boy is past puberty to consider a circumcision would be harmful, because the procedure is more difficult to perform, and poses a more difficult (and memorable) recovery period. Parents have autonomy to make medical decisions for their infant children, and many are forced to make significantly more difficult decisions than a routine circumcision. I was curious about the CIRP site you linked to and the policy statements they are referencing. I double checked just the first referenced policy statement, which is from the Australian College of Paediatrics. [1] Interestingly, they reference a statement from 1996 which is no longer the current position. Evidence for the medical benefits of circumcision have gotten stronger, and the procedure has gotten safer and more likely to be performed with anesthesia. The updated statement [2] while still not advocating for routine circumcision for all male children, is, in particular, missing the passage which CIRP specifically highlighted in the 1996 position. This calls into question whether CIRP is interested in presenting a factual list of current statements, or if they have a particular agenda they are attempting to serve in presenting cherry-picked out-dated statements with a specific viewpoint. [1] - http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/acp1996/ http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/acp1996/ [2] - https://www.racp.edu.au/docs/default-source/advocacy-library/circumcision-of-infant-males.pdf https://www.racp.edu.au/docs/default-source/advocacy-library...
- DanBC 7y ago
  There is no medical benefit to circumcision. There is risk of harm. Parents do make medical choices -- these would be situations where there is a benefit to treatment and where there is medical consensus that the treatment is worthwhile. That's not the case for circumcision where most doctors agree it shouldn't be performed other than for actual medical reasons like phimosis.
  - zaroth 7y ago
    > There is no medical benefit to circumcision. The WHO states, “There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%.”
    - deogeo 7y ago
      "...among heterosexual men in sub-Saharan Africa [..] The effectiveness of using circumcision to prevent HIV in the developed world is unclear;"
      - zaroth 7y ago
        That’s a quote from Wikipedia where the footnote references an abstract which does not include that statement. Here’s what the abstract does say; > Following the three randomized trials in Africa demonstrating the protective effects of male circumcision on HIV infection, studies have reported other benefits of circumcision including protection from certain STIs, including human papillomavirus and herpes simplex virus 2. With data accumulating on the public health benefits of circumcision and the endorsement of circumcision from WHO, investigators have begun to evaluate the feasibility, safety and cost of implementation of large-scale circumcision programs. Limitations of circumcision have also been explored.
        DanBC 7y ago
        Circumcision does nothing to protect against herpes, hepatitis, chancroid, HPV, Chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis etc. So the child is being exposed to risk of death or disfigurement for a hypothetical benefit for one STI where there are existing better protections for that, and other STIs.

bsanr2 7y ago

The studies (showing risks in reduction of HIV and other STIs) are cited frequently by doctors and are controversial with people who take issue with circumcision. I personally find the conclusions of those studies suspect, but I'm not a doctor nor an expert, and this is the stance that many of them hold.

notus 7y ago

https://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/ https://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/