And in case I didn't make it clear above, spare me your linkspam for or against vaccines and circumcision. I know what both sides of the argument are.
I got a linkspam in the comments. Rather than being upset that people only read part of my posts, or being irritated that they ignored half of what I said, I'm going to point out that the commenters actually prove my point, though they mean well.
The links commenter Mark listed in his response to my entry are dated 2004, 2006, 1996, and 2006. Forgive me for thinking this is a new trend. Did you know circumcision is over 5,000 years old? Drawings in Egypt depict Egyptians and Jews getting circumcised. Cave paintings that date to 9,000 years ago show what many appear to be a circumcision. Independently rising cultures, in Africa, Europe, South America, Central and North America, Australia, and India all adopted circumcision practices.
Now, whether they did that because the trimmed boys didn't get have smegma to give them phimosis, or because just by chance every culture on the planet independently developed the cultural practice of trimming boys, I cannot argue. I am not an archeologist, I am a scientist.
But the point here is that for 5,000 years circ has been a widespread, good idea, and this idea that "there is no medical benefit" is, relatively speaking, a snap of the fingers in the long history of humanity.
In developed countries, where hygiene and cleanliness are more widespread, perhaps circumcision isn't totally necessary. Most of the ailments caused by an untrimmed foreskin can be prevented through thorough washing and care. But in developing countries, where hygiene is deplorable, circumcision is, as it was for the last 5,000 years, obviously beneficial.
Wouldn't even anti-circ people agree that the evidence is overwhelming that AIDS and many other diseases could be prevented in sub-saharan Africa through (if hygiene isn't available) circumcision?
The point I was trying (and succeeding, if you ask me) to make was that natural law compels us to make medical decisions based on the species as a whole, regardless of personal preference. Maybe there will be a day, far in the future, where all humans will have clean water, access to soap and shower facilities, at which time we can reevaluate the necessity of circumcision. But until that day comes, we owe it to our species to perform the voluntary medical procedures like circ and vaccinations that although might not help our children directly, may help children worldwide.
_
6 comments:
Most of the ailments caused by an untrimmed foreskin can be prevented through thorough washing and care.
This seems to be why the medical professions in developed countries reject routine infant circumcision. If the benefits of elective surgery may be captured by "washing and care," then why do the surgery?
And while it's true that circumcision is a very old practice, it was typically performed as a passage-to-adulthood rite, or as something done before marriage. I think it's quite plausible that a pubescent boy could be made to understand the benefits of circumcision and give his consent if he wished. When it comes to almost any other medical practice, parents can only have pieces of their children's bodies removed for a specific diagnostic or therapeutic purpose.
If all cavities can probably be prevented by regular tooth brushing, why do dentists perform fillings?
If all car accidents could be prevented by lowering the speed limit 10 miles per hour across the board, then why don't we do so?
Because there will always be speeders. Isn't it smarter policy to mandate seatbelts, thereby preventing accidents from becoming fatalities, than to expect people to drive slower?
The same goes for circumcision vs. hygiene. Circumcision prevents these diseases the same way better hygiene would. But you can't always guarantee your child is washing. You can guarantee that they are circumcised.
Fillings are therapeutic. The logic of your argument, rather, is that because kids don't brush all the time we should replace all their teeth with dentures before they get any cavities.
If you really wanted to prevent STDs, for instance, you could chemically castrate boys. It's reversible and not harmful. That's a good better-safe-than-sorry method. But of course we don't do it and would never consider doing it. We would rather accept that life cannot be purged from all risk at an acceptable cost.
I'm not obsessed with circumcision. I don't think it's a terrible thing. But when we faced the decision ourselves, I looked to the medical profession, which very strongly disagrees with your position that routine circumcision is like seat belts.
Female circumcision appears to be even older than male circumcision, but that doesn't make it right.
The "linkspam" I posted included the position statements of three national medical organisations, and was in response to you saying this:
Even though a few doctors argue that circumcision is unnecessary, the overwhelming majority of scientists and doctors for the last thousand odd years argue that it is not only a good idea in terms of societal pressures to fit in, but a good idea for the health of the human species.
You're making it sound like there's a medical consensus that neonatal circumcision is a good idea, when this simply isn't the case. You also make it sound like circumcision would make people "fit in", when in fact only about 1/3 of the world's men are circumcised.
Wouldn't even anti-circ people agree that the evidence is overwhelming that AIDS and many other diseases could be prevented in sub-saharan Africa through (if hygiene isn't available) circumcision?
Not at all. In fact there are seven countries in Africa where men are more likely to be HIV+ if they've been circumcised. Eg in Cameroon, 4.1% of circumcised men are HIV+, but only 1.1% of intact men. In Rwanda, 3.5% of circumcised men are HIV+, but only 2.1% of intact men. If circumcision really helped against HIV, this just wouldn't happen. We now have people comparing circumcision to a "vaccine", and worse still referring to it as the "invisible condom". I believe promoting circumcision to prevent AIDS is likely to result in more people dying from AIDS, not fewer.
In fact most of the bad stuff that male circumcision is supposed to work against is more common in the USA than in Europe, where circumcision is very rare.
Babies aren't going to be getting any STI's before they're old enough to decide for themselves whether or not they want part of their genitals cutting off. It's their body; it should be their decision.
These latest studies are from Africa. A 29 year study of males in New Zealand showed a slightly *higher* rate of STI's among circumcised men: http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(07)00707-X/abstract
If we found out that cutting off part of a girl's genitals reduced her risk of contracting an STI, would that make it acceptable?
This study shows exactly that: http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138
If female circumcision had caught on in the USA (it was promoted in medical papers till at least 1959, and practised till the early 70's), and western researchers were now looking for benefits of female circumcision as enthusiastically as they are looking for benefits of male circumcision, we'd now be getting news articles about how female circumcision help prevent STI's. It wouldn't mean that there aren't better ways to prevent STI's, and it wouldn't make it right.
I am not quite sure what the antiquity of circumcision has to do with its present day use. You seem to put a lot into that but it has no relevance.
In developed countries, where hygiene and cleanliness are more widespread, perhaps circumcision isn't totally necessary.
Actually in developed countries it isn't necessary at all. Most of the purported benefits can be realized in safer, more effective, and less invasive ways. And the risk reduction you speak of in most cases is very small in a first world country where the disease prevalence is very low. Take HIV, for example, in Australia, in 2006 there were 854 men diagnosed with HIV. Only 77 were thought to be heterosexually acquired in an at risk population of at least 7,000,000. Read here: tinyurl.com/cbzezx As another example, according to Avert.org, the UK had about 3600 new case of which about 840 were in men but of the 3600, 80% were thought to have been 'imported' likely from immigration from high risk countries places in Africa. This is in an at risk population of I think 40,000,000. The 36 state estimate of US male heterosexually acquired HIV in 2006 is the highest of any developed country (both in raw numbers and proportionally), about 4,500 but prevalence is still very very low.
Perhaps in countries with very high prevalence it might make sense to offer it to men but only men, infant circumcision is simply unethical unless there is a presenting medical condition.
HPV is the same way, low prevalence in developed countries PLUS we have had a vaccine for four years, which is likely to be approved for boys this year.
Arguments in favor of circumcision are very weak particularly in developed countries and that is why, as others have already pointed out, the pediatric organizations of all first world countries discourage the procedure [and discourage is an understatement for most]. As a previous poster pointed out the AAP is reviewing its position I would not be surprised if they said it isn't necessary but financial considerations should not be a barrier (Medicaid has been dropping coverage) though this would be more of a cultural decision then a sound medical one. Other countries haven't really seen the need to change their position much if any.
Vaccines and circumcision are two totally different issues. One is therapeutic the other is not.
I takes time to constantly challenge what I think I know and so my beliefs. I believe you don't know what both sides of these arguments are given your reasoning, your two questions and your answer that people are being nonsensical. If you have done your homework you too would see the faults of your logic and get you thinking outside the box. This would be liberating and I say this respectfully. I'm not going to leave spam-links (what an odd term for referencing, is this what you would call citations in medical studies? What is your reason?) The number of vaccinations recommended now are grossly more than previous generations and have passed over the safety threshold both in thimerosal and over challenging the immune system. I read a good part of the change in application to a ll from a lll. High risk HVP doesn't cause cancer BUT the inflammation from high risk HPV can but seldom does and then only to immune compromise women whose inflammation is over a long period identified by 2 consecutive pap smears the same HPV type. Estimated at .3 to 1% of those who are infected. More women will develop cancer being HPV infected and then vaccinated than the amount of cancers this is suppose to prevent. HPV
infection doesn't have to be sexually transmitted, objects and hands do also. Circumcision came about when men came to power. Circumcision is all about power over. Where these two topics cross: the foreskin is part of the first line of defense of the immune system (Langerin kills HIV), doctors have promoted without double blind studies and not sensibly time tested, money being made promoting these interventions. Circumcision is a violation to self ownership, to body and neural-physiological integrity. Period. Those who choose circumcision should ideally be 26+ years old. At 26, the mind is fully mature and better held against sway from others. Do you know: circumcision kills brain cells, no longer receiving neural impulses they atrophy and die, then adjacent cells grow chaotically into the dead space. Intact males have the ability to orgasm by thought alone. Consider the foreskin as a vagina substitute. Less does not get you more of the same. HPV does not cause cancer Animal experiments have found that special cells called called plasma cells in the inner fold of the foreskin secrete a compound called immunoglobulin. These secretions protect the penis against harmful bacteria.
It is interesting to note that these antibacterial secretions increase in response to bacterial invasion. A classic 1993 study on genital warts, also known as human papilloma
virus(HPV), came up with the unshakable conclusion that: Intact men had a lower prevalence of genital warts than circumcised men. The presence of the foreskin may confer nonspecific protection of the proximal penis from acquisition of HPV infection. Dr Robert Van Howe conducted the largest review of the scientific literature
on STDs and circumcision ever published. His conclusions are startling: The medical literature does not support the theory that circumcision prevents STDs. To confirm this , the National Health and Social Life Survey conducted at the university of Chicago found: First,circumcision status does not appear to lower the likelihood of contracting an STD. Rather, the opposite pattern holds. Circumcised men were slightly more likely to have had both a bacterial and a viral STD in their lifetime. The central point is that these African silly "studies" measure changes in behavior and attempt to pass them off as changes, improvements in physiology. By cutting off the toes we cure sprained ankles or athletes foot--people won't be walking quite so often or so far, or needing to clean between their toes, will they?
Post a Comment