Med website article freaked me out

[JaneSmith1010]

Ok, so....I didn't do a whole lot of research before deciding to leave our son intact. I do not regret the decision as I think nature knows best. However, now that he is showing issues at 2.5 yo, I am reading more about circ/uncirc. I believe he is having separation issues and is just fine.
The medicine.net article I just read was titled something like the pros and cons of circumcision...basically gave a dozen reasons to circ and 2 or 3 mentions that circ is not medically necessary in newborns. It said uncirc boys will likely get STDs, penis cancer, phimosis/paraphimosis, and bascially blamed all of this on the foreskin 'hiding' or harboring things. Someone please refute this for me! How can it be that cutting of a functional piece of anatomical equipment is saving our sons from cancer, STDs and all other nasty infections. If Latinos have the lowest rate of circ, do they have the highest rates of all of these problems? Uncirc are more likely to get meningitis?! How are these studies conducted? I'm P.O.ed.

[MCatLvrMom2A&X]

Horrible article :

Some links you might find helpful:
-The intact penis, if left alone, has no greater risk for UTI's, STD's, Penile Cancer, HIV, causing Cervical Cancer in women.

UTI myth
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/UTI/

http://www.nocirc.org/statements/breastfeeding.php

In fact, UTI's are so rare in any case that, using Wiswell's data, 50 to 100 healthy boys would have to be circumcised in order to prevent a UTI from developing in only one patient. (Using more recent data from a better-controlled study, the number of unnecessary operations needed to prevent one hospital admission for UTI would jump to 195.

FORESKINS: Seek Elsewhere for Infants' Urinary Tract Infections
http://www.cirp.org/news/1997.12.22_PhysiciansWeekly/


UTI Neonatal circumcision revisited
http://www.cps.ca/english/statements...ION%20OF%20UTI

The incidence of Geniturinary abnormalities in circumcised and uncircumcised presenting with an initial urinary tract infection by 6 months of age
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/UTI/mueller/

- Girls have a much greater risk of UTIs, yet we don't cut off parts of their genitals to prevent them.
Cancer Society:http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/co...evented_35.asp

In the past, circumcision has been suggested as a way to prevent penile cancer. This suggestion was based on studies that reported much lower penile cancer rates among circumcised men than among uncircumcised men. However, most researchers now believe those studies were flawed because they failed to consider other factors that are now known to affect penile cancer risk.

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/

Gellis (1978) said there are more deaths from circumcision than from cancer of the penis.8
Boczko et al . found numerous reports of penile cancer in circumcised men, thus conclusively disproving Wolbarst's false claims of protection from penile cancer by circumcision.9
In "Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy," Edward Wallerstein writes14: "If infant circumcision reduces penile cancer we could expect to see proportionately less penile cancer in circumcising nations as compared to non-circumcising ones. No such difference is found."

Preston established quite clearly that there was little evidence to support a relationship between lack of circumcision and penile cancer, cervical cancer, or cancer of the prostate in 1970 but he was unable to identify the causative agent at that time,6 while Leitch did the same in Australia.

Circumcision and AIDS/HIV
http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/
http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab003362.html
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcisi...Statement.html

Comparison of North America to other non-circ countries HIV status
http://www.avert.org/america.htm
http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm

[LavenderMae]

MCatLvrMom2A&X, linked to all the information you need to be informed on the other side (and factual side imo).

I like having the facts but when it comes down to it the claims against the foreskin (or for circumcision) are illogical. I also always think about how the same claims could be said for female circumcision but since it's not in favor here no studies are done about it's 'benifits' and if cutting of the foreskin 'saves' boys from what pro-circers claim then cutting off the labia would 'save' girls too. I am not suggesting we circumcise our daughters of course but pointing out the obvious bias.

[glongley]

Could you post the url for the article, I can't seem to find it when I just go to medicine.net. Thanks.

Gillian

[perspective]

Originally Posted by jhow32000

Ok, so....I didn't do a whole lot of research before deciding to leave our son intact. I do not regret the decision as I think nature knows best. However, now that he is showing issues at 2.5 yo, I am reading more about circ/uncirc. I believe he is having separation issues and is just fine.
The medicine.net article I just read was titled something like the pros and cons of circumcision...basically gave a dozen reasons to circ and 2 or 3 mentions that circ is not medically necessary in newborns. It said uncirc boys will likely get STDs, penis cancer, phimosis/paraphimosis, and bascially blamed all of this on the foreskin 'hiding' or harboring things. Someone please refute this for me! How can it be that cutting of a functional piece of anatomical equipment is saving our sons from cancer, STDs and all other nasty infections. If Latinos have the lowest rate of circ, do they have the highest rates of all of these problems? Uncirc are more likely to get meningitis?! How are these studies conducted? I'm P.O.ed.

These are myths. look at data from many of the intact countries around the world, and you will see they have the same if not lower rates for STD's, penis cancer, etc.. this idea that the foreskin causes more of these problems just does not hold up to reality.

[Smokering]

Think of this way: even if it were true that an intact penis raised your son's risk of penile cancer, STDs etc (and the above links on the topic are worth reading!), the chances of him getting penile cancer or STDs before he reaches an age of informed consent are extremely low. If he decides his foreskin is not worth the risk when he's an adult, he can make that choice (especially after he's personally weighed those 'risks' against the sexual benefits, after experiencing said sexual benefits firsthand). That's fine. In the mean time... well, the chances of your 2.5 y/o son getting STDs are rather small, I would hope! And IIRC penile cancer, which is rare to begin with, mostly affects older men. So you didn't do a bad thing at all. You gave your son the choice to make him own medical decision about an irreversible non-emergency procedure, and that's fantastic.

[Fyrestorm]

Originally Posted by Smokering

And IIRC penile cancer, which is rare to begin with, mostly affects older men. So you didn't do a bad thing at all. You gave your son the choice to make him own medical decision about an irreversible non-emergency procedure, and that's fantastic.

Your son also has a much higher chance of getting breast cancer than Penile cancer..I don't see anyone recommending that you chop off his breast buds at birth.

[robertandenith]

don't you think women can harbor more bacteria than an intact male? SERIOUSLY!!! We have so many folds and a huge cave, why are we cutting up the girls?!?!