Another biased article on circumcision

[4chunut1]

This was the lead article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch newspaper Health section of the Oct. 8th edition.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/lif...3?OpenDocument

What appears to be supposedly "neutral" reporting about pending CDC guidance on the subject, it then lists some "claims" of the benefits of circumcision, and NONE of the risks or complications..!! It simply summarizes those as "Doctors routinely use anesthesia to reduce pain, and complications are rare." A blatantly FALSE statement...

So far, only a few comments on the article, but the majority point out that circumcision does NOT protect against HIV/AIDS. Almost nothing about the sexual benefits of a foreskin though...

The fight must continue..!!

[buttercups.nest]

that picture made me want to cry!

[Fellow Traveler]

Originally Posted by 4chunut1

This was the lead article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch newspaper Health section of the Oct. 8th edition.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/lif...3?OpenDocument

What appears to be supposedly "neutral" reporting about pending CDC guidance on the subject, it then lists some "claims" of the benefits of circumcision, and NONE of the risks or complications..!! It simply summarizes those as "Doctors routinely use anesthesia to reduce pain, and complications are rare." A blatantly FALSE statement...

So far, only a few comments on the article, but the majority point out that circumcision does NOT protect against HIV/AIDS. Almost nothing about the sexual benefits of a foreskin though...

The fight must continue..!!

You know though, I liked that they said: "Safe sex is a better prevention for STDs," said Dr. Joseph Kahn

And quite honestly the quoted Drs don't seem that impressed with the 'HIV' excuse. But yes the picture is disgusting.

[Minarai]

[Pumpkinheadmommy]

It looks like this author had a hard time staying focused. About two-thirds of the way through she started rambling on about the HPV vaccine, then ended it. It definitely could have been a lot worse. The article said that medical benefits are minimal, that it's usually done for social conformity, and that people were starting to ask questions about it. I think that's a positive sign. In my area, so many people never even think about it. At least this article is enough to get people thinking.

[Greg B]

Highly biased. Especially by equating RIC to immunizations. Amputating healthy body parts on a parent's preference, causing horrendous pain, against human rights well supported in our society, against the doctors own guidelines, is in a completely different league than short term, minor pain, well supported on a medical and scientific basis.

By using this comparison, they subtly make a case for RIC between the lines. If they reaaly wanted to make a good comparison, they would compare it to FGM.

Regards

[NaturalMindedMomma]

I'm confused, If you still need to take all sexual precautions as before, then is circing really helping? WHY BOTHER???

OMG and last time I CHECKED, babies are not having sex! So that argument is really out!

That article was not good, pro circ (there is no neitral to me I guess), pro vax, pro UGLY!

[serendipity22]

I'm confused, If you still need to take all sexual precautions as before, then is circing really helping? WHY BOTHER???

Hugh Young likens circ to the 'magic' nail in the nail soup story.

A tramp turns up with a nail and says he can make delicious soup in return for board.

They add flour, turnip, carrot, meat, potato etc. (condoms, education, faithfulness, abstinence , treatment of ulcers etc.) and yes the soup is delicious and the nail gets the credit.

OMG and last time I CHECKED, babies are not having sex!

Circ is a form of social control. If they are not circed as infants they probably won't get circed as adults.

(OT but i consider infant vax for adult diseases spread by IV use etc. social control)

[pumpkinhead]

What an ill-written article. Besides the point of it being biased, it was just poorly written and difficult to slog through.