Health Benefits?

[Ann-Marita]

I'm looking for information to refute claimed health benefits for circ. Things like, it lowers cercival cancer rates, lower STD/HIV transmission, etc.

I'm able to shoot down "prevents infections" (gee, treat them with antibiotics, like we do with girls) and "prevents penile cancer" (no, it prevents cancer of the foreskin, but breast cancer in men is more prevalent, do we cut out their breast buds?), but I'm not as able to quickly refute some other claims.

I want to be able to give informed answers on a debate I'm in. I have no thoughts that I will be able to convince the person I'm debating with, but others who read might be turned away from this human rights violation.

Thanks!

[frogautumn]

Good info here...

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

[Fellow Traveler]

There have been many posts on this in the forum which I don't have time to rehash right now, have you tried doing a search? Look for threads with HIV that I have participated in. Also look for the AFAO or more recent Dutch statement. If you can't find these things and no one else posts them I will try and get to it later tonight.

[glongley]

The Circumcision Information Australia website (newly reorganized) has excellent reviews of the arguments again each of the medical rationales for circumcision. An important resource.

http://www.circinfo.org/health.html

Gillian

[Fellow Traveler]

Ok so since I don't see them here we go:

http://www.afao.org.au/library_docs/...rcumcision.pdf

The key point on this one is that even if it is true that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV, the low prevalence of HIV means that the potential for any meaningful risk reduction in the US or other first world countries is low. They say that here too:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...d-1687185.html

Professor Terence Stephenson, president, says HIV is uncommon in the UK and there is little heterosexual transmission within the country, and no evidence that circumcision is protective in men who have sex with men. There is a vaccine available against cervical cancer currently being rolled out in a national campaign, which is expected to significantly reduce the toll from that disease and the incidence of herpes in the UK is substantially lower than in the US. "As a public health measure, I doubt if the college or the Department of Health would be pressing hard for the introduction of neonatal circumcision.

Recent Dutch Statement: http://knmg.artsennet.nl/Diensten/kn...inors-2010.htm

And be sure to search the forum; so you see it's especially an issue of context.

[Ann-Marita]

Thank you! This was just what I needed.

[NSmomtobe]

This might help as well:
http://www.circumcision.org/hiv.htm

[nd_deadhead]

How about "No medical organization in the world considers the potential health benefits of infant circumcision sufficient to recommend it. Why do you?"

Or: "The risks of infant circumcision - both immediate and long-term - are much greater than any potential health benefit. These risks include (but are not limited to) hemmorage, infection, amputation of the glans, adhesions, buried penis, meatal stenosis, painful erections resulting from the removal of too much foreskin, and death."

[Meanderinghome]

If you want a quick reply to the HIV/STD claim simply say. The best prevention is education such as ABC (Abstinence, Be faithful, Condoms). This makes a lot more sense than amputating a body part, and if you aren't teaching your child safe-sex practices, you've failed as a parent.

[WifeofAnt]

We have soap, water, antibiotics, and condoms. What were your excuses again?

Unless you're so gosh-darn lazy you can't teach your kids simple hygiene and safe sex... maybe you shouldn't BE a parent then.

At least I only talk with like-minded people or I might admit that I think modifying your child's genitals so they 'look good' is pretty much pedophilia and incest.

[Calm]

Since I happen to have the link already copied for another thread, here's a recent study done in Australia, which, if debating sticklers for studies and evidence, are very handy: here.

[arihillfarm]

For the HIV/STDs argument I always mention that even if circumcision were proven to 100% prevent HIV transmission, in the years between birth and being sexually active, there may be a vaccine developed or a cure. Why cut off something now to prevent something in 15 years that medical science may have made a non-issue through other less invasive and life altering means?

-Astrid

[Fellow Traveler]

Originally Posted by arihillfarm

For the HIV/STDs argument I always mention that even if circumcision were proven to 100% prevent HIV transmission, in the years between birth and being sexually active, there may be a vaccine developed or a cure. Why cut off something now to prevent something in 15 years that medical science may have made a non-issue through other less invasive and life altering means?

-Astrid

A good point. As an example think about hiw things were with regard to HIV jus 15 years ago. There was no treatment but today it is a chronic but manageable disease