Need some numbers...

[Kim22]

I need some info for a dispute!

What is the % of intact males that get some type of UTI, infection, circumcision later in life, etc. Basically, any problem that is most likely from being intact.

What is the % of males that have problems (infection as a baby, problems as an adult, whatever) most likely caused by their circ?

Does anyone know these numbers, or know where I can find them? I know it's going to be hard because there are probably a lot of problems on both sides that don't get reported, right?

[mquester]

I'm sure someone here will be able to give you the figures (Oh, Frank I've got a teething, very grumpy 6 month old on my lap at the moment, so I just don't have time right now -if no one else comes forward I'll try to find some stats for you later tonight though.

You're right though- both will be under reported by doctors. Even deaths from circumcision are often listed as something else under cause of death.

Basically, here's what I tell people when they bring it up - most men in Europe aren't circ'ed and if foreskin problems/infections were so common and difficult to treat wouldn't they demand their sons were? Also, most intact men will NEVER choose to be circumcised as adults, which is also telling.

Have you checked the Cirp and Nocirc websites? They usually have links to lots of info...

-MQ

[mquester]

Baby is sleeping -yah! I did find the following study information. It addresses complications but doesn't give specific numbers:

Circumcised Penis Requires More Care in Young Boys (http://www.circumcision.org/studies.htm)

The circumcised penis requires more care than the intact penis during the first three years of life, according to a report in the British Journal of Urology. The clinical findings of an American pediatrician showed that circumcised boys were significantly more likely to have skin adhesions, trapped debris, irritated urinary opening, and inflammation of the glans (head of the penis) than were boys with a foreskin. Furthermore, because there are large variations of appearance in circumcised boys, circumcision for cosmetic reasons should be discouraged.

source: Van Howe, R., "Variability in Penile Appearance and Penile Findings: A Prospective Study," BJU 80 (1997): 776–782.

And from this (http://www.circumcision.org/benefits.htm)
The UTI studies do not justify routine infant circumcision for the following reasons:

1. Even according to the questionable studies, the overwhelming majority (96-99 percent) of intact male infants do not get UTIs in the first year.( 4) It is not reasonable to subject them to circumcision and the associated pain without demonstrable benefit.

2.The studies do not consider the potential harm caused by circumcision. The rate of surgical complications is reported to be from 0.2 to 38 percent.( 5) (The higher rate included complications reported during the infants’ first year.) There are at least twenty different complications including hemorrhage, infection, surgical injury, and in rare cases, death.( 6) Other harm includes loss of the foreskin and behavioral consequences.( 7)

3.Circumcision involves cutting off normal, healthy, functioning tissue to prevent potential UTI problems in the future. There is no disease or infection present at the time of surgery. If we were to apply this principle in trying to prevent other potential problems, then we would be pulling healthy teeth to prevent cavities. Clearly, this principle is irrational.

4.UTI is treatable with antibiotics.( 8) If good medical practice requires the least intrusive form of effective treatment, then circumcision is not justified. Circumcision is a radical surgical treatment.

5. Females have a higher UTI rate than males,( 9) yet no doctor advocates genital surgery to reduce female UTI.

HTH,
MQ

[Sarah]

Try to figure this one out...it may take you about 1/2 hour, but it's well worth it- you can offer it to your DH too if you want to give him some study questions.

Read this article about meatal stenosis:
http://www.emedicine.com/ped/topic2356.htm

then read the AAP statement on circ:
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org...cs%3b103/3/686

ask and find the answers to the following questions...

what is the incidence of meatal stenosis?
what is the cause of meatal stenosis?
what is the incidence of circumcision complications cited by the AAP?
Is this number greater or lesser than the incidence of meatal stenosis?
Is meatal stenosis cited by the AAP as a possible complication?
How many OTHER things are cited by the AAP as possible complications?
Is this mathematicaly possible?
Can you trust the AAP to report complications and their incidence?

Can you trust the AAP to balance this issue for you after you now know what you do?

As for UTI- here is a little cost benefit analysis... the author- it should be noted- assigned NO VALUE to the foreskin anatomy... the only "negative" of undergoing a circumcision that this (uninformed ignoramus) factored was that it hurt and it COULD cause a complication...he did not give any value to having a whole unmutilated sex organ with full sexual function... guess what- he figured that the rate of UTI risk would have to be 20x higher than it is for circumcision as a prevention to even begin to be considered a reasonable gamble.
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/UTI/chessare/

Here is another good linkjam packed with medical authority over and over stating that circumcision is a unethical and pointless thing to do to a child and that physicians have no business getting their hands bloody in such corruption-
http://www.infocirc.org/saskmemo.htm

Lastly... if a person understands the SEXUAL VALUE of the anatomy... they understand that every single "perfect" circumcision is a HORRIBLE mutilation... so this idea of "circumcision complications" is a farce... it's all complications... it CAN"T go right... how can you mutilate a person's sex organ against their will- "well"?

Love Sarah

[Frankly Speaking]

Originally Posted by Kim22

I need some info for a dispute!

What is the % of intact males that get some type of UTI, infection, circumcision later in life, etc. Basically, any problem that is most likely from being intact.

The biggest problem is that many people think they have a problem when there is no problem at all. For instance, the vast majority of boys who are circumcised later are circumcised for treatment of phimosis. However, 99% of these diagnoses are erroneous. The doctors do not know what phimosis is and think the normal anatomy and variablilty are phimosis and prescribe circumcision to resolve the non-existant problem. Most diagnose the normal trauma of foreskin separation as infection and prescribe a circumcision when there is absolutely no infection at all. Even when there is an infection, they often do not do the necessary tests to identify the problem so they can appropriately treat it. Aparently, they think the infections are so unavoidable, they just let them go until circumcision is the last resort in the parents mind and the time has come.

What is the % of males that have problems (infection as a baby, problems as an adult, whatever) most likely caused by their circ?

Nobody really knows. The medical profession says well less than 1% but we know the complications from Meatal stenosis alone is up to 1/3 of all circumcised boys so we know somebody is lying about the percentage. We also know that the percentage of men who were circumcised too tight resulting in hair on the penile shaft is about 18%. Of course, this problem doesn't show up until puberty so it is not recorded in the statistics. There is also the "slight" problem of death. Two researchers working 20 years apart have both estimated that more than 200 boys die every year from circumcision complications. That sounds like a lot but when you consider that about 1.6 million boys are circumcised each year or about 3,500 every day, it is a very small percentage. However, if it's your son that dies, it is 100% in your life.

Does anyone know these numbers, or know where I can find them? I know it's going to be hard because there are probably a lot of problems on both sides that don't get reported, right?

I believe there could be a convincing argument that gross circumcision accidents are often hidden to protect the guilty and I also think the percentage of misdiagnoses of problems that end up in circumcision are also carefully hidden. I think the actual numbers of intact American males who end up actually needing to be circumcised would be very similar to intact European boys who actually needto be circumcised. That would be about 6 of every 100,000 males.




Frank

[Stardust27]

I did some calculations on percentages of boys who need circumcision in this post:
http://mothering.com/discussions/sho...8&postcount=16
(please start reading right below the two flag waving smilies ).

Stardust

[Kim22]

Originally Posted by Sarah

you can offer it to your DH too if you want to give him some study questions.

Thanks for the info! I'll check it all out as soon as I get a chance. Also, just so you know, the "dispute" (I think I should've used the term "debate" instead.) that I mentioned wasn't with DH, but a good friend of mine who is choosing to circ her son.

Thanks for all of the help, everyone!