Sorry to disappoint, I am not a lawyer. Instead I am a scientist and the sone of an engineer. And recently I have spent considerable time learning and applying decision analyis tools to me work and personal life.
More importantly, I have spent a lot of time over the last 12 years reading and thinking about this issue. Hopefully I have been able to articulate and frame the discussions well, so that they are easier to understand for everyone. The thing is, once you clearly articulate the arguments, the ones for RIC fall apart for some reason...
Whoops! Thanks for correcting me.
I'm guessing there was a lot in this thread that was edited out my a mod. Anyway, I saw this today & it reminded me of the recent happenings in this thread. It's the Attorney's for the Rights of the Child's paper on the recent AAP changes. "Out of step: fatal ﬂaws in the latest AAP policy report on neonatal circumcision."
I hear your opinion. However you cannot compare male with female circumcision. There are no benefits at all for the latter. The are per the CDC benefits for male circumcision however. And that's evidence based. Whether the rest of the world chooses to follow this is up to then. I suspect if you don't do it already you won't be keen to start. That's why we still do it on the States. Not because we have bad health care or because we are dumb. Even if John Kerry suggests otherwise
I was wondering if it is of your opinion that evidence-based research can never be flawed or biased? If foreskin removal prevented STD's, then surely a quick check of the data in other non-circumcising nations will reveal a clear higher STD rate compared with the US?
I encourage you to research this issue with an open mind. Read about the history of the procedure, and deaths and botched surgeries requiring multiple surgeries and resulting in lasting damage. Your son may have been OK, but many are not, and if you are truly a man after the truth, step outside your comfort zone and see this issue for what it is.
Even if circumcision on a grown man in Africa did slightly reduce the risk of HIV, please tell me how this applies to newborn baby boys in the US? Can you say apples to oranges? Doesn't seem very scientific to me.
Also, even if there were slight benefits, have they been properly weighed against the negatives? The foreskin is a highly sensitive part of a man's body...it has more nerve endings than the female clitorus! Removing this tissue removes the functions and benefits of the organ. Why does a very limited study on grown African men, who were instructed to abstain from sex or use condoms (did you actually read the study or do you prefer to take the AAP's word on it?) mean our nonconsenting baby boys must lose their rights to bodily integrity? Does that sound like evidence-based medicine to you? To me, it sounds like a profit-based decision which preys on US parents' trust in health authorities and deeply ingrained cultural taboos.
My husband used to think as you do...that it's no big deal, he was happy with his penis, and that there MUST be valid medical reasons for it if it was done to him and so many others. It can be difficult to consider the possibility that the public has been misled on this issue. After learning what the foreskin is, and how important it is to the function of the penis, my husband is officially pissed off. Part of his body was cut off and thrown into the trash (or sold) against his will while he was strapped down. This gross abuse of our boys has got to stop. It is unethical and an obvious (well, to the rest of the developed world anyway) human rights violation.