Is fluoridation really necessary

Supertooth says there is overwhelming evidence to support recent health reports like “A Healthier Future For All Australians” JUNE 2009, that all recommend “Governments make additional funding available for improved oral health promotion, with interventions to be decided based upon relative cost-effectiveness assessment”.

Even with fluoridation and Oral Health education, Dental Caries is the most common and second most costly disease affecting every family including over 11 million Australians every year and decay is a major cause of the Oral Heath Services budget doubling to over $6 billion since 2001. Many communities do not have fluoridation and have twice as much tooth decay.

All cavities occur from acid demineralisation that exceeds remineralisation between meals where carbohydrate is in food left on teeth, mostly trapped under chewing pressure while eating every meal or snack that displaces previously trapped food.

Though most trapped food is packed between teeth, over 80% of cavities occur inside pits and fissures in chewing surfaces where saliva, toothbrushes and toothpaste have little access to neutralise acid and remineralise demineralised tooth. www.supertoothndk.org

Fissure sealants (fillings without drilling) placed over chewing surfaces block food being trapped and halts the caries process but could be more cost effective.

Elastomer strips force fissure sealants (fillings without drilling) inside all upper and lower occlusal surfaces on one side of the mouth at once under chewing pressure while blocking out saliva, retaining functional occlusion and saving chair time and cost. This is a simpler more desirable cost effective preventive treatment that also shows how much food is trapped while eating when in the laboratory a tooth is dissolved in acid leaving only the sealant.

The elastomer can also be an integral part of a toothbrush to force fluoride toothpaste inside pits and fissures under chewing pressure before or after brushing especially in children who have better chewing skills than manual skills and who need to understand the concept of remineralisation that needs to exceed demineralisation from food left on teeth after every meal or snack from an early age.

Hi

A good dental service with short waiting list would not need fluoridation, whether or not it is good.
The real issue for Australia is government/s that mishandles evidence or does not read the latest research, but is influenced by industrial/commercial vested interest to make it mandatory. This is very serious as there are alternatives for those who wish to ingest fluoride.
In Victoria, people who had moved from Melbourne to unfluoridated areas due to fluoride sensitivity, now have no choices, other than extremely costly facilities to remove it from the water.
The government and its minions refuse to say how these citizens will be protected.
A request of the Water Board and DHS to provide:
• A written guarantee it would not hurt the writers or their family.
• That in the event of trauma cause by fluoride the government would pay all medical and legal costs.
A second option was requested the government would pay for the cost of a reverse osmosis filtration system at the point of entry to the property but before the meter for those who did not want the service. The reason for this is that in order to get e.g. 3 litres of pure water you would be wasting around 10 litres of water to clean the membrane.
When drafting the request I advised that it would be refused but the answer would prove useful and would indicate whether the government was interested in listening to the constituents.
The answer:
An emphatic refusal of the water Board CEO to sign a written agreement or to pay any medical costs, etc.
DHS sent a nice glossy brochure about how good it was for you. Strangely it also used some alleged research from South America stating it was safe.
Curious.
Why not use the latest research and information from Europe, where there was more research undertaken and some 99% of Europe no longer fluoridate water supplies. It would also be valuable to have included the European High Court Ruling on the use of Fluoride.
Continued

Fluoridation may affect rural products, including food processors forced to use fluoridated water to process their products. The present prognosis is that EU may reject food contaminated by fluoride.
Producers will need to install filtration systems to take out the fluoride. Our governments are ignoring this.
A government official questioned, informed me Australian law is different from Britain and Europe law. Does this justify bad and unjust laws or breaching of the Australian Constitution to deny Common Law Rights, i.e. the right of choice?
Some politicians have informed me that Victoria and other States have their own constitution. What was failed to be mentioned was that where a State law conflicts with the Commonwealth law then the Commonwealth law prevails.
Other issues possibly relate to the Fluoride Act themselves and their legality.
The Acts propose a level of 1 pmm fluoride. Nothing else. The fluoridation process uses products used are waste products from industry containing heavy metals and other waste material. A safety data sheet obtained from Pivot/Incitec showed up to 4.68 pmm of heavy metals, etc.
The Acts also contravene our Medical Acts in that a person shall not be forcibly medicated against their will; that it requires a qualified medical practitioner to carry out the process, yet the government/s have delegated this responsibility to Water Boards, Trusts etc.
Who, in turn delegate this to unqualified labourers to feed into the system?
Fluoride medication does not sufficiently allow for such things as body weight, gender difference, sensitivity of individuals, age, etc. The amount of fluoride already in the areas, including air and water. It cannot be accurately be dispensed for the individuals, despite protests that it can and subsequently be stopped. The recommendations show that it should not be given to babies under four years of age and supervised with children to seven years of age.
Perhaps the politicians need to listen to their constituents concerns, rather than the power mongers.
Anger is increasing at the government arrogance and refusal to listen and MP’s may be forced to change their views when the votes of constituents voice that anger.

"Why not use the latest research and information from Europe"

How about something a bit closer to home, like this piece of research showing a dramatic improvement in dental health in the Blue Mountains since the introduction of water fluoridation in 1992?

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/adj/2009/00000054/00000004/art00015

And where are all the studies consistently showing higher morbidity and/or mortality from water fluoridation? As studies like the above consistently show, the only morbidity and suffering which people need fear is that which results when anti-fluoridation advocates successfully delay or remove a safe and effective public health measure from municipal water supplies.

Floridation works.

It is same nut jobs that oppose vaccination that oppose floridation.

Fluoridation, vaccination, circumcision. They are a good idea just deal with it. Why do some people get so worked up about the big three preventative health measures and conjure up fears about the sky falling on people's head if they use them? Simple safe measures can protect our kids and save the community and individuals a lot of money. I had fluoride as a kid and dentists still ooh and ah over my teeth and ask if I had fluoride as a kid. As a young kid I shoved half a bottle of fluoride tablets in my mouth and chewed them up to the horror of my mother. Whilst people should stick to proper dosages I note that even that 'overdose' didn't make me feel the slightest bit ill.

I have read the opening statement and am unable to concur that any conclusion can be termed "Overwhelming". More like under whelming.

Oh well it looks like no logic (mine or others) can argue with an obsession (yours).

I prefer to continue enjoying the benefits of fluoridation for my 69th year.

mjpb

Circumcision is a good idea?

What absolute bollocks, 'No national medical organization in the world recommends routine circumcision of male infants.'

http://www.circumcision.org/position.htm

I'm seventy one years old. Born in Surrey UK, my progressive mother believed in fluoride.
I have lost about seven teeth due to accidents and fights as a youngster but when I go to the dentist for a mild toothache (I've never had a bad toothache in my life) the dentist is amazed at the condition of my teeth.
It's a bit like the scientists who say that cattle make no difference to fire when they graze in the Alps. After fires, why are the cattle grazing leases so quick to restore themselves while the National Parks are sterile?
Maybe flouride is bad. Didn't do me any harm.

I must've been under a rock because I didn't realise that the fluoridation conspiracy was still alive!

"It is same nut jobs that oppose vaccination that oppose floridation."
Precisely, Shadow Minister! Their claims are not backed up by any valid evidence.

I find the results of research and studies in favour of fluoridation convincing.

There has not been found a link between fluoridation and negative effects, apart from some staining of teeth when OVER fluoridation occurs (much more than 1 part-per-million).

Side note:
I have to agree with cornflower about circumcision; a totally unnecessary procedure.
It's ridiculous to hack into babies' genitals without having a medical reason for it.

Without wanting to go too off track with the other aspect of preventative medicine but Cornflower it is just like immunisation for boys.

You say that no national medical organisation in the world recommends the procedure be routinely performed on infant boys and gave a link to the website of a group who oppose it. That needs to be contextualised. In the 70s the baby was thrown out with the bath water. Medical organisations were unaware of the benefits as the research had not clearly established anything. The statement would be both literally and substantively true at that time. However things have changed since then with medical benefits clearly established and medical associations who don't support it have at least back tracked considerably.

The World Health Organisation pushes it for adults in sub saharan Africa because of the urgency in stemming the epidemic. It can't wait 20 years.
http://www.auanet.org/content/press/press_releases/article.cfm?articleNo=169

The Centre of Disease Control are rumoured to be on the verge of advocating it and the American Academy of Paediatrics currently have a neutral position but are reevaluating in light of recent research. The Royal Australian College of Paediatrics are reviewing their position however there is no current indication that they will advocate it.

Celivia,

I agree to the extent that "It's ridiculous to hack into babies' genitals without having a medical reason for it." (not that that really happens - the procedure only involves the removal of a flap of skin from the genitals) just like it would be ridiculous to stab babies repeatedly with a sharpened piece of metal without having a medical reason for it. However in both cases the potential medical benefits are clearly established and the risks low.

Hi mjpb,
"However in both cases the potential medical benefits are clearly established and the risks low."

But 'potential' medical benefits are not the same as actual established medical benefits.
There might be a benefit for males living in countries where there's lack of hygiene and lack of condoms such as parts of Africa, but in a country like Australia I have not come across an article that points out a definite medical benefit.

I think that without a consensus about definite medical benefits, it is unethical to perform circumcision because a baby cannot give consent. Until there is a significant reason for circumcision, it needs to be a decision that every adult (18+) male will have to make for themselves.

Sorry for being off-topic as this thread is about fluoridation, but I suppose there is not much left to say about that.

Hi Celivia,

But 'potential' medical benefits are not the same as actual established medical benefits.

True but I still believe that preventative medicine is worthwhile.

"There might be a benefit for males living in countries where there's lack of hygiene and lack of condoms such as parts of Africa, but in a country like Australia I have not come across an article that points out a definite medical benefit."

I believe the push of medical associations in sub-saharan Africa is more driven by the prevalence of AIDS then the personal hygiene of Africans. The condom issue would be more relevant but I haven't heard of that before. The relevant medical associations usually talk about the effectiveness of circumcision. That could interplay with either a lack of condoms or an unwillingness to use them or other factors so I'll just take your word for that.

"I think that without a consensus about definite medical benefits, it is unethical to perform circumcision because a baby cannot give consent. Until there is a significant reason for circumcision, it needs to be a decision that every adult (18+) male will have to make for themselves."

Do you take the same view on immunisation? The alternative is that parents are charged with making decisions for babies until they are old enough and it is unethical to deprive children of the best medical care available. Indeed I believe that in International Law that is considered a fundamental right. Personally I struggle with the idea of exposing male babies to medical risk just to hold off for that reason. For example circumcision provides about a 90% protection against UTIs. From memory male babies are most likely to get them under 1 year of age. An 18 year old can't do much to protect themselves from something that historical. For me it would feel like an abdication of responsibility but I respect the opinion of any parent who feels otherwise.

Re the debate on fluoridisation, the answer has to be whatever works best. I suppose there could be an argument made that we don't know what the full effects of adding fluoride to the water supply has on the human body over the period of a lifetime, say.

Not that I have a strong view one way or another on adding fluoride.

There's another solution, of course. But it probably won't happen any time soon. Drop the junk, sugary diets and eat natural foods which enhance teeth mineralisation. Then fluoride and all the other vitamins and additives could be safely dispensed with.

Hi Celivia!

Circumcision? Where's James?

I can't agree with it. I mean, the good lord gave men a foreskin... actually I don't believe in god. Hey maybe we should routinely remove all organs that we don't see the need for that may cause ill health somewhere down the track.

Sort of a baby-light.

Or maybe sell rights to perform circumcisions to budding feminists in the gender studies courses at university. Could make a fortune.

But to the topic. Any dentist would be against fluoride in the water.

All that needs to be said really.

Like a tow truck owner... ripping up stop signs... this thread is.

Celivia,

While the benefits of circumcision with respect to health are minimal, there are no negative consequences of this practise. (unless the hand ful of botched procedures world wide is included)

The other positive benefits are that there is improved sexual stimulation, and social perception of hygene. While many women don't care whether the man has been circumcised, there are also many that do.

To the questions
Is it safe, simple and relatively painless?
will the child be better off with it? (even slightly)

The answers to both are yes.

Considering that as a child the procedure is relatively painless the suggestion that it is deferred until 18 when it is exceptionally painful is ridiculous. Similarily without evidence of trauma or negative consequences, the charge of child abuse is completely without substance.

mjpb, "You say that no national medical organisation in the world recommends the procedure be routinely performed on infant boys and gave a link to the website of a group who oppose it."

You misrepresent me by omission, I directed you to a listing of the Position Statements of Medical Societies in English-Speaking Countries. Did you find the listing for Australia?

It was sneaky putting circumcision in with vaccination and fluoridation, however routine circumcision has no scientific support whatsoever in Australia.

Cornflower said "It was sneaky putting circumcision in with vaccination and fluoridation, however routine circumcision has no scientific support whatsoever in Australia."

And that, mjpb and Shadow Minister, is all I have been saying, too. I would have no problem with the issue if there was actual scientific evidence that the benefits outweigh the risks in Australia.
All I'm asking is- give me an update on scientific evidence because I have not been able to find any.

There is scientific support that fluoridation reduces dental cavities.

Of course, fluoridation should not take the place of dental health care and education about the care of teeth.
But in a country like Australia, where dental health doesn't even have a place in our Medicare system, and where many people have no access to regular dental services like routine check-ups, cleaning and fluorite treatments, it makes sense to prevent cavities as much as possible.

There is, btw, scientific consensus that the benefits of immunisation clearly outweigh the slight risk.

Besides, immunisation and fluoridation are, unlike circumcision, not about mutilation of a body part but about saving bodies and body parts.

Circumcision came from a weird religious ritual where cutting off the foreskin was equated with a snake shedding its skin.

It was only when the religious ritual of mutilating a small boy's penis came under attack that medical 'justifications' were fudged up.

I suppose there is always some risk that intending parents might be misled by the sort of BS being spruiked by religious zealots who pretend that they can improve on nature, so here is a useful link for parents and especially mothers:

Mothers against Circumcision

http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/

Celivia and Cornflower:

Whilst I would agree that the benefits of circumcision are too small to justify recommending it, similarily the risks are so low that a ban on the procedure cannot be justified either.

Nearly all the bad outcomes were performed by drunken tribal elders.

I have yet to see a single bad outcome from a qualified specialist in Australia.

My decision to have my son circumcised was prompted by a collegue of mine whose son had to have a circumcision at age 6 due to an infection under the foreskin. While you might argue that such things are rare, to me it was not, and at age 6 the op was far from fun.

While I see "mothers against circumcision" I fail to see any men complaining.

Hi Shadow Minister,
"Nearly all the bad outcomes were performed by drunken tribal elders."

How do you know this?

I looked at some links within the link that Cornflower provided, and there is heaps of info to find about complications from circumcisions that were performed by doctors.
This is one of these links:

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

Most males in this world have not been circumcised, including all the males in my whole family, my husband's family. I have never heard that any male in my family had to have a circumcision because of an infection.

You also say, "While I see "mothers against circumcision" I fail to see any men complaining."

I was wondering too, why it is up to mothers and not to fathers to defend their son's penis, especially since there are men who are not happy with having been forced to have their foreskin cut off for no good reason and although it is irreversible, they decide to have it reconstructed as best as possible.

I am also not convinced that circumcision is less painful for a baby than for an adult. How do you know this?
http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/worse.htm

And yes the best point you made is WHERE ARE THE FATHERS?

Perhaps Cornflower can answer this for you?
My guess is that women, throughout history, have always needed to fight for their rights so perhaps it comes more natural to them to stand up for their children as well?

Cornflower,

Do you have evidence that all cultures in diverse geographical locations practising it all did it for that reason? The important thing is that it is a good idea as the practical effect is similar to immunization. The snake worshippers didn’t know that but we do.

Shadow Minister,

The anti-circumcision movement is mainly driven by gay males who like to insert the end of their penises into each other and some misfits who hang onto them who have been circumcised at birth and think they are missing out on something. Some of them stretch their residual foreskin. Seriously!

Celivia,

I have a friend who doesn’t believe in immunization and all kids are fine. I still think both procedures are a good idea.

They are not defending their son’s penis they are defending a humble flap of skin on the end of it. People who get their son’s circumcised are defending the penis. It greatly reduces the (albeit already low) chance of their son getting penile cancer and needing to get it removed during treatment. However it would take a very drunk doctor to remove a penis in circumcision.

I am convinced that it is less painful for a baby. My son didn't appear to suffer significant pain. (It is nothing like immunisation in that regard.) Adult men get stitches and recently a 13yo was circumcised for medical reasons and 5 days later he was in pain. That was unusual but it happens. I have heard of similar incidents. My son looked like he had been circumcised for years after that time. Babies foreskins don’t need stitches and heal quickly.

The anti-circumcision website link regarding complications has a few things. The complication rates mentioned are 2%-10%, 15% and 55%. The American Academy of Pediatrics warn against getting information from unsubstantiated web sites. The AAP list the complication rates of infant circumcision as ranging from 0.2% to 0.6% with most being minor bleeding. Try the website of a medical research scientist for accurate information:
www.circinfo.net

Celivia,

I looked into reported cases of circumcisions going wrong, and almost without exception they were the result of "traditional" procedures. More than 50% in Australia were the result of one ritual in Pennant creek as the result (I quote) of "drunken tribal elders".

The incidents by qualified physicians is so low that there is a higher chance of the entire family being killed on the way to the hospital.

As for the benefits I would suggest you read this:

http://www.circinfo.net/penile_hygiene.html

As for the pain issue, while I am not suggesting that there is no pain in infants, there is no doubt that the nerves are more developed in an adult.

http://www.circinfo.net/pain_and_memory.html

As for the women most prefer the "crew cut" to a "polo neck" in their partners. While some are indifferent I have yet to meet anyone that prefers the polo neck.

My goodness there's a lot of rot written about circumcision (not to mention fluoridation), isn't there?

Male circumcision in various forms has been a widespread practice in many different cultures for millennia, but it was never done for 'health' reasons until very recently. It has generally been associated with rites of passage or other essentially religious purposes, but has only in the past century or so been performed ostensibly for reasons of hygiene, and even then primarily in Western societies or those that have adopted allopathic medicine. It's a favourite topic among anthropologists, and there's an extensive literature about it.

mjpb: << The anti-circumcision movement is mainly driven by gay males >>

Although I'm quite familiar with much scholarly literature that has been written about male circumcision, I've never heard this before. I don't suppose you can back up this claim with some kind of authoritative reference?

When my son was born 20 years ago, routine circumcision of male babies in Quensland hospitals was definitely out of favour, and I don't think any of the medical professionals who advised his mother and me against it was gay. The reason given was that there was no medical indication for such mutilation.

CJ Morgan

Have just lately come to this thread and so was as flabbergasted as you when I read mjpb's claim that the pro-circumcision group was started by gays. Having shared a household with a couple of gay men (and seen more than I ever wanted to), this is news to me also.

Wouldn't you need REALLY floppy foreskin?... never mind. If I reflect upon mjpb's strong religious affiliation, his attempt to somehow shift the blame to gays starts to make sense.

As for medical reasons for circumcision, a foreskin that does not retract properly can lead to infection later in life. As for a reduction in cancer, teaching boys to properly wash themselves by pulling back the foreskin is just as effective and eliminates any need for circumcision.

As for aesthetics; a healthy body always looks best. I think women are more likely to object to 'dick-cheese' than foreskin.

Fluoride; I honestly don't know. My niece and nephew grew up on a bushland property, reliant on tank-water and have very healthy teeth. I am not happy about the amount of chemicals that are added to our drinking water as it is. I also envisage increased water treatment as we turn more and more to recycled sources as well as increased pollution effecting our catchment areas.

Vaccination would have prevented my uncle's polio. Anecdotally, I don't know of anyone who has had complications due to vaccination. I have yet to read any substantive peer-reviewed studies that vaccinations are an indicator in autism.

Finally, Cornflower posted something positive about women - whooooo-hooooo! About time.

CJ Morgan,

Fluoridation and circumcision both can help prevent problems just as immunization can. That is not rot.

”Male circumcision in various forms has been a widespread practice in many different cultures for millennia, but it was never done for 'health' reasons until very recently. It has generally been associated with rites of passage or other essentially religious purposes, but has only in the past century or so been performed ostensibly for reasons of hygiene, and even then primarily in Western societies or those that have adopted allopathic medicine. It's a favourite topic among anthropologists, and there's an extensive literature about it.”

True

I reckon it would be difficult to find a study on that type of thing (gay males who dock) but it is widely known. There might be a study but I am unaware of it.

Your anecdote is unsurprising. Circumcision fell out of favour in the 70s as there was insufficient evidence that it provided a medical benefit. Since then it has been extensively studied. 20 years ago things weren’t as settled and the 70s mentality was still prevalent.

I don’t know the sexual preference of your doctors nor care but I doubt that they were anti-circumcision activists just because they advised against it at that time and I am open to correction but I would be surprised if they would have considered it “mutilation”. Given the state of knowledge at the time they were probably giving the best advice they could.

Severin,

We are talking about a very small subgroup engaging in an unusual practice. There is no reason to believe it reflects the majority opinion of gay men. Of the tiny sample of gay men who I have discussed it with they all prefer circumcised for what that is worth.

I am not so quick to jump to conclusions about hygiene. Yes it is more likely to cause problems for the uncircumcised but why do you assume that applies to penile cancer? Do you also assume that the association between cervical cancer risk and uncircumcised partners is due to them having dirty penises?

I think, since people sometimes have problems with their appendix, we should just remove it at birth.

Better to be safe than sorry aye.

Hmm, what other organs could we remove?

Why Houellebecq the skin is a very large organ estimated to be about 2 square metres. Removing the foreskin of even the best endowered male wouldn't come close to removing the organ. Removing the humble foreskin is a little less invasive then removing an appendix and removal of it protects the health of other organs not the skin. Just to do your disproportionate and irrelevant throw away line to death... are you aware of any research that indicates that removing the appendix will protect against a number of medical conditions?

mjpb: << it would be difficult to find a study on that type of thing (gay males who dock) but it is widely known >>

Really? I hadn't heard of it and neither had Severin. I suspect it's only "widely known" within the somewhat repressed circles in which you apparently move.

You really shouldn't let your homophobia detract from your arguments. Your apparent fascination with "gay males inserting the end of their penises into each other" is very telling, and does absolutely nothing for your defence of circumcision.

It also has absolutely nothing to do with fluoridation - but any excuse for a bit of gay bashing, eh?

mjpb
"I have a friend who doesn’t believe in immunization and all kids are fine. I still think both procedures are a good idea."
S/he is a selfish parasite who relies on herd immunity created by others who DO immunise their children.

"they are defending a humble flap of skin"
Plus extras like 20,000 nerve endings. Men with foreskin left in tact have more nerve endings. Don't men want their penis to be as sensitive as possible?

Circumcision was also used in the past to discourage masturbation. How nice- at least it's less barbaric than chopping off hands.
Also, the glans of the penis, when unprotected by foreskin, is said to become less sensitive.

The 'evidence' you and SM present to back up your argument with is voodoo-science.

The only thing that I am very happy to change my mind on after reading some articles on pubmed about pain and circumcision is that this is a less painful procedure if this is done during the first week after birth than when it is performed later.

I only hope you will not be so silly as to claim that foetuses that are aborted do feel a great deal of pain next time I bump into you in an abortion debate.

Still, having no circumcision is even less painful than having one done below the age of 1 week.

Pain
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19223238?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=10

Oh I really love this discussion about fluoridation, CJ! ;)

I opened this thread accidently and am amazed. Fluoridation does not interest me, but how did it evolve into debate on male circumcission.

A few years back there was one poster here that had an absolute phobia about circumcission and he would turn ANY debate into one on circumcission. I've forgotten his name but he would butt into any thread and try to turn the disscussion to his favourate subject. I suggested to him many times to start his own thread but to no avail.

I got to the point of posting to warn others not to reply to his posts because he would turn the debate. Wonder where he is now?

He would love this, especially with the expanded posting limitations.

Celivia,

The information I have is that circumcision increases the sensitivity, as the area with the greatest sexual sensitivity is no no longer covered.

As per the link you posted with regards pain, if circumcision is to be done, the first few days has the least pain (almost only discomfort) compared to considerable pain later in life. So the call for the boy to decide later in life is like asking for 12 month waiting period for abortion.

Considering that the procedure done in a hospital by a specialist has almost zero risk, and slightly more pain than a vaccination, there are no grounds for banning it what so ever.

As I mentioned before, I have yet to hear of any circumcised man wanting to be uncircumcised. Just as women are resentful of men weighing in on abortion issues, so women are not equipped for debate on this issue.

Female circumcision is a completely different matter all together.

mjpb,

They have a saying in NZ; 'World famous in NZ'.

An appendix can cause trouble and it is less useful than a foreskin. I think it would be best to get rid of it at birth.

'are you aware of any research that indicates that removing the appendix will protect against a number of medical conditions?'

It will protect against appendicitis.

Banjo,

It was James. Hence my query earlier, where is James?

SM,

'I have yet to hear of any circumcised man wanting to be uncircumcised.'
Oh, there's people who have attempted to re-grow the foreskin.

'Just as women are resentful of men weighing in on abortion issues, so women are not equipped for debate on this issue.'

Rubbish. To both claims. Men have a right to have a say about abortion, it is half their child after all. Women have a say on their child when it comes to circumcision.

'Female circumcision is a completely different matter all together.'
Well, as practised in some countries. But I reckon the outer labia has the same function as the foreskin; Keeping dirt away and protecting the sensitive area of the genitals. Nobody would consider cutting the outer labia off as a routing procedure.

Seriously man, why do you want to cut bits off people? People are born with moles, which can become melanoma, should we cut all the moles off at birth?

Houellebecq,

What a pile of purile examples.

It is actually recommended that moles are inspected and dangerous ones removed,
The appendix while posing a small threat requires major abdominal surgery to remove,
A woman does not require any input or approval from a man to have an abortion. A man can express an opinion, but it is just that.

'A woman does not require any input or approval from a man to have an abortion. A man can express an opinion, but it is just that.'

Yes, a man has a right to a say. To express an opinion, as I said. As Celivia has a right to express an opinion. Doubly so if it is her son.

While a man cant make a woman have an abortion or not have an abortion, a mother has just as much right as the father to decide on circumcision.

Your secret mens business crap doesn't wash.

'The appendix while posing a small threat requires major abdominal surgery to remove'

Better to be safe than sorry is the rationale for routine circumcision. A 'small threat'? People have died from a ruptured appendix, much more likely than for problems with their penis.

Houellebecq,

Celiva has the right to be involved in the decision whether her son has a circumcision, but no right over other people's sons, especially considering that it has about the same risk as having a mole removed.

It is not "secret mens' business", but the men don't care. The only ones that want to interfere are blue rinsed dowagers with too much time and too little facts.

PS.
people have died from penile cancer.
Women do get infections from the bacterial cultivation under the foreskin.
It can and often does stink.

If you lower your hygene standards sufficiently then circumcision is no longer an issue.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3543481/

I don't think its really old grannies who care. A lot of blokes seem to want their foreskin back. They seem pretty dedicated to the cause, taking 6 years stretching it. Going through pain, some even getting it medically replaced.

I think we should undergo the radical procedure of leaving baby boys bodies as nature intended, to prevent this unnecessary turmoil in men.

"a lot of blokes"

If by the figures I get you mean 0.1% then a lot of blokes have sex changes, commit suicide, join religious cults.

Is it a coincidence that NORM is based in San Francisco, the sexually experimental capital of the world?

If you look hard enough you will find people unhappy with their lot in life, but the miniscule minority cannot be used to define what the majority feel.

"As many as 5 percent to 10 percent of uncircumcised males may require circumcision later in life because the skin around the tip of the penis may become tight and uncomfortable (called phimosis). Circumcised males may have a slight decreased chance of getting some sexually transmitted diseases but still need to practice safe sex."

With the resultant higher pain, many more males choose circumcision later in life than choose to be uncircumcised.

While there are a tiny handful of men that are pushing the cause, the vast majority are "blue rinsed dowagers".

CJ,

Well outside of the anthropological you don’t really seem to be on top of the current state of knowledge on the topic so I am not surprised you aren’t aware of the prime movers.

Your adoption of a dodgy attempt to ad hominem based on my religion does not indicate a lot of confidence in your argument.

Celivia,

That is a rather harsh and unfair assessment of my friend. I am completely in favour of immunization. I am fully aware that if most weren’t immunized then the relevant children wouldn’t be healthy. However my friend’s views on immunization are like your views on the current topic – misguided not malicious.

”Plus extras like 20,000 nerve endings. Men with foreskin left in tact have more nerve endings. Don't men want their penis to be as sensitive as possible?”

Those nerve endings just keep getting more prolific don’t they? Skin has nerve endings but removal of the foreskin doesn’t affect the sexual sensitivity of the penis which would be the bottom line. Men who become clean cut as adults seem to think that it gets the skin out of the way and enables them to enjoy sex more.

”Circumcision was also used in the past to discourage masturbation. How nice- at least it's less barbaric than chopping off hands.”

So I have read many times on anti-circ websites. Perhaps CJ can check whether more than one person had that theory. Religious and coming of age motivations then later hygiene seem to have been the more established motivations prior to advances in medical knowledge on the topic. I am surprised anti-circs don’t drop that charge. Ridiculing the masturbation theory relies on the obvious absurdity of a flap of skin making a difference to sexual things. Since anti-circs now pretend the humble foreskin is sexual they can’t have it both ways.

CONT.

”Also, the glans of the penis, when unprotected by foreskin, is said to become less sensitive.”

If you believed the anti-circ websites they all but wither up and die. A study of 4,500 men before and after found no difference.

”The 'evidence' you and SM present to back up your argument with is voodoo-science.”

Yep I’ve read things like that on anti-circ websites. They even say that the foreskin protects against HIV. They will try anything. Fortunately the World Health Organisation doesn’t believe fiction on anti-circ websites and is pushing circumcision in sub-saharan Africa to fight the epidemic.

”The only thing that I am very happy to change my mind on after reading some articles on pubmed about pain and circumcision is that this is a less painful procedure if this is done during the first week after birth than when it is performed later.”

To go through childbirth which sometimes even results in the head getting temporarily deformed babies need to be pretty resistant to pain. However whilst I accept the reduced pain and the religious obligations of people of the Jewish faith and the fact that it won’t be remembered I believe in using anaesthesia.

Houellebecq

The appendix thing may have seemed like a good idea at the time but is it really worth continuing? If you can’t address the proportionality and relevance taking a stab in the dark about appendicitis isn’t the way to go. Guessing incorrectly as you did just makes things worse.

A tiny number of misfits who get misled by anti-circ websites into thinking they are missing out on something doesn't make a lot of blokes.

mjpb,

'taking a stab in the dark about appendicitis isn’t the way to go'

You just don't understand where I'm coming from. You know those kinda people who spend time and energy researching on the internet to prove their point. Not me. I just don't care enough.

I just like to push things along and create outrage. Graham loves the revenue. I actually think it's kinda sad how much stake you guys have in proving that circumcision is the way to go.

Each person will make their own mind up. Why are you so threatened by other people not wanting to circumcise their kids?

Haven't you heard that anything that is 'natural' is better these days. Get with the program.

Or is it just sour grapes for you whenever the hippies have a little win. Or are you Jewish? Or do you hate older women like shadow minister?

H,

With all due respect you did some research, overshot the mark and got your Rs kicked.

This is a non issue, the pros and cons are so weak that it should be left to choice, and I don't care who does or does not.

What I resent is a bunch of old biddies trying to organise to tell me what I can and cannot do, especially when their only motivation is what they feel. I don't care what anyone else does, (I aso have no intention to decide for my grandchildren (much later)), but if anyone wants to control what I do, they better have a bloody good reason.

I have nothing per se against older women, as only a very small proportion have the hubris to feel that they have the moral authority to tell everyone else what to do, but where ever there is a movement to ban, restrict or otherwise get the nanny state to interfere in our lives, there are sure to be either religious fruitcakes or interfering old bats.

Having read your posts in other threads, I would have thought that you were sufficiently pro freedom of choice not to take up cudgels for the "thy shalt not" brigade.

'you did some research, overshot the mark and got your Rs kicked.'

Well, it's an original definition of research googling 're-grow foreskin' and posting a link to the first article I could find. Note, I didn't even read the article.

But you have your 'win'. As Yoda said once, 'Victory, what victory. Begun... the dick wars.... have.

Got my Rs kicked? Ha. Seriously man, you might be able to replace that special place in my heart I have for Col Rouge if you keep up that style but add some chutzpah and wit to your posts. I love it when a posters sees things as a war. Go you! We need more like you. Just save it up for someone who isn't gonna be more impressed than upset with that kind of gear.

'I would have thought that you were sufficiently pro freedom of choice not to take up cudgels for the "thy shalt not" brigade'

Oh, but I'm flexible. Nearly as flexible as Foxy, just in a different way. Don't you love it how I change teams. Now you see me now you don't... is it a guy, is it a girl, I'm not sure I mind?

You sound like you could do with some more excitement in your life. Maybe even a little lovin'.

Houellebecq,

"Not me. I just don't care enough."

Fair comment. Although I had a reasonable knowledge even earlier my main research was done for my own children not for this forum.

"I actually think it's kinda sad how much stake you guys have in proving that circumcision is the way to go."

I find misinformation with regard to preventative health issues extremely annoying. In particular the sensitivity thing in this arena and the autism thing with immunisation are sore spots for me. Both are wielded forcefully but neither are consistent with the research.

"Each person will make their own mind up. Why are you so threatened by other people not wanting to circumcise their kids?"

Not threatened at all but that doesn't mean misinformation should be spread unchallenged. Parents should be able to make an informed choice based on accurate information not be told nonsense about merely removing a flap of skin making men sexual cripples.

"Haven't you heard that anything that is 'natural' is better these days. Get with the program."

Don't call a kettle black. What about Ruddie's call for more preventative medicine.

H,

I put that stinger in to catch you at your own game. You got your knicker in a twist so fast that you needed to fire off 2 posts to tell me how little you cared.

"methinks she does protest too much"

"Oh, but I'm flexible. Nearly as flexible as Foxy, just in a different way. Don't you love it how I change teams. Now you see me now you don't... is it a guy, is it a girl, I'm not sure I mind?"

But at least now we have you pegged as OLO's village idiot and won't make the mistake of taking you seriously again.

S&M,

Woo hoo. A worthy adversary. Respect! I may yet come to like you as much as Col. Do you know him? I wonder how you two would get on.

Don't get all flattered about extra posts. Actually only one was about not caring. The other was because I like Noel Fielding.

Graham in his wisdom has allowed me to fire off quick posts and I can use the scatter-gun more. I used to craft all my responses to draw out enemy fire and save ammunition. Like you, I like wars too, but it's no longer necessary.

That was silly of me explaining my magic tricks to you. Too bad, once you know the secret the true magic is lost. You're the one missing out though, believe me!

You can probably guess I haven't much to do this afternoon.
Don't lie, you're riveted. Should I go on?

The Royal Australian College of Physicians:

"After extensive review of the literature, the Paediatrics & Child Health Division of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians has concluded that there is no medical reason for routine newborn male circumcision.

Summary
In our community today, there are some people who strongly favour, and many who are strongly opposed to, circumcision of boys. Parents need to be aware that there are conflicting points of view about the risks as well as the possible benefits of circumcision. If circumcision is to be performed, parents and their doctor should ensure that it is done by an experienced and competent person using an appropriate anaesthetic.

To reduce the risks and the discomfort for the child, the operation is best performed under a general anaesthetic after the age of six months."

http://www.racp.edu.au/index.cfm?objectid=D7FAA93E-E091-4209-15657544BA419672

The 'conflicting views' of circumcision exist among lay people. The RACP has no doubts that it is an unnecessary procedure. Why would anyone like to roll the dice for a general anaesthetic for an infant? To the risks of circumcision must be added the risks of anaesthesia, even if that is local anaesthesia (not recommended by the RACP).

mjpb: << Perhaps CJ can check whether more than one person had that theory >>

Actually, that's one theory I'd heard about prior to reading this increasingly silly thread. I'll be happy to provide some references if you'd care to provide some substantiation for your claim that opposition to male circumcision derives primarily from gay men, and that this is "well known".

I say it's not well known. Who are these "prime movers" that you think we should know about?

My bet is that your theory is only "well known" among the narrow confines of your religion. Prove me wrong.

Is anybody else here aware that opposition to routine male circumcision is being orchestrated by gay men?

Celivia, "And yes the best point you made is WHERE ARE THE FATHERS?
Perhaps Cornflower can answer this for you?
My guess is that women, throughout history, have always needed to fight for their rights so perhaps it comes more natural to them to stand up for their children as well?"

What is all of that about? It is as relevant to circumcision as circumcision is to fluoridation - ie., not at all.

The circumcision decision is easily made on scientific facts available from the medical profession and hospitals and the emphatic answer is "No".

SM
“the first few days has the least pain...”
Yes, I agreed with that. But I want to make clear that I do not agree that the level of pain should be the guide for when to circumcise. Medical evidence should.

“…pro freedom of choice….
Me thinks that people, who are pro freedom of choice, would be appalled that babies are forced to undergo this mutilation for no good reason at all.

“A woman does not require any input or approval from a man to have an abortion. A man can express an opinion, but it is just that.”
That’s right. And men are very welcome to have circumcisions if they want to. But they should not force babies to have the procedure done because they are too young to give consent.

Mjbp,
“Men who become clean cut as adults…enjoy sex more.”
But men who are circumcised as adults would only opt for this if they’ve had sexual problems. They are special cases, cases with problems.
The vast majority of males have not been circumcised and have not had problems. We have evolved and reproduced like mad without circumcisions. We now have a population of over 6 billion, so apparently, men haven’t had too many disadvantages sexually from not being circumsised.

”… my friend’s views on immunization are like your views on the current topic – misguided not malicious.”
OK. But it’s also rather harsh to ignore the fact that unimmunised children are a danger to newborn babies and to people with a weakened immune system.

CJ
”Is anybody else here aware that opposition to routine male circumcision is being orchestrated by gay men?”
News to me, CJ; I assumed that circumcision mostly was orchestrated by primitive cultures and religious leaders who wanted to have some control over the social and sexual behaviour of people, or for some other bizarre reason, and that PEOPLE, because they have access to proper medical information, have come to the realisation that routine circumcision is unnecessary.

Cornflower
”What is all of that about? It is as relevant to circumcision as circumcision is to fluoridation - ie., not at all”.
So are you saying that YOU can make irrelevant posts but I shouldn’t? Lol!
I just couldn’t resist rubbing in that women, who stand up for their rights, don’t necessarily suffer from foreskin-envy.

The circumcision decision is easily made on scientific facts...and the emphatic answer is "No".
And that, Cornflower, I can fully agree with.

Celivia

Fair enough, thanks.

Celivia,

http://www.circumcision.com.au/

With modern techniques, circumcision is as painful and as risky as cutting your finger nails.

While the benefits are not sufficient to justify it as a routine procedure for all newbornes, the benefits exist, and there is no scientific evidence to justify stopping anyone doing it.

While as an adult the procedure is much more sensitive, there are still many many more adults opting for circumcision than reconstruction.

The foreskin like the appendix is a redundant appendage, and terms like mutilation are purely inflamatory, and could be applied to all procedures.

"my son had a mutilation to remove his appendix"

Laser eye surgery is also mutilation, as one can simply wear glasses.

BOth Celivia and Cornflower have failed to provide anything to show that having a foreskin is better than not having one.

Mutilate: To disfigure by damaging irreparably.

I don't usually see people's appendix or notice the shape of their cornea.

Houellebecq,

By omission, you do notice other peoples' penises?

We have a word for those that peer at other's private parts.

Having extended yourself to look up mutilate, you can complete the half job:

dis·fig·ure (ds-fgyr)
tr.v. dis·fig·ured, dis·fig·ur·ing, dis·fig·ures
To mar or spoil the appearance or shape of; deform.

Damage: Harm or injury to property or a person, resulting in loss of value or the impairment of usefulness.

Irreparably: Impossible to repair, rectify, or amend.

Which seldom apply, unless you have a fetish for gazing on foreskins?

Obviously you're a lights off in the bedroom kinda guy.

"Obviously you're a lights off in the bedroom kinda guy."
ROFL!

SM,
Removal of the appendix is not done routinely on babies, neither is eye laser surgery. Circumcision should also be a procedure that's done only when there is a medical reason for it.

Did you read Cornflower's "The Royal Australian College of Physicians" summary?

Anyway, the last thing I'm going to say on this matter is that although I would like to see circumcision for frivolous reasons banned, I also think that we're not ready for a ban until the vast majority of parents have been adequately informed and educated about the circumcision or else we will only expose babies to the dangers of backyard circumcision.

Excuse my little on-topic paragraph about fluoride, but Severin and perhaps some others mentioned that they object adding it to drinking water.
There is enough much evidence available that fluoridation does prevent cavities.
It is a mineral that naturally occurs in water. Fluoridation just means that the fluoride levels of deficient water is adjusted. Nothing bad about increasing fluoride levels where it's needed

Shadow Minister, "BOth Celivia and Cornflower have failed to provide anything to show that having a foreskin is better than not having one."

What absolute nonsense, routine circumcision is cosmetic surgery performed on religious grounds or because dad was so unfortunate to have had it done to him before.

Your statement could equally be made by those who would circumcise girls, where arguably through normal bodily processes of elimination and the probability that girls might not wipe themselves in the correct direction after urinating, infections will occur. Cut off the offending bits, the choice or pain of children being too trite to consider, huh?

Up until quite recently Australian children were not usually taken to the hospital or doctor unless their presenting conditions were obviously long-lasting or severe. Many people born post-WW2 can relate personal stories or those of school friends who endured such problems as broken limbs for days before the hospital visit was considered. "Kids always bounce back because they are tough" was the catch-cry back then.

They were days when child abuse and neglect were not reported and all turned a blind eye, but since then times have changed and there is a gradual realisation that children just might have rights. It is fair warning to those who profit from cutting little boys and those who agree to it that one day soon those children or the State could pursue them for what they have done.

You offer frivolous mumbo jumbo to support the sexual molestation and assault occasioned to infant boys, but thankfully the incidence of this disgraceful practice is waning.

I notice that the clinic whose site you linked to apparently do not comply with the recommendation of the RACP that where circumcision is performed it should be done under a general anaesthetic. They use a local and "for two hours he should not feel any pain". Either way there is no fooling oneself that it is unnecessary and there are risks. What a time to find out that your child reacts to the anaesthetic.

What about the resolution to "First do no harm"?

Celivia

I take your point about fluoride already being present in water (totally agree it prevents cavities). Knowing as I do, the my young cousins are growing up off the town water grid, they have excellent healthy teeth, assume that fluoride was already present in tank water. In fact I am more concerned about the levels of chlorine and other chemicals than fluoride.

Shadow Minister

Seeing as I am here already I must bring your attention to a couple of points you made previously.

1. Any part of our bodies that regularly becomes infected are at a higher risk of cancer - for example, infections due to an unretractable foreskin.

2. Regarding your claim about the increased sensitivity of the glans after circumcision. Adult men have reported increased sensitivity for a time after circumcision, this sensitivity decreases as the epidermis toughens and thickens to compensate for the lack of a protective foreskin.

Why you think a temporarily increased sensitivity of the glans would be advantageous for baby boys is something you need to clarify.

Cheers

Fluoridation is necessary for our kids to have less cavities and for less gum disease and dentistry work needed when they grow into adults.

Circumcision, on the other hand, is totally unnecessary unless a baby/boy/man has a medical need for such a procedure.

Luckily, these days it is no longer routinely carried out like it was when I was a very young nurse.
I had to hold babies down while the doctor cut off the foreskin. Believe me, the babies were extremely distressed and looked to be in severe pain.
There was no anaesthetic for them, and no pain relief was given. I was distressed as well.

If any parents want to have their babies circumcised for no reason other than they like the way a circumcised penis looks, or because daddy had it done, then they should be made to hold their babies down themselves while the procedure is done.

Cornflower,

From your posts it is obvious that you haven't actually read the RACP statements on the issue. Do you actually just make up everything as you go along?

If you bothered to read the statements and other articles you would find that they support what I have been saying:

They recommend appropriate anesthetic (local or topical for routine cases with infants.)

General anesthetic is only indicated where there are complications for example in teens where there is infection or other issues where the surgery is no longer simple. (where the simple procedure as an infant would have saved a lot of trauma.)

They also state that the risk of harm is so low that they cannot recommend against doing the procedure, and that it should be left to the discretion of the parents.

They also recognize that there are benefits, but that they are not sufficient to recommend it as a routine procedure.

I grew up on tank water in PNG. The pump had a compartment for inserting fluoride tablets, which then dissolved as the pump was used.

I'm now 46 and despite years of neglect my teeth are in much better shape than they have any right to be. My gums, on the other hand, are buggered, largely due to the years when I smoked heavily, I suspect.

The point is that gum disease is at least as big a problem as tooth disease - possibly even bigger. Fluoridation will help to keep the teeth strong, but only excellent oral hygiene will maintain the gums in health over the long term.

I'm all in favour of fluoridation, but lets make sure that the oral hygiene message isn't forgotten.

Cornflower,

Your opinion based on the Royal Australian College of Physicians comments are understandable but:

”To reduce the risks and the discomfort for the child, the operation is best performed under a general anaesthetic after the age of six months.”

Well that is a really intelligent recommendation isn’t it? Wait until they experience more pain, expose them to the risks of general anaesthetic, and have them newly cut when they are more mobile. Somehow that will reduce the risks and discomfort for the child.

“The circumcision decision is easily made on scientific facts available from the medical profession and hospitals and the emphatic answer is "No".”

I agree with the frst bit but not the second bit. Anyway since you naturally attribute so much importance to the RACP information please consider their full policy statement where the following quote was lifted.

"After extensive review of the literature, the Paediatrics & Child Health Division of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians has concluded that there is no medical reason for routine newborn male circumcision.”

That is from their policy statement which, as you can see on the page of the link you provided is under revision. That is not to say that I’m expecting them to be at the forefront of medical research just yet given the existing policy statement. That will depend on the attitude and composition of the team doing the revision. Everything so far is pretty embarrassing. I know an RACP statement sounds impressive and it has influenced public hospital policy and no doubt the view of many medical practitioners who repose confidence in it. Therefore on the face of it I sound like a redneck condemning it so don’t worry I’ll go into some detail.

In the first section it authoritatively states:

“The complication rate of neonatal (nb. neonatal) circumcision is reported to be around 1% to 5%...”.

Later it states:

“The true incidence of major (major is in bold) complications after newborn (nb. newborn) circumcision is unknown but is reported to be from between 0.2% and 0.6%5 to 2%-10%61 This time it is referenced.

TBC

The 0.2% and 0.6% I know relate to huge studies of neonates/newborns undergoing the procedure. They reference it to the American Academy of Pediatric statement at the time.

In that statement it relevantly states: “Reports of two large series have suggested that the complication rate is somewhere between 0.2% and 0.6%. Most of the complications that do occur are minor." (NB. minor)

For the record the first study referred to by the AAP was a ten year study that looked at 5,882 neonatal procedures and the second I can’t put my hand on this second but I know it also had a big sample.

The 2% -10% is referenced to a British Journal of Surgery article which simply states that a realistic figure is 2-10%. That is referenced to 3 other papers. One looks at complications in a hospital with a sample of 140 and a mean age of 4.3 with ONLY 6 in the first year of life. One just refers to 3 other papers. One with a sample of 200, and a study from the 60s finding 1.5 to 5% that I can’t source and a 1952 study that I can’t source but from its title clearly looked at 4 year old children ONLY. The final reference of the original British Journal of Surgery article has a sample of 100 with a mean age of 4.7.

In other words the only big samples appear to give complication rates of 0..2% and 0.6%. Of the others that are locateable all are small samples and typically don’t consider neonates exclusively or at all.

Then you get to the issue of the word “major” in bold. Yet in all cases the issue was overall complications and the AAP statement specifically stated that most complications are minor.

So on the best available evidence based on their references the risk estimate is inflated by about tenfold and their references provide no basis for doing so (it is undisputed that later circumcision is more risky). They also describe minor risks as major and curiously put the word major in bold.

TBC

I don’t know how extensive their review was but, if dishonesty is ruled out (which I do for pragmatic reasons), they didn’t seem too spend much time looking at the papers that they actually referenced. Their extensive review of the literature looks like a visit to some anti-circumcision websites and incorrectly assuming their scientific information is honestly reported.

Further, the current RACP paper was torn to shred in peer review on more technical grounds in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health by a team headed by a medical research scientist who does related work (RACP’s policy statement on infant male circumcision is ill-conceived).

You would have to admit that the problems with the RACP policy are visibly extreme.

CJ,

Religion – sheesh!

Celivia,

“But men who are circumcised as adults would only opt for this if they’ve had sexual problems. They are special cases, cases with problems.”

I’d like to get back to that issue later.

”The vast majority of males have not been circumcised and have not had problems. We have evolved and reproduced like mad without circumcisions. We now have a population of over 6 billion, so apparently, men haven’t had too many disadvantages sexually from not being circumsised.”

All the same those who get penile cancer and need to get it chopped off would feel differently even if they are in the minority. Men have a certain dedication to the reproductive process whether or not they are disadvantaged.

BTW you seem to be derailing this thread into something on fluoridation.

mjpb

The RACP is in very good company when it advises against the routine circumcision of boys. As cited earlier,

'No national medical organization in the world recommends routine circumcision of male infants.' There is a long list of medical specialists in all countries who oppose it:

http://www.circumcision.org/position.htm

If you feel so strongly about circumcision why not start a new thread?

Well said, Cornflower.

"No national medical organization in the world recommends routine circumcision of male infants."

For me, this very much the end of the debate about routine male circumcision.

Why, mjpb, do you think that there is NO medical organisation in the world that recommends routine circumcision?

I stand by what I said from the beginning: that I find it unethical to remove the foreskin of under-aged males because they can neither be consulted nor agree, especially because there is no real evidence that removing foreskin would benefit males in the long run.

Severin made an interesting point that has remained unrebutted:
"Regarding your claim about the increased sensitivity of the glans after circumcision. Adult men have reported increased sensitivity for a time after circumcision, this sensitivity decreases as the epidermis toughens and thickens to compensate for the lack of a protective foreskin."

Cornflower,

”The RACP is in very good company when it advises against ... “

Based on incorrect information. Don’t take my word for it. Check the relevant references in their policy statement and track it back. Their recommendations are based on risk estimates that are apparently from small studies and generally not valid for neonates even though they make specific reference to neonates. Their own references point to a 0.2% to 0.6% risk. They are working on the basis that risk is at least tenfold more. Garbage in garbage out.

“As cited earlier,

'No national medical organization in the world recommends routine circumcision of male infants.' There is a long list of medical specialists in all countries who oppose it:

On that web page it has the quoted sentence and lists 8 medical organizations and an excerpt from their policy statement.

These include the RACP which is the organization which produced the policy statement that I have been discussing. It also includes the Australian College of Paediatrics who’s opposition can be paraphrased as “The Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons told us it is no good”. And it includes The Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons with a policy statement more than a decade out of date. They are now known as the Australian and New Zealand Association of Paediatric Surgeons and simply link to RACP for circumcision policy. Another organization included is Doctors Opposing Circumcision. Whilst they may be a national organization they are hardly a peak medical authority.

As I believe I have said before there is a lot of context to the original assertion. I have previously referred to the international and national medical associations who support routine circumcision of men in sub-saharan Africa to fight the HIV epidemic. However your quote could lead to people thinking that all national medical associations are dead set against the procedure.

I’d like to add to the context further by discussing the American Academy of Pediatrics. They are currently reviewing their policy.

A recent article quoted a comment by a member of the AAP task force which formulates the relevant policy.

TBC

The member stated that it is unlikely that they will adopt a more negative position. The question is whether they will change from neutral to recommending it and outlining the medical benefits.

Likewise the Centre of Disease Control is also reviewing policy and there has been speculation in the media that they will soon recommend routine circumcision.

So I’m suggesting the quote may be literally correct but is rather misleading. Given where you sourced it that is not surprising.

If you feel so strongly about circumcision why not start a new thread?
I keep thinking the topic has done its dash. It appeared to have done so until you brought in the RACP.

Celivia,

”Why, mjpb, do you think that there is NO medical organisation in the world that recommends routine circumcision?”

Because they strongly opposed it in the 70s and back tracking to support is a long process for the political successors. Even apparently ready to move from neutral AAP in 1971 released a policy statement stating that there are “no valid medical indications for circumcision”. The American Urological Association in their policy statement already recommend that it “should be presented as an option for health benefits” and the AAP and CDC may well get there soon. Even the RACP are reviewing but they are less likely to get to that stage in their next policy. In other words you can’t wield that fact as if the current state of research doesn’t exist. That narrow fact is in a sea of context.

"Regarding your claim about the increased sensitivity of the glans after circumcision. Adult men have reported increased sensitivity for a time after circumcision, this sensitivity decreases as the epidermis toughens and thickens to compensate for the lack of a protective foreskin."

Does it matter if extra sensitivity just after circumcision goes away? I am open to that. I believe circumcision is the better choice due to health benefits not as a tool for greater sexual enjoyment. What I oppose is the anti-circ misinformation that contradicts the research and suggests that circumcision sexually compromises men.

Celivia and Cornflower,

A recommendation by the RACP for routine circumcision would imply that medicare should roll it out for all newborn boys.

While acknowledging the benefits and insignificant risks, they felt that the benefits were insufficient to justify it as a "routine" procedure for all male infants.

They did not recommend against the procedure which would have stripped it of medicare funding (which it still retains) and suggested that the decision be left to the parents.

The majority of activists against this procedure are women, and 99% of men who have had the procedure are perfectly happy. Who on earth are you trying to convince, and what on earth has it got to do with you?

SM
"They did not recommend against the procedure which would have stripped it of medicare funding (which it still retains) and suggested that the decision be left to the parents."

As far as I know,
"Routine circumcision is not currently covered by Medicare in Australia."
http://tinyurl.com/ykbh8hp

They still cover circumcision when there is a medical need, but not for routine circumcision.

"...what on earth has it got to do with you?"

Anybody who values freedom of choice has a right to comment on any issue they like.
Don't you find it in the least bit unethical that baby boys cannot consent and have no choice in the matter? I do!

Because I value freedom of choice, I don't only comment on circumcision, but also on other issues that might not immediately effect me.

E.g.
I am a proponent of voluntary active euthanasia, even though I'm not terminally ill, I'd still like to comment on the issue!

Even though I have never been a refugee I still may comment on the issue of 'boat people'.

Even though I'm not an aboriginal living in a remote area, I may still comment on the conditions they live in and their rights.

mjpb
I focus on circumcision in Australia. There is no need for circumcision to prevent HIV in Australia.

After the APA adopted an anti-circumcision policy in 1971, they "...have continued to review scientific evidence of the relative health risks and benefits of male circumcision since that time, they maintain that there is no medical indication for the routine circumcision of male neonates. Routine circumcision is not currently covered by Medicare in Australia."

(Same source as the link I used above)

Shadow Minister, "...99% of men who have had the procedure are perfectly happy"

That is a number you have snatched out of the air. In any event it is akin to saying that 99% of women who have been similarly butchered are in favour of doing it to others. That is what keeps the creepy interference in the genitals of children going.

As I outlined earlier, the treatment of children in the past was often abominable. Slowly the lid is being lifted and if information and education do not encourage religious fundamentalists to stop this wretched practice, future massive compensation claims by children who have been harmed will.

mjpb, "What I oppose is the anti-circ misinformation that contradicts the research and suggests that circumcision sexually compromises men."

Who needs to argue that when a significant benefit and justification for circumcision of boys was to prevent 'harmful' masturbation? Of course the destruction of the natural means of masturbation limits the options of circumcised men for their lifetime. I assume you always have a bottle of lubricant handy and you have had to be inventive.

But by what right do you or your fundy mates presume to permanently interfere in the sexual enjoyment of another human anyhow?

Rather than conceal your proselytising for circumcision in other people's threads, why not start a new topic?

Celivia,

For someone that values freedom of choice, you certainly seem to want to deny the freedom of choice to the parents, and considering that there is a net benefit to the kids, (as recognised by medicare see below) the parents have the right to make some decisions on the behalf of the child.

In late 2009, the scheduled fee for a male under 6 months of age was A$43.95, with the Medicare benefit being A$37.40 (85%) or A$33.00 (75%)

http://www.circinfo.net/cost_of_circumcision.html

Other decisons parents have over their kids that have a far greater effect include what school they go to, what type of medical treatment they get etc. It would be far more useful to ban parents from subjecting children to ineffective and occasionally harmful homeopathic "cures".

The issue of allowing adult boys to choose has a major flaw in that the procedure at this age is considerably more painful, and has greater risks. It is similar to applying a 9 month waiting period to abortion so that it actually becomes a moot point.

The reason I asked what on earth it had to do with you is that you as a woman are taking up a cause for which the vast majority of male "victims" are perfectly happy.

If this was female circumcision which had negative health and lifestyle consequences, then there would be a point.

Shadow Minister:

<<< The issue of allowing adult boys to choose has a major flaw in that the procedure at this age is considerably more painful, and has greater risks. It is similar to applying a 9 month waiting period to abortion so that it actually becomes a moot point. >>>

WTF?

Your dick will give birth?

I am trying very hard to be sincere here, if you wish to continue this nonsense, then start a topic about circumcision and stop this prattle on a thread about fluoridation.

My apologies to Supertooth whose well informed post started this topic.

Cevilia,

”Anybody who values freedom of choice has a right to comment on any issue they like.
Don't you find it in the least bit unethical that baby boys cannot consent and have no choice in the matter? I do!”

I am happy to advocate freedom of choice for the parents and I also believe they are entitled to get accurate information. Baby boys can’t consent to many things that are in their interests. For a long time parents have the duty to look after them and make decisions on their behalf. Shadow Minister has pointed out that parents do a lot more significant things to them. Do you feel the same way about immunization?

”I focus on circumcision in Australia. There is no need for circumcision to prevent HIV in Australia.”

It is becoming an increasingly small world. Can you predict with certainty what the future holds? In the UK HIV was a disease of homosexuals but with migration it is now predominantly heterosexual. Things change. After all HIV has gone up 40% in the last 4 years here:

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/young-need-better-safe-sex-education-20091201-k1g1.html

”… Routine circumcision is not currently covered by Medicare in Australia."

Was it an anti-circumcision website?

Cornflower,

” In any event it is akin to saying that 99% of women who have been similarly butchered are in favour of doing it to others..”

Very few women have their clitoral hood removed.

“”That is what keeps the creepy interference in the genitals of children going.”

The “creepy interference in the genitals of children” is your thing. To me it is just like immunization.

”Who needs to argue that when a significant benefit and justification for circumcision of boys was to prevent 'harmful' masturbation?... “

From all I have seen that wasn’t a significant factor until anti-circs started using it as a straw man. Originally they rightly put it forward as absurd but now they are singing a similar tune.

TBC

”But by what right do you or your fundy mates presume to permanently interfere in the sexual enjoyment of another human anyhow?”

It has nothing to do with sexual enjoyment. If anything it promotes it but the difference isn’t great and Severin has suggested that it might be a temporary artifact. I take it religion isn't a strong point of yours either. Christians' religious obligation is baptism not that.

I merely mentioned that all three main aspects of preventative medicine are beneficial. Since then I have been responded to the less informed comments.

Severin,

“WTF?

Your dick will give birth?”

So it isn’t obvious? Take away many of the medical benefits and change an incredibly low risk preventative medical procedure to an increased risk. Throw in a lack of education campaign on the topic that would even afford men the opportunity to turn their mind to it and the need for an adult man to not only have stitches in for 2 weeks (infants have thin foreskins that don’t need stitches – within a week they have healed to the extent they look like it happened years before) but also to refrain from sex for 6 weeks and you are putting up a formidable barrier. Would a comparison with waiting until a child grew up and made a free choice whether or not to immunize (in the absence of any education campaign) work for you? The free choice in preventative medicine for babies argument anti-circs have conjured up is transparent to SM and I. I don’t relate to being taken in by it.

Mjpb, it's a good idea of Severin and Cornflower that you start a new discussion on circumcision.

That way, with a new title, you might attract input from more people, rather than only from the few people who initially came here to discuss fluoridation.

I'm happy to post on that thread. I don't really want to keep discussing this off-topic more than we've already done.