Sorry, but you are misinformed. It is you who cherry pick data
to support your beliefs. There have been hundreds of wide-scale
studies done it the last 5 years showing the life-long health
benefits of circumcision:

Take a look here: http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/306/13/1479.full

The evidence for the long-term public health benefits of male
circumcision has increased substantially during the past 5 years. If
a vaccine were available that reduced HIV risk by 60%, genital
herpes risk by 30%, and HR-HPV risk by 35%, the medical community
would rally behind the immunization and it would be promoted as a
game-changing public health intervention.

As for the ethics of circumcision, parents make decisions
for their children all the time without consent. Whether or not
to vaccinate, what school, what religion all can have a profound
effect on child "without their consent".

Take a look here for a dispassionate argument about ethics:

http://www.circs.org/index.php/Library/Benatar2
http://www.circs.org/index.php/Library/Benatar

What a mammoth feast of the circumcision this article makes.
What is next off the block for another article - a lengthy treatise on the impropriety of trimming fingernails in the absence of parental consent?

It is Jon888 and his citations who cherrypick. Ronald Gray's output has had circumcision as its focus, not any particular disease. Circs.org is the website of a devoted circumcision advocate and the Benetars' article is a wealth of special pleading.

All of them are victims of the "circumcised mindset" - that a genital organ with part missing is "normal" and that the surgical operation to remove that part is not subject to the ethics that restrict other surgery to the medically necessary and/or to those who have given their informed consent.

A decision to cut a normal, healthy, integral, functional, non-renewing part off a baby is not like other "decisions that parents make for children all the time".

We should certainly hesitate to take a vaccine that offered only 60% protection against this and 30% against that. The vaccines that we give children offer strong protection against deadly, contagious diseases of children, not debatable, slight reductions in rare diseases of late onset that can be better prevented or treated by other means.

Hugh, I don't think you're making a lot of sense.

If 500 studies aren't enough to conclusively show the health benefits
of circumcision, how many would it take?

The Cochrane Institute of Systemic Studies has said that the African
studies showing the reduced risk of HIV are conclusive.

Based on those studies, mass circumcisions have been carried out
and the results are even better than the studies showed.
Still not good enough for you, huh?

Instead of trying to suggest that the pro-circ websites need to be
ignored, why don't you respond to what they're saying?

Did the Benatar's say something that didn't make sense? Point out
what's wrong with what they said. Being philosophers, I think they
would welcome the feedback.

Yes, circumcision is like other decisions. Good parents want to
do what's best for their children. Parents should be provided with
the best scientific information available and not the emotional
non-sense (without evidence) that the anti-circs have to offer.

Why would you hesitate to take a vaccine that offered 60% protection?
The flu vaccine isn't 100% effective. Nor are many vaccines.

Comparing genital surgery to trimming fingernails is ludicrous.

The "life-long health benefits of circumcision" are controversial to say the least. It's very easy to find circumcised doctors who are against circumcision, but almost impossible to find a male doctor in favor who wasn't circumcised himself as a child.

Canadian Paediatric Society
http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/fn/fn96-01.htm
"Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed."

http://www.caringforkids.cps.ca/pregnancy&babies/circumcision.htm
"Circumcision is a 'non-therapeutic' procedure, which means it is not medically necessary."
"After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions."

Royal Australasian College of Physicians
http://www.racp.edu.au/index.cfm?objectid=65118B16-F145-8B74-236C86100E4E3E8E
"In the absence of evidence of risk of substantial harm, informed parental choice should be respected. Informed parental consent should include the possibility that the ethical principle of autonomy may be better fulfilled by deferring the circumcision to adolescence with the young man consenting on his own behalf."
(almost all the men responsible for this statement will be circumcised themselves, as the male circumcision rate in Australia in 1950 was about 90%. "Routine" circumcision is now *banned* in public hospitals in Australia.)

British Medical Association
http://www.bma.org.uk/ethics/consent_and_capacity/malecircumcision2006.jsp#Circumcisionformedicalpurposes
"to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate."

The Royal Dutch Medical Association
http://knmg.artsennet.nl/Diensten/knmgpublicaties/KNMGpublicatie/Nontherapeutic-circumcision-of-male-minors-2010.htm
"The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organisations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children's rights to autonomy and physical integrity. Contrary to popular belief, circumcision can cause complications - bleeding, infection, urethral stricture and panic attacks are particularly common. KNMG is therefore urging a strong policy of deterrence. KNMG is calling upon doctors to actively and insistently inform parents who are considering the procedure of the absence of medical benefits and the danger of complications."

Everyone should have the right to decide for themselves whether or not they have parts of their genitals removed. It's *their* body.

Why do you think the life-long health benefits of circumcision
are controversial? The evidence is overwhelming except
for those who have a bias against circumcision.

What evidence do you have that only male
doctors circumcised as children are for circumcision?

Even Dr. Wiswell was against circumcision and didn't have his
son circumcised. But after seeing that circumcised babies didn't
get as many URI's he came out in favor of circumcision. I don't
know if he's circumcised or not. Do you?

There may be medical benefits in third world countries where access to sanitation is limited, other than that you are saying human beings were designed wrong. As long as you do not roll around in sand, you should not have any problems.

I would suggest that the best that can be said of circumcision is that it is mostly harmless, and optional.

Circumcision is clearly optional. A very large number of people go uncircuncised, including every male in my extended family for at least three generations.

Being as optional and unnecessary as religion, proponents will promote with similar vigour, having no other means to compel.

I brand and tag my cattle, it does no long term harm, any volunteers?

Rusty

Circumcision is barbaric act based on the myth of backward middle-eastern religions. It should be banned in the 21st century.

The Australian publication, Journal of Law and Medicine, has just published a new critique of those three randomized clinical trials from Africa that have purported to find that male circumcision reduces female-to-male sexual transmission of HIV by 60 percent.

This critique finds numerous flaws in the execution of these studies and finds that the actual reduction in HIV transmission is about 1.3 percent, not the claimed 60 percent. The 1.3 percent is not considered to be clinically significant.

This is balanced by a 61 percent relative increase in male to female HIV transmission when the male partner is circumcised.

Given this, the three RCTs should not be used in the formulation of public health policy.

See: Boyle GJ, Hill G. Sub-Saharan African randomised clinical trials into male circumcision and HIV transmission: Methodological, ethical and legal concerns. J Law Med 2011;19:316-34.

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/december112011/circumcision-hiv-rg.php

Jon888
"those who have a bias against circumcision" You bet I do, and against cutting off babies' earlobes and little toes and inner labia unless and until they individually badly need it.

"500 studies"? Have you read them all? Or just taken Brian Morris's word for it? He's never seen a reason to circumcise he doesn't like, and half the time the studies he cites (and who but he has cited so many?) do not say what he claims. Like the study of 75,000 children of whom FIVE intact boys had recurrant UTIs, that he spun into "19% of boys". It would take hundreds of circumcisions to prevent one UTI - if they prevent any.

That is typical of the "benefits" of circumcision, so that the Royal Dutch Medical Association says "There is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene."

And the RACP "believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand."

In the UK public hospitals do not perform male circumcision, people who approach the hospital to have their infant circumcised, on religous or ethnic traditional grounds are refused.

Two years ago I read on the informative website www.circinfo.org/ that the bit of skin removed “...is now known as the frenular delta and is understood to support one of the body’s densest concentrations of fine-touch nerve receptors, whose specific function is to detect and transmit pleasurable touch.”
Now who in their right mind would want to deny a male child that?
Addressing health scares and the possibility that circumcision decreases the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, it can be argued that such scares have no part to play in the debate on routine infant male circumcision. Infants are not sexually active.
When the child grows to maturity, he can then choose to become circumcised or not. He may prefer to practice safe sex and/or to know his partner. But until then, the rights of the child take precedence over the fears of the parent.
This includes their religious fears.
Finally I wonder why it is that cutting a girl is acknowledged as barbaric while cutting a boy is not.

How can so many spend so much time worrying about something so little, & of so little importance?

@hasbeen: In some countries, people make similar comments about female cutting. What you describe as "something so little, & of so little importance" contains the most sensitive parts of the male genitalia. It's not just there to protect the glans. (even on a circumcised man, the glans isn't the most sensitive part - it's normally the scar line, or the frenulum if that wasn't removed)

Why is it illegal to cut the prepuce off a baby girl, but not illegal to cut the prepuce off a baby boy?

Most intact men would be mad as heck if they were forcibly restrained and circumcised, so why is it considered acceptable to do it to children?

Everyone should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want parts cut off their genitals. It's *their* body, so let *them* decide whether it's important or not.

I am 66 years old. As far as my doctor can tell, I am in good health though he does suggest less red wine and somewhat lower weight. Well, he would say that wouldn't he?

I was circumcised as a baby as were all the men in my family; i.e. my father, uncles, brother and grandfather. I don't remember anythig about the operation nor does it seem to have affected me emotionally or psychologically. (My wife and children might want to differ on that). So, let's leave the matter to individual families rather than intruding even further into the lives of ordinary,law-abiding citizens.

The author would gain a lot more credibility if he spoke against female circumcism. Why he makes such a big issue over a harmless and possibly beneficial practice is bewildering. Soon we will have a club of men taking court action against their parents for having them circumcised as babies.

There are so many excuses for what is essentially a cultural practice.

That crazed zealot Dr John Harvey Kellogg suggested it was a remedy to stop masturbation and others say it was the result of WW1 troops coming home with infections caused by the desert sand (actually rampant syphilis).

There are and endless number of excuses for what is essentially an act of multilation performed without consent and for dubious reasons.

If it's such a great medical idea, why not perform it under general anaesthestic and whip out that potentially troublesome appendix and those tonsils at the same time?

This seems a no-brainer to me - why not just cut off a kid's ears instead? By way of the arguments here, they're under anaesthetic, they're just kids, so they don't feel pain(of course), they won't know till they're older and they don't need those bits anyway and nothing could go wrong that will affect them for the rest of their lives, right? Maybe a few toes too while you're at it?

Without a medical context for surgery it renders this a brutal, traumatic and unquestioning practice - on a child, no less.

However, Mr Darby, you cannot compare the circumcision of baby boys to the genital mutilation of young women. Just as unnecessary, but different in context - one is done for torture, compliance and gender-based subjugation permanently rendering a woman incapable of having a sex life and is also life-threatening - a sheer act of misogynistic, violent hatred, and the other is a redundant religious practice.

Hey Hasbeen
Speak for yourself, dude.
And runner -
Not such a silly idea. Knowing the possibility of a class action exists might stop parents mutilating their children in the future.

Hugh Intactive,
Quote, "who have a bias against circumcision" You bet I do, and against cutting off babies' earlobes and little toes and inner labia unless and until they individually badly need it".

I think most us are aware of and know about FGM, but can you give example of other surgeries carried out on infants for religous or cultural reasons. Such as you refered to above.

Thank you for an excellent article Robert.

Firstly, "Hasbeen, Monday, 16 January 2012 12:32:02 PM" your cavalier dismissal of the issue as trivial is highly offensive. If you are unable to comprehend the gross human rights violation that is infant male genital mutilation, you fail the humanity test.

I am a 43 year old man who was mutilated at the insistence of my mother shortly after birth and I deeply resent it. I only recently learned what is taken from a man by this disgusting, barbaric practice but I have lived with the effects manifest as poor penile sensitivity and dull, unsatisfying sexual experience my whole adult life.

Famed Jewish philosopher and physician Rabbi Moses Maimonides:

http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/jewish.htm

"Historically, circumcision has been touted to cure whatever disease or fear at the time was on the minds of the population." --Steven Scott

It was introduced to the West by puritans to stop children masturbating by diminishing genital sensitivity. John Kellogg (corn flakes) was a fanatical puritan who promoted numerous barbaric tortures for masturbation including circumcising boys without anaesthetic and applying pure carbolic acid to the clitorises of girls.

It failed but the fanatics were so invested in their mutilation fetish they couldn't back down so they started inventing medical claims. None have survived scrutiny and none will.

An example of their desperation:

"1953 R.L. Miller and D.C. Snyder unleash their plans to circumcise all male babies immediately after birth while still in the delivery room to prevent masturbation and provide "immunity to nearly all physical and mental illness." [Immediate circumcision of the newborn male. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1953, Jan;6(1):1-11]"

The full list:

http://sites.google.com/site/completebaby/medicalization

The HIV claim seems to be a rehash of:

"1855 Johnathon Hutchinson publishes his theory that circumcision prevents syphilis. [On the Influence of Circumcision in Preventing Syphilis. Medical Times and Gazette 1855;32(844):542-543]"

If mutilating little boys genitals is so beneficial, why is it so hard to prove?

"Circumcision is a solution in search of a problem." --Edward Wallerstein

I don't understand why people believe there is any argument for circumcision; that cannot be duplicated by proper hygiene; and, the practise of safe sex. Whoever designed the human body is arguably a lot wiser than any of the fundamentalists posting here.
Besides, if it is so protective and all else that is claimed for it; then surely it can be postponed until puberty, when the young person has some say in what is about to happen?
It's archaic, primitive and arguably as obsolete as the belief systems of proponents, who somehow believe that child molestation and or rank cruelty is okay, if it answers an ancient and very fundamentalist belief, for which there is no conclusive evidence?
With such so-called evidence as presented, being fundamentally flawed at best; and or, quite blatantly misrepresented at worst!
Little wonder educated medical professionals are overwhelmingly against this truly ignorant barbaric practise, which has nothing to recommend it in a modern society, with access to clean running water, soap and and washing implements!

As a gay uncircumcised man I can certainly vouch for the fact that the foreskin is a source of enjoyment and play for myself and with others.

My experience is that boys with foreskins learn to masturbate at an earlier age that their circumcised peers. This is because the foreskin aids sexual pleasure and makes a lot of sexual activities easier and more pleasurable.

I don't think this is a trivial matter nor do I think it is separate to the female circumcision debate. Thank God I have my foreskin - I support all efforts that leave a boy intact. If he wants to get it done later for whatever reason that's up to him. He should have the right to sue both his parents and the performing doctor if they violate his penis without consent.

Good thing your mother had you done, Kingsley, or you would have no one but your self for your lack of success, or pleasure, sexually.

I was done so long before you they probably used a sharpened rock, but it did not stop me having a highly enjoyable sex life. They tell me it's not what you've got, but the way that you use it.

Just as well I didn't enjoy it any more, or I'd have Ludwig after my scalp for cluttering up the planet with even more kids.

Perhaps if you lightened up a bit, things may be more fun.

From a medical perspective: Circumcision is more a business than a health issue. Parents PAY to have their male infants 'trimmed'. The practitioner gets a monetary benefit, parents believe their child has recieved some sort of health or other benefit and the infant, unless he is one of the unfortunate few who suffer complications that include death, loss/partial loss or disfigurement of the penis, anaesthetic reaction, post operative haemorrhage and infection, will usually grow up to be blissfully unaware of any trauma or loss.

Of course some Doctors promote it. Most don't! I agree with the Author - There are no health benefits which are not heavily outweighed by risks, nor is it a fair thing to do to a child.

The only time I see circumcision as a real positive is when a man is unable to attend to his own care and hygiene - as in severely intellectually and or physically disabled. Elderly gents in nursing homes requiring full care is a good example. Every nurse you will ever know who works in one would prefer circumcised.

But I still say - leave baby boys be. Let them decide to have their foreskins removed at an age where informed consent can be given. There will probably be very few who give a fig about "not looking like Daddy" which seems to be the main driver among those seeking the procedure outside the religious/cultural groups.

As a practicing GP, who was circumcised as a neonate, I opposed having my 2 sons circumcised, regrettably my ex wife won that debate regarding "her" sons. My assessment of the medical data is that any benefits do not outweigh the risks.

Ethically however, I cannot condone performing elective genital mutilation on a male infant who is unable to give informed consent to the procedure any more than one could condone labial circumcision of a female infant , irrespective of what social, religious or other justification you might wish to use.

Circumcision of a male or female infant or minor, consented to by the parents, is child abuse in my view.

"Hasbeen, Monday, 16 January 2012 5:53:25 PM"

Troll.

For everyone else...

"I couldn't cope with any more sensitivity than I have now.":
http://www.circumstitions.com/Sexuality.html#more

I can still orgasm:
http://www.circumstitions.com/Sexuality.html#still

Uncut is better - personal account:
http://www.circumstitions.com/Sexuality.html#woof

First-person accounts:
http://www.circumstitions.com/Sexuality.html#men
http://www.circumstitions.com/Sexuality.html#women

A man circumcised as a baby has no experience of having an intact penis so any claim that sex is no different or fantastic means he is an idiot, a troll or just engaging in macho BS (the full word is "profanity") <sigh>.

Depending on the amount of tissue removed circumcision takes between 20,000 and 30,000 nerve endings and up to 15 square inches of highly erogenous tissue that reduces the penis from a mechanical machine to a dildo. Then there is the keratin layer that forms on the exposed glans that further reduces sensitivity of the remaining 4000 nerves.

Not all men suffer the same degree of sensitivity loss but if it's done as a baby the effect will be much more severe than for an adult circumcision.

If it didn't create a problem there wouldn't be over a million men world wide using skin expansion (initially developed by Jews in the time of the Greek empire) to try to recreate a semblance of a foreskin to cover their glans so they can regain some of their sensitivity and there would be no need for the non profit Foregen that exist to fund research to help heal men with tissue engineering.

My personal experience may be atypical but it is in keeping with what Rabbi Moses Maimonides said was the real purpose of circumcision.

http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/jewish.htm

I can't see how 'lightening up' will make a difference.

I wonder how much of this whinging is due to the emasculated generation that we now have. Unbelievable that people can get so upset about something so trivial. We are breeding sooks.

To respond to various comments in no particular order:

Halduell writes: "Two years ago I read on the informative website www.circinfo.org/ that the bit of skin removed “...is now known as the frenular delta and is understood to support one of the body’s densest concentrations of fine-touch nerve receptors, whose specific function is to detect and transmit pleasurable touch.”"

What is astonishing is that Halduell seems to believe this without questioning it or asking for proof. No such proof exists.

Kingsley Bugarin writes:

"Depending on the amount of tissue removed circumcision takes between 20,000 and 30,000 nerve endings and up to 15 square inches of highly erogenous tissue that reduces the penis from a mechanical machine to a dildo. Then there is the keratin layer that forms on the exposed glans that further reduces sensitivity of the remaining 4000 nerves."

It is remarkable how much fiction there is in those few words. First, no study to date has ever counted the number of nerve endings in the foreskin: the figures quotes have no basis in evidence. Second, two studies have measured the surface area of the foreskin. One (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19770623) found a surface area of 5.7 square inches, the other (http://journals.lww.com/plasreconsurg/Abstract/1998/09040/The_Prepuce_Free_Flap__Dissection_Feasibility.24.aspx) 7.2. Finally, it was shown in 2000 (http://www.circs.org/index.php/Library/Szabo) that "keratinisation" of the glans does not occur.

Ah, the circumcision debate. I'm guessing the author of the article is not circed - I've never known anyone who has been done to want to go back.

Robert, don't worry, it's OK not to be circed, don't feel bad. But it doesn't mean you've got to wage war against those that are and glad that they are. And who want their sons circed for same reasons, that you would not understand. Let it be.

“jakew, Monday, 16 January 2012 7:37:42 PM”

Hello Jake Waskett. Yes, I know who you are and I feel rather honoured that I've attracted the attention of one of the worlds most famous circumcision fetishists.

http://www.circleaks.org

If I am wrong on specific like numbers then I am willing to concede however, every site I could find state 10 to 15 square inches and then there is this graphic example (penis photo's):

http://www.covenantcircumcision.info/pages/OneThirdPenis.html

This part of the text because the last line is under the photo's:

“What is amputated during circumcision is not only the outer skin seen between the lines in the first photo, but also the inner skin that is progressively revealed distal to ring No. 1 in the subsequent four photos. This is what totals the 12-15 square inches of innervated skin that an adult penis is missing.”

On keratinisation I'm going to quote an answer I found elsewhere. I had thought the protection from HIV was supposed to come from keratinisation of the glans and this says the same:

--

“The study you refer to regarding keratinisation by Short, Szabo, et al is by rabid circumcision proponents. You have to know your sources. Cold & Taylor dissected the glans of circumcised and intact medical research cadavers and found that the keratinised layers were up to 10 times thicker in the circumcised men than intact men. The significance of this is that the keratinisation covers over sexually sensitive nerve endings reducing the sexual sensitivity of the men.

In "How does male circumcision protect against HIV infection? BMJ. 2000; 320: 1592-4)" the authors claim protection from keratinisation that you claim does not exist. Which way is it?”

--

beyond that I will leave it to more qualified people to deal with. I haven't spent thousands of hours on this topic and have no desire to but after a cursory search I found a list of names for some known fetishists:

Schoen, Wiswell, Morris, W.Bailey, Halperin, Short, Szabo, Bleustein, Moses, Melman, Cohen, Quaintance and Waskett

You and your mate Brian Morris are there. Good night Jake.

On the weight of evidence, I am convinced that circumcision is generally unhealthy. I can't see why someone whose "religion" (more accurately, their national-identity in the guise of religion) does not include circumcision would elect to do this to their son.

This practice deserves shame. If God wanted us to be circumcised, we would have been born this way! One should seriously consider not to befriend parents who do this to their children, but I would definitely stop short of making it illegal, for these reasons:

1) Just as I mentioned in http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12960&page=0#223650 - the family always come before the state.

2) Without the option to do evil, one is left with no option to do good. Give the good people a chance to accumulate merit by NOT circumcising their boys.

3) No need to create martyrs: When the Jews were forbidden by the Romans to circumcise their sons, they did it anyway and many of them were happily executed by the sword as a result.

To respond to Kingsley:

"I feel rather honoured that I've attracted the attention of one of the worlds most famous circumcision fetishists."

It's interesting - and telling - that you begin with smear tactics.

"every site I could find state 10 to 15 square inches"

So one might reasonably conclude that it's a commonly repeated myth.

"I had thought the protection from HIV was supposed to come from keratinisation of the glans" -- no, there appear to be several mechanisms, including removal of target cells found in the preputial mucosa.

"The study you refer to regarding keratinisation by Short, Szabo, et al is by rabid circumcision proponents." -- in the absence of evidence, this is laughable. Can one dismiss any inconvenient evidence by claiming that it is authored by rabid advocates?

"Cold & Taylor dissected the glans of circumcised and intact medical research cadavers and found that the keratinised layers were up to 10 times thicker in the circumcised men than intact men." -- if they did, they didn't report on this in the peer-reviewed literature. The piece they wrote together in 1999 (http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/cold-taylor/) says nothing of the kind. It's remarkable that you reject evidence which exists in favour of that which does not.

"the authors claim protection from keratinisation that you claim does not exist." -- please actually read the source. It says: "The inner surface of the foreskin, which is rich in HIV receptors, and the frenulum, a common site for trauma and other sexually transmitted infections, must be regarded as the most probable sites for viral entry in primary HIV infection in men."

According to Jake Waskett, "The inner surface of the foreskin, which is rich in HIV receptors, and the frenulum, a common site for trauma and other sexually transmitted infections, must be regarded as the most probable sites for viral entry in primary HIV infection in men."

Unfortunately, Waskett is quite ill-informed. To the contrary, the study by de Witte et al. (2007) actually showed that Langerin cells in the inner foreskin prevent HIV-1 transmission.

See L. de Witte et al.(2007). Langerin is a natural barrier to HIV-1 transmission by Langerhans cells, Nature Medicine, doi:10.1038/nm1541

Circumcision has health benefits. It's like a vaccination.
It's 100% effective against phimosis for example.

Interesting about the Australian publication that claims the clinical
trials in Africa are flawed. Funny that the results of mass
circumcisions in Africa have measurable results even better than what
the studies showed.

500 studies are mentioned by Dr. Tobian, not doctor Morris. And yes
he's read them.

As for the Royal Dutch statement, I have to wonder if Van Howe (Dutch?
and avid anti-circ person and not such a good researcher) has
influenced that statement. Most other medical organizations
acknowledge there are health benefits.

The "fine-touch" studies were not reproducible and other studies
have shown no difference in sensitivity between circ and uncirc.

I agree with "Senior Victorian": Leave the matter to families to
decide. I'll add that families need to make an informed decision
based on evidence and not other people's emotions.

To Kingsley Bugarin: Consider yourself lucky to be circumcised at
birth. You are missing nothing important. I know. I had myself cut
as an adult and wish it had been done at birth. It's riskier as an
adult, requires stitches, and there's about a month of sexual
downtime. Not a decision I would have wanted to make for myself.

As for the 20,000 to 30,000 nerve endings, I don't recall anybody
counting them. So these are made up numbers by the anti-circ
fanatics. Same with the 15 sq in. of "higly erogenous tissue".
Total nonsense. These numbers seem to be the anti-circs breathing
their own hot air.

To PGS: Thank you! I too have talked with friends circ'd at birth.
I mentioned that some people want to "restore" their foreskin.
The response is always "why would anyone want that back?"

More in next message.

"Circumcision has health benefits"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Like some prophet say, drink camel's urine. The standard remedy for all sorts of illness.

To respond to Gregory J. Boyle:

'According to Jake Waskett, "The inner surface of the foreskin, which is rich in HIV receptors, and the frenulum, a common site for trauma and other sexually transmitted infections, must be regarded as the most probable sites for viral entry in primary HIV infection in men."' -- please read my post *carefully*. I clearly indicated (using quotation marks, no less) that these words belonged to the source we were discussing - Szabo and Short.

"Unfortunately, Waskett is quite ill-informed. To the contrary, the study by de Witte et al. (2007) actually showed that Langerin cells in the inner foreskin prevent HIV-1 transmission." -- Here you're making several mistakes: oversimplifying, and believing that one of a number of studies to investigate is "the truth".

The most serious mistake is to believe that if Langerhans protect against HIV, they cannot facilitate HIV infection. The reality appears to be more complex. Recent reviews (by de Witte and Geijtenbee, who authored the earlier letter which you cited) suggest that LCs can play both roles, depending on the situation: "However, immune activation of LCs [ie., Langerhans Cells] changes these protective cells into HIV-1-transmitting cells, which indicates that the antiviral function of LCs depends on several factors including co-infections." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21030306 "[the] protective function of LCs is dependent on the function of the C-type lectin Langerin: blocking Langerin function by high virus concentrations enables HIV-1 transmission by LCs" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18055263

Continuation of my last message

More to Kinsley: Using words like "amutation" and mutilation"
certainly adds "charge" to the debate but doesn't help your argument.
You seem to condemn pro-circumcision advocates simply because they're
pro-circumcision. From what I've read they are rational and base
their stance on scientific evidence. On the anti-circ side, all I see
are emotional people who won't believe there are health benefits to
circumcision no matter how much solid evidence is presented.

To Boyle: Langerhans cells are quickly overwhelmed by HIV at which \
time HIV is provided easy enter into the system.

As time goes on and more studies are done, the anti-circs will have
a harder time claiming there are no health benefits to circumcision.
The results are coming in from the mass circumcisions and the results
match the studies.

To Philip Tang: He who laughs last laughs loudest. The Cochrane
Institute thinks there are health benefits as do the WHO and UNAIDS.
In fact they are so convinced that they are advocating mass circ's
in Africa. And the results are extremely encouraging. Laugh all
you want and bury your head and ignore the obvious.

what is good..for the male baby
is good for the mother..and female baby!

uncircumsided females..get more hurt by circumsized men
who hurt woman more...by friction/tearing...the spin
of the chosen people wont change
the simple facts..

if a woman wants her male child to.."look pretty"
she should undergo the same 'cure'

whats good for the baby
must be better..to the mother!

and more urgent
to the sexually active mother

it has nothing to do with feling better with or without
but uncircumsized men...dont enjoy regular sex..[they hit and run..tear in and tear up..

because they look so pretty]

lets amputate prostates at birth
or pre-empt breast cancer..testicular cancer
find those susseptable to aids...cut off more bits

medisin
allways gets it right
lets kill the unborn..mutilate them..for life

its a..[proven fact]..that this traumatic mutilation
changes the baby mutilated..into adrenolin junkies

[noting the extended war,between
the two main circumsized belief systems]

more foreskins
mean's more peace
less foreskins..mean ever more war

whats the death rate[ratio],..in war/murders
as meaured by the square inches of skin..brutalised..[upon innocents]

think of the mindset
i love you god..but the kid..is not perfect

but
we can make him pretty...[so he can die or kill by war]

stop kickstarting hate..
in kids by severe trauma events

if you think it feels good..
do it to mum!
[first]..

Male neonatal circumcision imposed on unconsenting, defenceless babies is a harmful operation that violates ethical medical practice. Parents cannot provide proxy consent for a non-therapeutic amputation of a child's healthy body part.

See: Boyle GJ, Svoboda JS, Price CP, Turner JN. Circumcision of healthy boys: Criminal assault? J Law Med 2000;7:301-10. http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/boyle1

The pro-circumcision fetishists, paedophiles and criminals have deliberately misled the public as to the supposed health benefits of male genital mutilation, but are notably silent on the parallel "health benefits" of female genital mutilation (perpetrated on over 100 million Muslim girls in Indonesia alone).

See: Boyle GJ, Hill G. Sub-Saharan African randomised clinical trials into male circumcision and HIV transmission: Methodological, ethical and legal concerns. J Law Med 2011;19:316-34.
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/december112011/circumcision-hiv-rg.php

It's time to state clearly that circumcision imposed on unconsenting defenceless infants is in fact genital mutilation (sexual reduction surgery), an extreme form of sexual child abuse. It is time to commence legal prosecutions against all those involved in promoting or imposing involuntary circumcision on unconsenting minors.

To Bolye, are there any more charged words you'd like to add
that you can't support? You left out "mutilation".

Infants can't consent to anything. Parents make life and death
decisions for their children. We can all hope that parents
have the best interest of the children in mind. Circumcision
has documented health benefits and parents should be the ones
to decide if those benefits outweigh the risks.

"Male neonatal circumcision imposed on unconsenting, defenceless
babies is a harmful operation that violates ethical medical practice.
Parents cannot provide proxy consent for a non-therapeutic amputation
of a child's healthy body part."

By the way, who is Robert Darby, the author of this thread
which has gotten may replies?

What's an independent researcher? Does he have any credentials
whatsoever other than to be a fan of foreskin?

Inquiring minds what to know.

"Dr Robert Darby is an independent researcher with an interest in many
aspects of medical and cultural history, bioethics and social issues.
He is the author of several books, including A Surgical Temptation:
The Demonization of the Foreskin and the Rise of Circumcision Britain,
and numerous articles in journals. He lives in Canberra."

We've outlawed this barbaric practise in our public hospitals! The next step has to be; to amend legislation so that young adults can sue consenting parents and or the medicos, who provide this barbaric primitive practise.
If that drives the practise underground and the use of rusty razors etc; which has to result in infections and even death?
Then those who do such harm, ought to find themselves doing some real jail time, in the company of some very violent men, (family men), who might demonstrate their disapproval in an entirely unforgettable way?
There was a time when we used to believe the world was flat; and one could even be excommunicated for challenging, what was once conventional wisdom and entrenched religious dogma.
Today we are wiser and more knowledgeable and have largely dismissed such errant beliefs!

Commentators such as colinsett [1], Hasbeen [2], and runner [3] all state that circumcision is of little consequence, and that debates on the topic are a waste of time.

There are men who are blasé about the state of their genitals, just as there are women who are indifferent to their female circumcision, and who claim it isn’t a big deal for other women. Clearly, approving the modification of someone else’s body just because you aren’t fussed by it is unethical.

Carry this concept to an extreme: One could imagine differing degrees of equanimity in response to being raped. A prostitute specialising in BDSM role-play scenarios might (and this doesn’t suggests that raping a prostitute is a lesser offence) be less troubled about their rape than a member of a teen abstinence organisation. But regardless of the level of personal trauma that results, a rape is a bad thing.

Circumcision may or may not bother the penis owner (who, we should remember, is the person it is attached too. Not the parents, and definitely not their religious organisation). Regardless, the loss of personal autonomy that occurs when a minor is circumcised is unethical, independent of whether the adult man later minds or not.

[1] http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13123#226787
[2] http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13123#226844
[3] http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13123#226883

JON888

"Infants can't consent to anything." Obviously, Its exactly the reason their rights need protection!

"Parents make life and death decisions for their children." Yes they do , but show me one infant who has died because he was NOT circumcised?? But some infants do indeed die FROM the procedure.

"We can all hope that parents have the best interest of the children in mind." Hope indeed. Im sure most do but its not an excuse for misguided judgement.

"Circumcision has documented health benefits and parents should be the ones
to decide if those benefits outweigh the risks." What exactly are the health benefits to a neonate of this procedure? What are the benefits to a child ?? Why can't the procedure be delayed till an individual is old enough to decide for himself ? Because few young me will agree to it! except for cultural, religious or therapeutic indications

To respond to rper1959:

"Obviously, [infants inability to consent is] exactly the reason their rights need protection!" -- first you need to show that they have a right not to be circumcised.

"show me one infant who has died because he was NOT circumcised?? But some infants do indeed die FROM the procedure." -- it's fairly easy to show, actually. Urinary tract infections (affecting a child in infancy), penile cancer and HIV (affecting him later on) can all prove fatal, and since the risk of these conditions is greater in uncircumcised children, it's trivial to show that a certain number of deaths must be due to being uncircumcised. In fact, when you look at the numbers, it's clear that the proportion of deaths due to penile cancer (a relatively rare condition) attributable to lack of circumcision must be greater than those attributable to circumcision.

in reply to jakew

"first you need to show that they have a right not to be circumcised" Seriously jakew? Why don't you start with the UN declarations of human rights and the rights of children, then have a look at Australian legislation, yep kids have rights too, and a guiding principle in medicine is "first do no harm".

"it's fairly easy to show, actually. Urinary tract infections (affecting a child in infancy), penile cancer and HIV (affecting him later on) can all prove fatal, and since the risk of these conditions is greater in uncircumcised children"

Please direct me to the research ( peer reviewed, double blinded, and controlled) that shows a reduction in deaths or significant morbidity from UTI, Penile cancer, and HIV in infants and children attributed to circumcision.

Hint : universities are currently enrolling - look for courses in epidemology and biostatistics, it might cure your ignorance.

It seems pro-circumcision people here have little knowledge or experience of risks associated with the procedure. Have you Jon888 or jakew ever seen results of botched circumcision? Little boys who've lost part of their penis or in thankfully rare cases, the lot? Or babies bled out to the point of needing transfusion? How about boys and men who are 'normal' insofar as function is concerned but permanently disfigured as a result of poor technique or post-op infection. Do you know how many DIE from complications?

In 12 years I'd never seen a male under the age of 50 with penile cancer but can only recall 2 cases. It is a rare cancer after all. I've never encountered a baby suffering HIV infection as a result of said infant having sexual intercourse with an infected partner. I have seen one genuine case of phimosis which was related to congenital urinary tract abnormality.

In a nutshell, I have encountered a great many more unfortunate males who've suffered as a result of circumcision than as a result of NOT being circumcised.

Obviously most owners of well circumcised peni are quite happy with the status quo but don't fool yourselves. There are those who are not - for very good reasons, however SUFFERERS GENERALLY DON'T WANT TO TELL THE WORLD. So complications of circumcision aren't widely known. Majority of men have great reluctance even consulting a doctor about penile problems.

Comparing circumcision to vaccination is as ridiculous as comparing fish to bicycles.

So gentlemen, cherish and care for your man bits, whole or trimmed, and do seek advice and treatment for any problems EARLY. However before you recommend the amputation of part of a helpless infants genitalia, stop and research the complications of the operation itself. If you are honest, you will accept that it is something which should be undertaken later in life with the decision largely made by the penis owner.

http://www.circumstitions.com/Complic.html#urol

To respond to rper1959:

"Why don't you start with the UN declarations of human rights and the rights of children," -- the UN declaration says nothing about a right not to be circumcised.

"[...] and a guiding principle in medicine is "first do no harm"." -- so then, surely a pertinent question is, "does circumcision constitute a net harm?"

"Please direct me to the research ( peer reviewed, double blinded, and controlled) that shows a reduction in deaths or significant morbidity from UTI, Penile cancer, and HIV in infants and children attributed to circumcision." -- it's obviously impossible to conduct research without patients knowing whether they're circumcised, so presumably you weren't serious (or weren't thinking) when you asked for double blinded studies. Also, I assume you also weren't thinking clearly when you asked for studies of penile cancer and HIV affecting infants and children - these conditions occur later on. So I'll provide evidence summarising the associations between circumcision and these conditions.

Here is a systematic review and meta-analysis of 12 studies of UTI and circumcision: http://www.circs.org/index.php/Library/Singh-Grewal

Here is a systematic review and meta-analysis of 8 studies of penile cancer and circumcision: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3139859/?tool=pubmed

And finally, here is a Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs linking HIV and circumcision: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19370585

jakew it helps to read the question

"Please direct me to the research ( peer reviewed, double blinded, and controlled) that shows a reduction in deaths or significant morbidity from UTI, Penile cancer, and HIV in infants and children attributed to circumcision."

I am well aware of research that circumcision has been associated with a lower incidence of UTI in infants and children, but none that show it reduces harm in the long term attributable to UTI, further studies that do not use catheter or supra-pubic tap specimens in defining UTI are flawed due the difficulty of collecting a reliable urinary specimen from an uncircumcised male infant.

HIV (from sexual activity) and penile cancer do not occur in children and infants, as your quoted studies demonstrate. Nor do these studies show that delaying circumcision till the person can give consent or becomes sexually active would negate any benefit for those who choose to circumcised

"jakew it helps to read the question" -- I did, in fact, read the question. That's why I was able to point out that it didn't make much sense, as written.

"I am well aware of research that circumcision has been associated with a lower incidence of UTI in infants and children, but none that show it reduces harm in the long term attributable to UTI" -- that's a little like saying "I'm aware of research showing that laws banning driving while intoxicated are associated with fewer road accidents, but I'm not aware of research showing that such laws result in fewer deaths." Yes, it's *possible* that those laws result in fewer accidents but each accident is (for some unexplained reason) less severe. But it's very unlikely. It's much more logical to apply common sense: fewer accidents probably result in fewer deaths. Similarly, fewer UTIs probably result in fewer complications of UTIs.

"further studies that do not use catheter or supra-pubic tap specimens in defining UTI are flawed due the difficulty of collecting a reliable urinary specimen from an uncircumcised male infant." -- maybe so, but that leaves a number of studies.

"HIV (from sexual activity) and penile cancer do not occur in children and infants" -- yes, as I stated.

"Nor do these studies show that delaying circumcision till the person can give consent or becomes sexually active would negate any benefit for those who choose to circumcised" -- actually, penile cancer studies suggest that the protective effect is greatest when performed in infancy. As you'd know if you read the paper I provided.

The question makes prefect sense except if you approach it from your viewpoint ideological and intellectual rigidity.

Yes and we could stop all vehicle deaths, and vehicle accidents and injuries by simply banning vehicles or closing roads, the argument for routine neonatal circumcision is as logical.

How many foreskins must be harvested from infants to prevent one case of penile cancer in Australia? Would it be a cost effective intervention? or more cost effective, than other stratergies in the prevention of this rampant scourge of penile cancers leading to how many deaths per year was that in Australi

"The study, by researcher Dan Bollinger, concluded that approximately 117 neonatal deaths due directly or indirectly to circumcision occur annually in the United States, or one out of every 77 male neonatal deaths.
Most circumcision-related deaths are not officially as recorded as due to circumcision at all, but to the immediate cause, most commonly stroke, bleeding, infection or reactions to anaesthesia. Medical statistics are thus at fault in that they do not give the true cause of death at all. Previous studies have given wildly varying estimates the death toll from circumcision. In 1949 paediatrician Douglas Gairdner found that sixteen British boys died each year, while more recent estimates range from a low of two boys per year to a high of as many as 230. Some textbooks and most circumcision promoters claim that there have never been any deaths from circumcision in a modern clinical context (whatever may happen in the insanitary conditions of the Third World). For his study Bollinger collected data from hospital records and government sources to attempt to provide a more accurate estimate of the magnitude of the problem."

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

I believe similar would apply to Australia since cause of death statistics are recorded same.

"Australia has an enviable record with respect to deaths from circumcision, none having been reported since 1993. There is, however, no room for complacency. As well as good medical practice, the absence of such reports is as much a consequence of the declining and now low incidence of infant circumcision and the difficulty of attributing deaths to circumcision when they are the result of later complications, such as infection, or of long term sequelae, such as depression and suicide. As shown on the above table, several authorities agree that there is no reliable record of mortality, and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare has admitted that their statistics cannot identify deaths due indirectly to circumcision" http://www.circinfo.org

AIDS, HIV syphilis and gonorrhea

I always found the phrase "circumcision was recommended for hygene reasons" was strange.... what it really means is that if you are circumsised, you have a degree of protection from STD's like syphilis and gonorrhea.

AIDS is a new disease - but circumcision protects you from AIDS and HIV also.

It doesnt STOP you from getting a disease, but it does significantly reduce the risk.

Nothing near the protection of a condom, or being fussy about partners, but who'd want to do that?

As for penile cancers originating in the prepuce, my atlas of tumour pathology puts the vast majority as occurring at over seventy years of age. This is in alignment with other tumours of almost all sorts, excluding respiratory, urinary tract, and bowel. I would suggest that those wishing to avoid penile cancer by systematic removal of the foreskin could avoid *all* cancers by amputation at the neck.

Rusty.

To respond to rper1959:

"How many foreskins must be harvested from infants to prevent one case of penile cancer in Australia? Would it be a cost effective intervention?" -- my guess would be about a thousand, and no, it wouldn't be cost-effective. Certainly I can't think of anyone who'd argue for circumcision for the sole purpose of preventing penile cancer.

But, of course, we weren't discussing that. In your post dated 17 January 2012 4:03:23 PM, you indicated that the risk of death due to circumcision was far greater than the risk of death due to lack of circumcision. And that statement is clearly false, as I've shown. Changing the subject doesn't seem particularly helpful.

And to respond to divine_msn:

"The study, by researcher Dan Bollinger, concluded that approximately 117 neonatal deaths due directly or indirectly to circumcision occur annually in the United States..." -- it was, however, based on the seriously flawed assumption that differences between male and female infant mortality rates were due to circumcision. Figures from large-scale studies indicate that a more accurate estimate is about 2. See: http://circumcisionnews.blogspot.com/2010/05/fatally-flawed-bollingers-circumcision.html

Dear partTimeParent - if you believe that circumcision gives any man "a degree of protection from STDs (now known as STIs Sexually Transmitted Infections) like syphilis and gonorrhea and HIV/AIDS as well"- I suggest you leave the sexual health & hygiene education of your children to informed instructors.

jakew - personally I also think that the figure of 117 seems very high for a 1st world country. USA does however have a large population and circumcision is performed at much higher rates than here. However I guarantee it will be greater than 2. Death of course is the ultimate complication. There are far more close calls and too many instances of damage - some involving loss of part or all of the penis and/or function and this is far more common than the pro-circumcision camp likes to talk about. I asked if you were aware of, or witnessed complications of the procedure and you've declined to comment. Is this because you are blissfully unaware or because it doesn't suit your agenda?

WTH is wrong with delaying the procedure until the boy is old enough to agree to it, the organ somewhat/much larger, the child/youth much more able to withstand the insult of a GA and be given appropriate analgesia to maintain post-operative comfort? Do newborns feel pain? You bet! Worse - they have to largely bear it since administering painkillers to very young children has further risks.

Dan Bollinger is against circumcision and never lets the facts
get in the way of what he believes. Is he really a "researcher"
or does he find people like Van Howe to attach their names to
what he writes?

"Fatally flawed: Bollinger's circumcision death calculations"

http://circumcisionnews.blogspot.com/2010/05/fatally-flawed-bollingers-circumcision.html

To respond to divine_msn:

"However I guarantee it will be greater than 2." -- Sorry, but I've no reason to regard your opinion as definitive, guarantee or not. On what basis do you make this claim? If you look at the link I provided, you'll see several large-scale studies indicating an upper bound on the risk of death at about 1/500,000. Multiply this by US male births, and again by the US neonatal circumcision rate, and you find a figure of about 2.

"I asked if you were aware of, or witnessed complications of the procedure and you've declined to comment." -- Yes, I'm aware of the risk of complications, and no, I haven't personally witnessed any. I trust that's satisfactory?

"WTH is wrong with delaying the procedure until the boy is old enough to agree to it, the organ somewhat/much larger, the child/youth much more able to withstand the insult of a GA and be given appropriate analgesia to maintain post-operative comfort?" -- Well, there are fewer medical benefits, higher risk of complications, time off work/school, period of abstinence from sex, poorer cosmetic outcome, embarrassment and anxiety about pain, effects.

divine_msn - "WTH is wrong with delaying the procedure until the boy is old enough to agree to it, the organ somewhat/much larger, the child/youth much more able to withstand the insult of a GA and be given appropriate analgesia to maintain post-operative comfort?"

Jakew - "Well, there are fewer medical benefits, higher risk of complications, time off work/school, period of abstinence from sex, poorer cosmetic outcome, embarrassment and anxiety about pain, effects."

Jakew - I think we've established the 'medical benefits' of circumcision are few and far between.

I can assure you the risk of complications are considerably fewer due to the reasons given above.

Time off school/work? Maybe 3 days? Presumably these boys/young men have time off. For instance - 2 of my children needed wisdom teeth removal under GA. Procedures were booked early in school holidays.

Abstinence from sex? Dearie me! Most men are able to resume sexual activity after 2 weeks. Some sooner (against advice but without ill effect) if healed. Should we get worried about 'blue balls'? I don't think so ...

Poorer cosmetic outcome? Quite the opposite - since much of the disfiguring damage done during neonate circumcision is simply because the operator does not have much to work with. Even a 'minor' slip can have devastating consequences. Also in the very young male - up to 3 years and often older, the foreskin is adherent to the glans and must be 'peeled' away leaving a raw surface increasing the risk of removing too much skin (a 'tight' circumcision), formation of skin bridges during the healing process and scarring - especially if infection occurs. Where the foreskin has naturally retracted in the older boy/youth/man that part of the procedure is eliminated and the 'cosmetic' (strange you should be worried about that though, since disfigurement of the very young seemingly does not qualify) effect is generally excellent.

Continued next post ...

Continued ..

Embarrassment & anxiety? Dearie me again! If a boy/youth/man is convinced of the benefits of circumcision then despite any apprehension about baring his genitals for inspection to the good doctor chosen for the job, he'd still have it done. I can guarantee jakew, that the candidate would be reassured by the surgeon and promised post-operative high level pain relief as needed to remain comfortable. Infants however are often lucky to get paracetamol.

On the other hand I can tell you the 2 men I know personally (because one is a relative and the other a cousin of a cousin) who have mutilated penises due to infant circumcison performed badly have suffered EMBARRASSMENT & ANXIETY about their condition since they realised the state of their organs. More than that, it has impacted their entire lives - especially relations with women. The elder of these unfortunate gentlemen is in his 50s. He is missing approximately 1/3 of his glans. He has never married or been in a long term relationship and has fended off women who have been attracted to him. The younger is now in mid 20s and had several childhood surgeries to try repair some of the damage. They moved to Perth WA and I've lost touch but when the lad reached his teens his parents went through a very torrid time with his mental state and anguish over the injury and what it may mean for him as an 'adult man', fearing he would ultimately suicide. There was a lot of speculation shortly after the botch up whether he would have a 'functional penis' later in life. I believe the Urologist was optimistic but malformation was gut wrenching. I guess those guys would have preferred the higher risk of penile cancer in their 60s or 70s had they had the choice.

My knowledge is largely gained from experience. If you can provide some valid evidence for your arguments why circumcision shouldn't be delayed until the owner of the penis is able to participate in the decision - please do.

To reply to divine_msn:

"I think we've established the 'medical benefits' of circumcision are few and far between." -- if we did, I'm afraid I hadn't noticed.

"I can assure you the risk of complications are considerably fewer due to the reasons given above." -- assure as much as you like, but you're wrong. A recent systematic review found typical complication rates of 1.5% when performed in the neonatal period, and 6% when performed later on. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2835667/?tool=pubmed

"Presumably these boys/young men have time off." -- I didn't say that this made it impossible, just that it's a disadvantage to wait. As with many of the other disadvantages that I listed.

Regarding cosmetic outcome, you seem to be overlooking the facts that sutures are not needed in neonatal circumcisions, and that would healing is remarkable in the very young. These tend to produce less scarring. A relatively minor point, but it would be foolish to consider any one point in isolation: they must be considered as a whole.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2835667/?tool=pubmed

Dear jakew. This article like many concerning circumcision is skewed, quite frequently comparing apples with oranges. Trying to compare rates of complication - even defining what constitutes a complication between modern western surgical settings and practices in 3rd world countries, some involving traditional 'doctors' and non-aseptic technique makes any sort of statistical accuracy impossible. Fail.

I stand by personal experience, even though it is limited to approx 50 late circumcisions of boys aged from about 8 through to an elderly gentleman in his mid 70s. No complications apart from minor bleeding and swelling and cosmetically all good. What's more - apart from the under 12s - every one of them, for whatever reason, was having the procedure of their own free will.

I'm not anti-circumcision, rather anti FORCED circumcision and anti ALL unnecessary medical and surgical interventions. If "medical reasons" are the "valid" indicator for circumcision why not offer systemic unchallenged removal of tonsils, adenoids and appendix? Pesky useless little organs causing much trouble and misery to so many kiddies and adults ... Why not whip em out before the baby leaves the hospital? What's that I hear? Unethical to remove healthy organs? Oh dear - that excludes circumcisions then ...

Circumcision is predominantly a religious rite within the Jewish and Islamic faiths or a religious/cultural rite common in African tribes performed chiefly to mark 'coming of age'. Australian aborigines - or at least some tribes, did likewise. Its place in Western medicine came about because some shonky Doctor saw easy money in introducing the practice as a cure for all sorts of things including masturbation, bedwetting and tuberculosis. "Medical Reasons" of course that were ficticous but many believed and I'm sure he died a very wealthy man. Scores of medicos since have continued to profit from the procedure as now it's just an accepted commonplace thing. Oh I do support them. So long as, like all cosmetic procedures, they perform circumcisions on informed, consenting individuals other than the rare case of medical need.

To respond to divine_msn:

"This article like many concerning circumcision is skewed, quite frequently comparing apples with oranges." -- but you haven't produced a persuasive argument against it.

"If "medical reasons" are the "valid" indicator for circumcision why not offer systemic unchallenged removal of tonsils, adenoids and appendix?" -- the balance between risks and benefits is different.

There is NO evidence that infant circumcision has ANY effect on HIV or HPV transmission in adulthood. Loving parents will take the path of least risk and least intervention. And protect their little boys by teaching them how to keep themselves clean, to practice safe sex when the time comes and to respect the rights of others.

Medical ethics involve all 4 elements: unequivocal beneficence for the individual patient, nonmaleficence, justice and autonomy of the patient, not his parents.

Foreskins and frenula are sensitive sexual organs and cannot grow back.

Identifying trimming fingernails with forced circumcision is pathetic.

@jakew "first you need to show that they have a right not to be circumcised."

Hmm, do they have a right not to have their earlobes cut off? Check.
Do they have a right not to have their little toes cut off? Check.
Do they have a right not to have their clitoral prepuces cut off? Check.
Do they have a right to equality with the opposite sex? Check.

And are earlobes, little toes and clitoral prepuces ETHICALLY equivalent to foreskins, being, like them, healthy, normal, functional, non-renewable integral parts of their bodies? YES.

So yes, they do have a right not to be circumcised. QED.

@jakew "first you need to show that they have a right not to be circumcised."

Hold up, Hugh Intactive, who the hell says they have a right to have their earlobes? Did you ask Jake?

Now let me see if I can prove they have a right not to be slain in their cradles...let me see...I know: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948.

But The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is just a bit of paper designed by do-gooders to keep do-gooders happy. Humph. People only have rights that Jake Waskett recognises are rights: the rest are bunkum.

And Jake Waskett wants someone to prove a negative. Dumb, transparent circumfetishist trick. I give up. They never didn't not have no right not to be not uncircumcised, never nohow. OK? Sorry.

"Hmm, do they have a right not to have their earlobes cut off? Check.
Do they have a right not to have their little toes cut off? Check. [...]" -- Hold on, there, Hugh. I'm not suggesting that anyone *should* cut off earlobes and toes, but is there a *right* not to have them removed, and if so, how is it derived?

Now, I would suggest that there isn't a real, absolute right not to have these parts cut off, as evidenced by the fact that they will surely be removed in case of medical necessity.

So what we need to explore is that knee-jerk reaction that says we shouldn't do that, and why we confused it with a "right".

I think that reaction is because we subconsciously perform a rough comparison of the harms and risks of such a proposition with the benefits (if any), and we can instantly guess, with some confidence, that it's a net harm.

And by trying to present them as comparable to circumcision, you create a false equivalence that completely obscures this reason why we reject such propositions in the first place.

The prevalence of tonsil cancer is more than twice that of penile cancer. There is added risk of morbidity from acute tonsilitis and complications of strep throat including rheumatic fever and nephritis. Apart from the misery, calculate the cost of treating these illnesses, drugs, clinic and hospital visits and admissions, downtime from study/work ect and it makes far greater sense to remove tonsils than foreskins.

Most of the 'medical advantages' put forward for early childhood circumcision have absolutely no validity. Conditions and diseases which circumcison is claimed to 'help guard against' are largely a result of BEHAVIOURS. Teaching children good personal hygiene and adolescents good sexual hygiene, maybe even promoting morality, discouraging tobacco use and reinforcing messages regularly are likely to be far more effective in preventing sexually transmitted and other infections and surprisingly, cancer.

Another statistic: The rate of penile cancer in the USA with the highest % of circumcised males in the Western World is on even par with Western European countries where the procedure is uncommon.

Children really do have a right to retain healthy organs including foreskins, earlobes, tonsils, little toes etc. In the event of disease, parents or guardians may make decisions on behalf of the child in consultation with treating doctors to have diseased tissue removed. Adults please themselves. They may choose not to have medical conditions treated at all. They may choose unnecessary procedures like circumcision, tattooing, implants, cosmetic modification. Adults make choices for themselves and live with the consequences, which is how it should be.

"The prevalence of tonsil cancer is more than twice that of penile cancer. There is added risk of morbidity from acute tonsilitis and complications of strep throat including rheumatic fever and nephritis." -- You haven't even shown that the sum of the benefits of propylactic tonsillectomy are greater than those of circumcision, nor have you considered the associated risks.

"Conditions and diseases which circumcison is claimed to 'help guard against' are largely a result of BEHAVIOURS." -- good grief, you mean people actually, you know, do things their bodies? Well, people do behave in different ways, some good, some bad, and it's a bit shortsighted to pretend otherwise. Certainly I'd agree with you that teaching good hygiene, etc., is invaluable, but this can be done as well as circumcision.

"Another statistic: The rate of penile cancer in the USA with the highest % of circumcised males in the Western World is on even par with Western European countries where the procedure is uncommon." -- not terribly surprising, since the use of condoms, etc., is much lower.

"Children really do have a right to retain healthy organs including foreskins, earlobes, tonsils, little toes etc." -- charming as these assurances of yours are, they're not really evidence of anything more than your opinion.

Dear jakew: You say in response to my latest post " -- charming as these assurances of yours are, they're not really evidence of anything more than your opinion."

Certainly makes 2 of us then. Because whether logical or illogical, but invariably narrow and fanatical as your arguments are - they are no more evidence of anything more than your opinion. And thank Heavens for THAT!

That is all ...

Science has proven beyond the shadow of doubt that circumcision has absolutely no medical benefits. In fact, it is putting the lives of infants at risk as shown in this forum. It is same as tattooing an infant. It should be banned.

The underlying reason of the circumcision advocates is religious, not very much different from those suicide bombers.

As has been noted already, the preference for circumcision is essentially a religious pre-christian ritual. Interesting then that most religions view the work of Creation to be perfection but then, with unseemly haste after the birth of a boy (sometimes a girl), they seek to improve on the work of the Creator. Leave the children be I say !

Response to Philip Tang's statement "Science has proven beyond the
shadow of doubt that circumcision has absolutely no medical benefits."

Really? What scientific evidence are you referring to?

In fact it's the exact opposite of what you say -- Science has
proven beyond any reasonable doubt that there are life long health
benefits to being circumcised at birth. In the past 5 or so years,
study after study has shown reduced risk of HIV, HPV, etc.
I'll find some of them for you if you like.

Jon888 you seem to be of some sort of religous faith or ethnic being, to support the abuse of a male infant.
Because you do not have a foreskin, it appears you are demanding that all males should not have one.
None of your arguments prove anything, other than you seem to see pleasure in a brutalised penis! Or envy to those who still have a foreskin!!

Kipp, I'm not religious and I'm not sure what you mean about
"ethnic being".

I had a foreskin until my 20's and couldn't wait to get rid of it.
Sex is much better without it.

I wish I had been circumcised at birth.

Sorry, no envy whatsoever to those who sill have a foreskin.
In fact I feel sorry for them because they're missing out on health
benefits.

Words like "abuse" and "brutalised" don't help your argument.

My argument for circumcision is based on scientific evidence.
The evidence is overwhelming concerning the health benefits of
circumcision.