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.