The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Non-therapeutic circumcision of minors: a legal and ethical minefield > Comments

Non-therapeutic circumcision of minors: a legal and ethical minefield : Comments

By Robert Darby, published 9/7/2012

Medically unnecessary circumcision of male infants and boys is morally wrong and sufficiently harmful to warrant intervention by the state.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. All
Anyone who really believes that new-born baby boys don't feel a circumcision if it is done 'professionally' have never held babies still while they are having part of their penis sliced off with no anaesthetic.

I have, many times.
Yes, they scream in pain.
Some then bleed terribly a few hours later.
Others end up with a nasty infection.

There are very good reasons why the vast majority of medical practitioners today agree that this archaic, barbaric practice should be left in the past where it belongs.

The only ones who like it are old circumcised men who think all penis's should look like theirs, and the few boys/men who actually medically required the operation (with anaesthetic, luckily) later in life.

We aren't living in a third world country with poor hygiene practices anymore. If boys are taught to clean themselves well under the foreskin, then they are no more likely to be any dirtier than any circumcised male would be.
Posted by Suseonline, Wednesday, 11 July 2012 12:31:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are some useful statistics here (does not include any injury short of death however – which must also be reckoned into assessment):
http://mensstudies.metapress.com/content/b64n267w47m333x0/
I think this space is pay per view, but the paper is posted on the net elsewhere. Both the statistics and the stories of course refer to real little boys.
Posted by isabelberners, Wednesday, 11 July 2012 5:06:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Helen,

Here is some information from the CDC with respect to

http://healthland.time.com/2011/09/02/cdc-why-are-u-s-circumcision-rates-declining/

"However, the authors of the CDC report prefaced their findings by noting that recent evidence shows that circumcision greatly reduces the risk of HIV transmission through heterosexual sex.

Data also suggest that lack of circumcision is associated with other sexually transmitted infections, including Chlamydia, genital ulcer disease and human papillomavirus, or HPV. Women who have sex with uncircumcised men appear to be at higher risk of cervical cancer, which can be caused by HPV."
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 12 July 2012 5:40:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is increasing evidence that male circumcision does not prevent HIV infection.

http://www.theafricareport.com/index.php/20120711501815186/southern-africa/zimbabwe-concern-over-high-hiv-rates-among-circumcised-males-501815186.html

The idea that it does prevent HIV is strongly disputed and has nothing to do with this argument.

Children should not be subjected to this procedure without their informed consent as it may cause psychological problems.
Posted by nocircni, Thursday, 12 July 2012 6:53:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A lot of posts make the point that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV (and forms of venereal disease) transmission through heterosexual sex. There's conflicting evidence on this, and any effect along these lines appears to be pretty much confined geographically. So maybe an argument can be made that more research is needed as to this.

What we can be sure of however is that circumcision increases the risk of death, genital disfiguring, and disablement, as well of often serious infection or disease. There is no question that there are many different forms of circumcision, and some of them are more dangerous than others (eg http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/nyregion/infants-death-renews-debate-over-a-circumcision-ritual.html). Even in southern Africa, where some correlation has been found between circumcision and reduced risk of AIDs, mortality rates from the procedure are of great concern. The simple answer to concern about AIDS is not a potentially deadly procedure, but condoms. Seems like a no brainer to me....
Posted by isabelberners, Thursday, 12 July 2012 1:30:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Helen,

You make these broad statements, and the examples you give are of circumcisions done by untrained individuals.

What is the death rate among those whose procedures are done by medical professionals?

The transmission of disease has probably lead to far more deaths than the circumcisions.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 12 July 2012 3:57:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy