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?