According to a recent magazine article : -

"A group of Australian doctors is campaigning for a
return to routine circumcision, citing research that
shows it protects men from a range of diseases,
including two forms of cancer (penile and prostrate),
urinary tract infections and a range of sexually
transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS and the
human papilloma virus (HPV), which can lead to cervical
cancer in their female partners."

Professor Brian Morris, Professor of Medicine at Sydney
University said recently that "The evidence in favour
of infant circumcision is now so strong that advocating
this simple, inexpensive procedure for baby boys is
about as effective and safe as childhood vaccination."

I would be interested to read posters views on the topic.

<<I would be interested to read posters views on the topic>>

Circumcision is not a medical issue but a question of values and morals - that is, unless one's specific values are to "ask the doctors".

Doctors are only trained in keeping human bodies alive and physically healthy for as long as possible, otherwise their views are as good or as bad as anyone else's. They have therefore no right to advocate anything to the general public, but only to those who seek their advice out of belief that it is of value.

Lexi,
You are a game girl. The last time this was raised here on OLO it attracted some 13 pages of comment. See link.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13123&page=0#226858

I did scroll through and noted many posters I had not seen before and I have not since.

I have no opinion, it is for parents to decide.

Lexi,

Morris has had this hobby horse a long time. (Pauling was funny for Vitamin C, so what?)

The Australian medical fraternity have not taken up his position, over many years so far. I suspect the only reason circumcision persists so much in America is Religio/political.

Morris has a web page on the topic.

I wonder what his religious affiliations are? There is no other single correlate for circumcision remotely as compelling.

Rusty

Circumcision has always been done for safety, not 'personal preference'. In more moral times Doctors promoted it for 'hygene' reasons, because you couldn't go about saying that it would reduce the risk of Syphilis Ghonereah and other Sexuak diseases. So they said "hygene"

Yes we do have antibiotics and condoms... But how many men use condoms every time? How many women use the "female condom"?

Yes we have some treatments for AIDS, but not a cure.

Many STDs have no symptoms for some people, yet they can still kill or cause permanent infertility eventually.

All of these diseases are still dangerous and in 20 years when today's babies are adults, I am sure that they will still be here and still dangerous.

Circumcision is about protecting health.. that's all. It has nothing about personal preterence or morals.

As a circumcised man, and as father of young boys, it is a good thing.

It seems we already have the hysterics out and about.

Part time parent:
IN more "moral" times, doctors routinely did things that are "unethical" now, including coddling the "gentle sensibilities" of overly religious twits rather than use proper terminology.

"Hygiene" is having the wit to avoid sex with a diseased partner, to avoid the contamination in the first place. The presense of a foreskin will save you one time in a hundred at best, luck will save you even more times than that, followed by condoms and abstinence. If you or your kids think circumcision will help, you are sadly mistaken.

Circumcision has everything to do with preference, and not that of the subject. In fact it seems to have *everything* to do with the preference of the imposer, not the recipient *or* their parents.

As an uncircumcised father of uncircumcised boys, with an uncircumcised father and two uncircumcised grandfathers, I think any enforcement of circumcision is ridiculous, personally offensive, and medico/legally and ethically indefensible in a culture with *much* bigger and more cheaply addressed health issues.

Rusty

My reason for this thread is a personal one.
My niece is expecting her first child and
she's being advised by her hospital to have
her baby boy circumcised when it is born
for health reasons. She came to me for advice.
Frankly I don't know that much about the pros
and cons - and hence this thread. Of course I
will do my research on the topic as best I can.

From what I do gather - there appears to be
some Australian doctors who are campaigning for
a return to routine circumcision citing research
that shows it protects men from a range of
diseases.

I read that - Dr Alex Wodak, a doctor based at St Vincent's
Hospital in Sydney and a member of the
Circumcision Foundation of Australia, says that parents
tend to be discouraged from the procedure by doctors who
haven't caught up with recent research showing the
benefits, including that uncircumcised men are three to
eight times more likely to catch HIV/AIDS and syphilis.

He says that with good pain relief, the baby doesn't
suffer, so there's no reason not to circumcise.
Dr Wodak says, "The benefits outweigh the risks by a
huge amount. The evidence is getting so strong and yet
the opposition is so strident, and the situation is
unfair for parents. They should be able to get fair
and balanced information, but they're not. It's a
simple procedure when its carried out on infants -
it's quick, it's painless, the benefits are considerable
and the risks very small."

I don't want to simply toss a coin - and I don't know what
to advise my niece just yet. I'm going to have to find out
more about what opponents of circumcision have to say -
and why.

<<I don't want to simply toss a coin - and I don't know what to advise my niece just yet. I'm going to have to find out more about what opponents of circumcision have to say - and why.>>

If the child/person wants to be circumcised, then they can choose to do so themselves later in their life, but the reverse is not completely possible.

One of the unpleasant effects of circumcision which cannot be reversed, is that as the skin is pulled up to cover for lost skin at the tip, hair grows in places where it was not intended to grow, causing pain when it is pulled.

It is also spiritually detrimental to interfere with the sanctity of the body, believing that one can willfully do better than Nature. That includes both the cut and the administration of an unnatural pain-killer (Jews use alcoholic wine for the purpose, but I don't recommend giving alcohol to a baby either).

Hay Lexi, I'm circumcised, so you know it must be the right thing to do.

The only trouble with it is that it makes you so attractive, you have to keep beating the ladies off with large sticks, & I know you believe every word I say.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I've been doing further reading on the topic and
one particular article claims that -
"opponents of circumcision argue that not only
is circumcision medically unnecessary and even
risky, but that it damages the sensitivity of
the penis." The article states -" that such a permanent
operation must not be performed without permission,
which obviously a baby can't give. Should a man
eventually wish to be circumcised, according to
experts - it can be done easily as an adult."

Bears thinking about.

Dear Hasbeen,

I respect your opinion (most of the time) , and I do believe
almost everything you say. ;-)

lexi,
I do feel for you and your niece, its a tough decission.

My approach would be, find out all I could and present the pros opinions and the antis opinions and let her decide which way to go.

There are plenty of both opinions in the OLO link I gave. Though I have no idea how knowledgable they are. Both camps seemed to hit on that thread and is a bit of a puzzle as to why.

Good luck with it.

*I'm going to have to find out
more about what opponents of circumcision have to say -
and why.*

Well put it this way Lexi, if we had decided that your labias
should be chopped off, and simply gone ahead and done it for you,
what would you think?

Lexi I too have no thoughts on the issue leave it to doctors and family
cheers

The Jews may have introduced the practise way back when and it became a
religious practise. It may be that it was realised that there were
health advantages but at the time they had no understanding of why.
In a similar manner the ban on pig meat, which was almost certainly
done for health reasons originally and became a religious practise.

The Chinese about 500BC learnt how to husband pigs and to prevent the
parasite problem. It is just that the Jews and Arabs are slow learners.

Dear Bazz,

<<It is just that the Jews and Arabs are slow learners.>>

You reach that incorrect conclusion because you start from incorrect assumptions, that:
1) Judaism is a religion.
2) The Jewish practices were meant to improve health.

Judaism is not a religion, but a national-movement and the purpose of its "religious" injunctions, is to keep the Jews separate from others. Circumcision for example marks who was born to the tribe and who wasn't, so it is difficult to escape and mix with others without being identified. Dietary restrictions were designed so that Jews and non-Jews will not eat together, thus limiting undesirable social connections (which may easily turn into sexual/marriage connections).

I presume that the Arabs copied them for similar reasons, not for health, which is completely incidental.

Dear Banjo,

Thanks for the link. Fascinating stuff and it
really helped reading all the various comments.
Circumcision is certainly a passionate issue -
and the pros and cons have valid points on both
sides. I suppose all I can do is present the facts
to my niece and her husband - and then it's ultimately
their choice.

What I did find disturbing from reading one article was
the comment made by a doctor who stated that:
"Australia lacks expertise. Generally, medical training
in Australia is very good, but this area is being
neglected... Not many doctors have been taught how to do this
properly. There's an increasing demand from people for this
operation and it's very hard to find doctors to do it."
The doctor was trained in China.

Facts like these are important to know and weigh up.

Hi Lexi,

I read the same magazine article today and I think the devil is in the detail. It states that the "studies" supporting the view that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV etc are from African experience where it is widely known there is a huge and persistent HIV / unprotected sex problem. I think this is misleading in the modern Australian context and will cause the uncertainties you have expressed in many unnecessarily.

Born in the early 60's, I proudly sport a "gerry helmet" but cannot provide any justification, medical or otherwise, in mutilating my perfectly-formed toddler son. However, I have heard from friends that some prepubescent boys can have some problems with infection and/or restrictions that can require the surgery. The trauma is significant and recovery is much longer than for newborns.

The question then might be - "should I do it now just in case he might develop a problem later to save all that drama?" I don’t know the stats to assist and I applaud your efforts in trying to help your niece in making an informed decision on that.

BTW - It think the health professionals that appear to bullying her towards infant circumcision need a slap. I would also take with a grain of salt a couple of comments / opinions expressed in the article. Someone for the group formed to promote any point of view will obviously offer arguments to support their stance. The article in question had little details opposing this procedure but the stated risk of amputation made my eyes water!

However, if there IS a current shortage of doctors skilled in this procedure and your niece does decide to proceed, I would advise her to ensure she checks it out and gets the right one holding the knife.

Good luck.

Lexi,

The circumcision debate is soaked with far more emotion than fact. As soon as words such as "mutilate" are included, you know reason has left the building, and I suspect the person using such illogical language has reservations about their decision.

We debated whether or not to circumcise our kids or not, and we eventually decided to do so based on the following:

There are small but measurable health benefits to the child and future partners of the procedure,
For an adult there are no negatives associated with being circumcised,
The procedure performed by a specialist is risk free with no trauma,
The procedure for an adult is far riskier, and painful.

We have no regrets, but also respect the choices of other parents. The fatuous suggestion that the decision should be left to the child is similar to suggesting a 12 month waiting period for abortion.

Dear Peter Mac,

I did read about the man, aged 40, who was in the rare
position of having been both uncircumcised and
circumcised. He was cut at 33 because his foreskin
kept splitting, causing infections. The operation
didn't hurt, but when the anaesthetic wore off, he was
sore for about 24 hours and the stitches were in for a
month.

After the stitches were removed the man explained how
his sex life improved tremendously. However what I
found interesting was that despite this - he said that
he would not circumcise his son unless there were good
medical reasons for doing so.

Something to think about.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Thank You for being so open and honest. Both my sons have
been circumcised. They were born in Los Angeles - where we
lived and worked for about 10 years. And at the Cedars/Sinai
Hospital - this was done automatically (for health reasons)
we were not even asked. Americans firmly believe in circumcision
and their hospitals do it as a regular procedure. My
sons have not had a problem with it.

However, as I stated earlier - I shall present all the information
to my niece and leave the decision up to her and her husband.

Hi Hasbeen,

Yeah, tell me about it - how do they KNOW ?!

Dearest Lexi,

If circumcised blokes think about sex, on average, every eight seconds or so, I sometimes feel envious of the other guys who are safely and snugly tucked up, oblivious of the temptations of the outside (or inside?) world, thinking about sex perhaps once every couple of days or so.

I suppose the problem is that not many people have been in both situations, so neither the circumcised nor the un-circumcised amongst us can really know what it is like to be 'other'.

But, Lexi, you may be able to distinguish us on the street, as you approach us, by the light in our eyes - you may be right on the eight-second mark ;)

Love always, xxxxxx

Joe

Come on Joe, what do you think the ladies talk about at all those hens parties they are always going to?

Did you think Tupperware parties were all about kitchen gear, all these years?

How can one lead such a sheltered life, be so smart in some areas, but still be blind to all this?

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Wow - Eight-second urges? That must be some sort of record.

Dear Hasbeen,

Very few people can top eight seconds - even at tupperware
parties. ;-)

However - I've been known to reply when asked:

"What's your sexual preference?"

My answer was:

"Often!"

Now back on topic ...

Robert Darby, a medical historian and author of a book
about circumcision says that:

"The reasons presented are not anywhere near good enough.
The risk reduction factors are all highly exaggerated and
based on dubious studies that do not apply to Australia,
and there is no crisis to which a response of this kind is
required."

A report by Bond University psychology professor,
Gregory Boyle, argues that "circumcision can leave men
feeling traumatised, frustrated and violated."
In one article - Wayne Griffiths, co-founder of
The National Organisation of Restoring Men (NORM), an
anti-circumcision group, said, "You're neutered. It's
just a violation of human rights. It's cosmetic surgery
and you have to have the individual's consent to do
cosmetic surgery. You can't get that from a baby."

I shall be leaving the final decision to the parents.
It's all a bit complicated for me.

it's all a question of 'helmet or ant-eater'.

Perhaps my niece should just toss a coin.

Perhaps, Lexi, it would be easier for your niece to decide if her son is a cut above the rest?

Dear Wm.Trevor.,

Love it. Very clever.

However -

Just about every parent I know - think their children are a "cut above the rest."

Didn't yours? ;-)

Of course my parents thought that, Lexi, after I'd told them… that's the privilege of being the firstborn.

But for some reason they kept on having more children until, as my mother said… 'She got it right!'

*Lexi*

one of the things about foreskins is that they require daily cleaning. If an individual is not clean or cleaned, then that in turn can lead to a "hygiene" issue. However, if one is clean, and there is no particular pathology, then there is no medical justification for the procedure and the reason that it is no longer largely practiced in Australia (if I have been led to believe correctly) except in the case of those of a certain religious persuasion who practice pseudo-science.

Having said that, the nature of the tissue of the foreskin is such that it does make it more susceptible to penetration by certain infectious agents, such as HIV.

On the flip side, a mate now "cured" of the incurable (one of the strains) herpes virus, did so by prompt circumcision of his infected foreskin.

As to sexual pleasure, increased environmental exposure is purported to decrease sensitivity in those circumcised relatively speaking, and the loss of the subtle threshold between pleasure and pain as the foreskin is drawn down and then released is also lost.

You do most often in my experience not shy away from quality research. My opinion, if you are interested, is to source some better quality material as a basis to any determination.

Dear DreamOn,

Thanks for your advice.

I've now gathered so much information on the subject
that I hope I won't frighten my niece. I'll simply hand
it all over to her and her husband and leave it up to them.
Hopefully they'll at least read some of it.

Again - Thank You.

Another point of view is that of the potential future partner. For the women, circumcision is a clear benefit with no risk, so much so that in the USA an uncircumcised penis is considered a deal breaker by many.

*so much so that in the USA an uncircumcised penis is considered a deal breaker by many*

Sounds to me SM, those many would best be traded in for an easier
going female, unless you're looking to become yet another henpecked,
US style husband.

Dear Yabby,

In the United States - circumcision is the standard
practice in hospitals. One is not given a choice.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/u-s-circumcision-rates-on-the-decline/

Dear Lexi,

I'd say that your information is about 25 years out of date.
Time flies you know :)

Yabby,

The reality is that for the female partner, the risk of infection from stds and other diseases such as thrush are higher for a non circumcised penis.

As I stated earlier, I don't think that there is a strong argument for circumcision, but there is no argument against it either.

SM, when I was a kid, I still remember my dad teaching me to wash
my penis every day, including under the foreskin. Unlike his mother,
who was deeply religious and insisted that he only touch it with
a piece of paper, never directly!

We have moved on a great deal from the days when people only used
to bath once a week or once a year. Its why they invented perfume
after all. Today its simply a question of common hygiene, which
it seems some people still have a problem with, when it comes to
the penis.

We don't cut off bits of labias, so leave that foreskin alone.
If somebody wants to chop it off, let that be their decision.

Yabby,

It is entirely possible to compensate for a lack of circumcision by being fastidious, but it is nice not to have to. I also doubt that every one else is quite as hygienic.

*but it is nice not to have to*

Oh come on SM, washing under the foreskin is hardly a huge job.
Fact is, you really don't have a choice. If they chopped your's
off, well tough titties, live with it and justify it however you
will.

I'm not the one getting emotional.

I am free from cleansing some vestigial relic.

I think I'll go and mutilate my fingers with some nail clippers.

Whatever makes you feel better, SM, justify it as you will.

Reality prevails, you were never given the choice so you will
just have to live with it.

Dear Yabby,

I beg to differ. As far as I'm aware at large reputable
hospitals and Medical Facilities - in the US - like UCLA
Medical Centre, and Cedars/Sinai, to name just two, -
circumcision is the normal procedure. It's taken as a
given - for health reasons and gynecologists and
obstetricians do the procedure automatically.
It's people without medical
insurance or on the lower-end of the economic scale in
society - where decline is setting in - for
predominantly financial reasons.

Anyway - I shall give all the information to my niece and
her husband - and ultimately it's their choice. As it should
be. But Thanks for sharing your opinion.

Dear Lexi,
Well clearly the stats show that you are very wrong. A majority
of Americans these days, are not circumcised.

But I also heard a quite different reason as to why it gained
popularity in the US after WW2.

According to the stories told to me in Europe, when the Nazis
decided who was jewish and who was not, some disputed their
jewish heritage to save their lives. So they had to drop
their pants and the evidence of being jewish or not, was rather
clear. Jewish doctors in America (loooots of doctors are jewish)
made sure it would never happen again.

Dear Yabby,

World War II was a little before my time. We
were in the US decades later. And stats can be
deceiving - as you know the US has a much
larger population than we do. As I stated earlier
I'm talking about the reputable private hospitals and
medical centres. As for "Jewish" doctors making medical
decisions for the reasons that you give I think is a
bit of a stretch. I think it's more to do with hospital
policies and the given practices of the American Medical
Association that most American doctors adhere to.

Yabby,

Anti Semitic racism is not an answer.

The practice of circumcision originated in many cultures, probably from the health benefits.

Oh come on SM, the comment was hardly anti semitic. That is what
was told to me by people who lived just over the border from
Germany at the time and who did not rush out to circumcise their
own kids. If it is correct, then it was hardly a silly thing to
do by Jewish doctors at the time. You forget that in war time
Europe, Islam was extremely uncommon.

I came across this interesting item while researching
on the web:

"American soldiers serving in World War II were
subjected to regular inspections of their genitals.
If uncircumcised, the soldiers risked being ordered
to undergo immediate circumcision..."

Nothing to do with religion it seems.