how do you reason that? not all (in fact few actually) drugs work opposite in high doses.
tiassa said:You're kidding, right? I mean, that sounds strikingly familiar, and Spurious was just raising the issues of condoms. Sensation versus health. It's a new paradigm afoot. Before they used to say, "At least you have your health." Now they say, "At least he died with a smile on his face." Your position tends toward the latter.
Unlike condom hysteria, it cannot be said that an uncircumcised penis is disrespectful to one's partner, but to claim your pleasure is worth more than her health ... well, now that is disrespectful.
Well, after analysis of almost 40 years of available medical research on circumcision, the American Academy of Pediatrics has issued new recommendations saying that they do not recommend circumcision as a routine procedure. This is too little and too late for the millions of infants who have undergone this unnecessary and inhumane assault.
This is a radical departure for American medicine and, of course, raises many,many issues. With that statement the American Academy of Pediatricians joins major national pediatrics group in England, Australia, Canada, Asia and Europe.
Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. If a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided.
Although the exact frequency is unknown, it is estimated that 1.2 million newborn males are circumcised in the United States annually at a cost of between $150 and $270 million. This practice has been advocated for reasons that vary from symbolic ritual to preventive health measure. Until the last half century, there has been limited scientific evidence to support or repudiate the routine practice of male circumcision.
Over the past several decades, the American Academy of Pediatrics has published several policy statements on neonatal circumcision of the male infant.1-3 Beginning in its 1971 manual, Standards and Recommendations of Hospital Care of Newborn Infants, and reiterated in the 1975 and 1983 revisions, the Academy concluded that there was no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision.
In 1989, because of new research on circumcision status and urinary tract infection (UTI) and sexually transmitted disease (STD)/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, the Academy concluded that newborn male circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks.4 This statement also recommended that when circumcision is considered, the benefits and risks should be explained to the parents and informed consent obtained. Subsequently, a number of medical societies in the developed world have published statements that do not recommend routine circumcision of male newborns.5-7 In its position statement, the Australian College of Paediatrics emphasized that in all cases, the medical attendant should avoid exaggeration of either risks or benefits of this procedure.5
Because of the ongoing debate, as well as the publication of new research, it was appropriate to reevaluate the issue of routine neonatal circumcision. This Task Force adopted an evidence-based approach to analyzing the medical literature concerning circumcision. The studies reviewed were obtained through a search of the English language medical literature from 1960 to the present and, additionally, through a search of the bibliographies of the published studies.
Repo Man said:
The reduction in pleasureable sensation is certain. The reduction in susceptibility to disease is not.
Repo Man said:
The reduction in sensation will still be there if the man is a responsible sex partner or not. It will still be there even if he chooses to be a lifelong masturbator, and not have sex with anyone.
You're portraying being circumcised as the socially responsible choice.
Tony2 said:"The BMA (British Medical Association) does not believe that parental preference alone constitutes sufficient grounds for performing a surgical procedure on a child unable to express his own view . . . . Doctors are under no obligation to comply with a request to circumcise a child." . . . Medical associations seem to agree that circumcision is harmful with negative long term consequences. Should medically unwarranted infant male circumcision be banned?
I have had a long and vociferous opposition to the practice of routine male circumcision . . . .
. . . . Well, after analysis of almost 40 years of available medical research on circumcision, the American Academy of Pediatrics has issued new recommendations saying that they do not recommend circumcision as a routine procedure. This is too little and too late for the millions of infants who have undergone this unnecessary and inhumane assault . . . .
. . . . A woman's reproductive tract is certainly moist and contains lots of bacteria, yet no one would suggest circumcising females to make them cleaner . . . .
. . . . The idea that women who have sex with uncircumcised men will get cervical cancer is a myth that is hard to put to rest.
This is so untrue that the Academy did not even consider this in their new evaluation. Cervical cancer is caused by a sexually transmitted virus and has nothing to do with the circumcision status of the male . . . .
. . . . Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) have been claimed to be more common in the intact male. But is this true?
There is no doubt, as the AAP says, that behavioral factors are far more important in determining your risk of STDs and that there are some sexually transmitted diseases that are more common in circumcised men . . . .
Source: Health Central
Beginning in its 1971 manual, Standards and Recommendations of Hospital Care of Newborn Infants, and reiterated in the 1975 and 1983 revisions, the Academy concluded that there was no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision.
Source: AAP
In 1989, because of new research on circumcision status and urinary tract infection (UTI) and sexually transmitted disease (STD)/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, the Academy concluded that newborn male circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks. This statement also recommended that when circumcision is considered, the benefits and risks should be explained to the parents and informed consent obtained. Subsequently, a number of medical societies in the developed world have published statements that do not recommend routine circumcision of male newborns. In its position statement, the Australian College of Paediatrics emphasized that in all cases, the medical attendant should avoid exaggeration of either risks or benefits of this procedure.
Source: AAP
Repo Man said:
It isn't irrelevant to me. I'm getting the definite impression that I'm missing out by being a clip tip from what I've read.
Yes, I do consider Dr. Edell the voice of reason on this, and many other issues. I used to enjoy his radio show, though I've not listened in years. You might browse through his other essays to see if you find yourself sympatico about other things, even if you disagree with him on this issue.
The link between the consistent use of condoms and the reduced chance of contracting a venereal disease is indisputable.
WFC, I meant it in the sense that it is genital mutilation just the same
I've actually heard guys say that it's one of the most sensitive areas of the penis.
Opponents of the surgery point out that while there are rare circumstances in which complications can result in the infant boy's disfiguration and even death, there are other consequences that are less dire but still undesirable and quite predictable. In this view, the foreskin is a good thing indeed because it preserves the exquisite sensitivity of the glans penis. With the foreskin removed, the male organ is exposed in its entirety to the wide world, and this sensitivity is largely lost.
Recently The New York Times devoted a sympathetic news article to the growing band of anti-circumcision activists and lawyers. Led by a group called Attorneys for the Rights of the Child, they argue that parents have no right to subject an infant to an operation that will reduce the pleasure he gets from sex for the whole of his adult life. When you take into account that there is no net medical benefit to the procedure, it becomes challenging to justify infant circumcision as a routine medical procedure.
Under the pressure of such arguments, 10 states have stopped Medicaid coverage for circumcision. These states - Arizona, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, California, Mississippi, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon and Washington - are expected to be followed by others.
http://www.arclaw.org/news/00000011.htm
I know a guy, he related this story: his foreskin got caught on a flap of skin in his woman's vagina. When he pulled his wang out, it pulled and tore it along the shaft. His wang started bleeding immensely, or so he said.tony2 said:Should medically unwarranted infant male circumcision be banned?