bells said:
Must be an American thing. Doctors here literally discourage it if it is not medically necessary, you cannot do it in any public hospital at all if it is not medically necessary. To put it into some perspective, it is unusual to see a circumcised penis here..
Possibly because parents here are educated and aware that it is not necessary to remove bits of their children's bodies if there is no medical need to actually do so.
Or they have a different judgment of medical need. Or in the Australian medical care system, the judgment in a situation of uncertainty is to reduce costs when possible even at the long term risk of the child's health - wouldn't be the first time.
bells said:
Obviously in the US, parents think it is acceptable to remove their kid's body parts, even when the medical profession deems it unnecessary.. To each their own.
Which brings us back to the topic of banning "their own" from some of the "each".
bells said:
"Clearly no attempt was made to separate out the medically critical circumcisions. The possibility that these would have a higher death rate - from, say, anesthesia, which is commonly local or even absent (inexcusably) in truly elective circumcisions, or hemorrhage and infection and stroke, which would be presumed more common in more serious and difficult procedures such as medically critical circumcisions are likely to be - seems not to have occurred to these professional researchers. At least, they don't mention it or correct for it. It means we have no real way of evaluating the number in the context of this thread.
The declaration that all circumcisions are elective was probably just carelessness and overstatement, rather than agenda driven dishonesty, right?"
And you know no attempt was made to separate out medically necessary circumcisions because of how?
Because of reading the abstract and methods as described by the researchers.
bells said:
The guy went through hospital records, I would imagine they would be detailing if it was medically necessary or not.
Indeed. And such circumstances could easily screw up his stats, and invalidate his conclusions. So his not considering them, separating them out, is a bit startling. So is his explicit claim that all circumcisions are elective. I am unable to come up with exculpation for that.
bells said:
I would be interested to know the time frame of the SIDS deaths.
The ones on the study were within 28 days of birth, according to the researchers who counted them. The ones in the larger world take place over the first year or so, the rate peaking three and four months after birth (during the transition from ape like to adult human larynx and esophageal morphology), according to links I have provided above.
bells said:
However, regardless, the numbers should give some pause for concern. If the circumcision related deaths are from solely elective circumcisions, then I would find that an appalling figure, wouldn't you?
I would compare the rates of premature death circumcised and uncircumcised, lifetime, before becoming appalled.
bells said:
Maybe I am strange in the sense that I don't think deliberately placing babies at risk of death for religious reasons or for cosmetic reasons is a practice that should be supported or encouraged.
I too find the aesthetic argument ethically bankrupt, and the religious aspect of it repugnant. But it's not the only one on the table.
bells said:
"I think it's reasonable, on seeing that invalid comparison in the article, to presume active dishonesty in the author and researcher - a deliberate rhetorical attempt to deceive the reader, as Asguard was apparently deceived."
And yet you say nothing of the African studies which were deliberately flawed and misleading which give rise to supporting circumcision?
I haven't seen the deliberate flaws in the researchers's reports, of those studies. And I haven't seen an argument resting on them alone - they are not centrally important here.
bells said:
Depends. What about the circumcisions for prophylactic health reasons, on the judgment of the parents? Waiting until adulthood clearly wouldn't be fair or sensible in that case - most benefits lost, much greater costs incurred."
More girls contract or come down with UTI's than boys and UTI's is rare in baby boys anyway if the parents practice some level of hygiene. The HIV studies regarding circumcisions were deliberately flawed. Penile cancer is very very rare in the West, because we have clean running water and the facilities to maintain good hygiene and it can also occur in circumcised men. The best way to prevent the spread of any STD is to use a condom or not have sex with multiple partners or to abstain from sex.
So you deflect and obfuscate and avoid dealing with the matter - why?