If circumcision really is unavoidable, I'd have one as loose as possible, so you get to keep as much of the inner foreskin as possible, since that's where most of the feeling is. I'd get a second opinion first though. US doctors are much quicker to recommend a circumcision than doctors in any other country, and a more conservative treatment may work. Circumcision should be a last resort.

If you're worried about AIDS, then don't have unsafe sex with HIV+ partners.

Chances are you have HPV already, as over 80% of the population have some kind of it, circumcised or not.

All are more alike than different. Whether or not there is a noticeable difference is not known because once it is done men do not have it redone. Your primary interest should be in preventing a recurrence of the balanitis. The rest is more doctors selling their service than real in the outcome. Discuss your concerns with your surgeon and I am certain he could give you a heart shaped fringe if you wish.

Good for you taking this step. Balanitis is one of many conditions that can be cleared up with circumcision. As a woman, I think there are other equally important benefits for your friends of the future.

Do not be too concerned with the previous post. There are over 100 varieties of HPV. There are only a few of these that cause problems. And if you look around you will find several threads on circumcision (as recently as yesterdy) containing more emotion than reality. It is not a last resort; it is the best treatment available for your problem. And that is a European view!

[QUOTE=Brandye;216609]Good for you taking this step. Balanitis is one of many conditions that can be cleared up with circumcision. As a woman, I think there are other equally important benefits for your friends of the future.

Do not be too concerned with the previous post. There are over 100 varieties of HPV. There are only a few of these that cause problems. And if you look around you will find several threads on circumcision (as recently as yesterdy) containing more emotion than reality. It is not a last resort; it is the best treatment available for your problem. And that is a European view![/QUOTE]

You seem rather keen for Ronald to be circumcised. About 95% of the world's non-Muslim males are not circumcised, yet both they and their "friends of the future" seem to manage just fine without genital surgery.

There are different forms of balanitis, most of which are not treated by circumcision, so it is premature in the extreme for you to suggest that circumcision is the "best treatment available". Circumcised men can get balanitis too - what do you suggest then?

Having just read yesterday's thread, I find that your posts contain most emotion than reality. You might be European, but your views on circumcision most definitely are not. Might I ask if you are from a circumcising culture? (eg Muslim, Jewish, or the USA)

What if we could show that female circumcision cuts down the rates of some STD's? Such evidence already exists as you probably already know, but it doesn't justify any form of female circumcision. Before anyone points it out, I know that the severe forms of female circ are far worse than standard male circ, but some forms do less damage, and one is the exact equivalent.

Yes, the men manage just fine, thank you, the women are the ones who pay the price. In much of the world with high mortality, cervical cancer is not measured because the women do not live long enough for it to develop. As stated in the thread you allude to, even China and Japan, where circumcision is not common, are debating education and health poicies to encourage circumcision.

Emotion v. reality? Citing studies mostly from the World Health Organization and various National Health Centers. You cannot be serious.

Longer term Board members are quite familiar with my background. Scot, born in the Hebrides. Education in England; med school, Germany and post-doc studies in Canada. You could have found that in my prodile or dozens of threads. My views are scientific rather than geo-centric.

Your comments comparing male and female circumcision cannot be serious.

[quote=Brandye;216614]Yes, the men manage just fine, thank you, the women are the ones who pay the price. In much of the world with high mortality, cervical cancer is not measured because the women do not live long enough for it to develop. As stated in the thread you allude to, even China and Japan, where circumcision is not common, are debating education and health poicies to encourage circumcision.

Emotion v. reality? Citing studies mostly from the World Health Organization and various National Health Centers. You cannot be serious.

Longer term Board members are quite familiar with my background. Scot, born in the Hebrides. Education in England; med school, Germany and post-doc studies in Canada. You could have found that in my prodile or dozens of threads. My views are scientific rather than geo-centric.

Your comments comparing male and female circumcision cannot be serious.[/quote]

Brandye:

I think what is lost is the comparison of male circumcisions to those females who get the cervix & endometrial lining biopsies due to abnormal paps...

Circumcised once v. nearly a life time of "punch" biopsies...think I prefer the first, once done & over with since the latter out-come is not so pleasant especially when dealing with female mortality rates needlessly.

Or he could also be addressing female phimosis which prevents clitoral stimulation. The procedure is essentially a trim of the hood. I have never encountered a case.

[quote=Brandye;216621]Or he could also be addressing female phimosis which prevents clitoral stimulation. The procedure is essentially a trim of the hood. I have never encountered a case.[/quote]
I assume what you state IS what he is referring to or what was seen years ago in old African tribes. Never seen any myself either.

But seen the pain from the biopsies from carelessness or a careless partner. Hell, had them done myself! Now that end of excruciating discomfort, over and over, and one wishes to debate the cut in a new born?

Look at a woman dying form HIV or C. cancer due to a negligent spouse...which outweighs which?

[QUOTE=Brandye;216614]Yes, the men manage just fine, thank you, the women are the ones who pay the price. In much of the world with high mortality, cervical cancer is not measured because the women do not live long enough for it to develop. As stated in the thread you allude to, even China and Japan, where circumcision is not common, are debating education and health poicies to encourage circumcision.

Emotion v. reality? Citing studies mostly from the World Health Organization and various National Health Centers. You cannot be serious.

Longer term Board members are quite familiar with my background. Scot, born in the Hebrides. Education in England; med school, Germany and post-doc studies in Canada. You could have found that in my prodile or dozens of threads. My views are scientific rather than geo-centric.

Your comments comparing male and female circumcision cannot be serious.[/QUOTE]

Suggesting (twice) that I can't be serious, and describing opposing views as rants is hardly a sign of objectivity.

I honestly don't expect the circ rates in China or Japan to change much any time soon, though again, please post more if you think I'm wrong.

The link between circumcision and cervical cancer is nowhere near as clear-cut as you suggest, and no national medical organisation recommends circumcision (not even in Israel). If you think I'm wrong, then please post details.

If circumcision is as good as you suggest, then why isn't there at least one national medical organisation that recommends it?

[LIST]
[*]A slightly lower risk of urinary tract infections (UTIs). A circumcised infant boy has about a 1 in 1,000 chance of developing a UTI in the first year of life; an uncircumcised infant boy has about a 1 in 100 chance of developing a UTI in the first year of life.
[*]A lower risk of getting cancer of the penis. However, this type of cancer is very rare in both circumcised and uncircumcised males.
[*]A slightly lower risk of getting sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including HIV, the AIDS virus.
[*]Prevention of foreskin infections.
[*]Prevention of phimosis, a condition in uncircumcised males that makes foreskin retraction impossible.
[*]Easier genital hygiene.[/LIST]AAP cited.

[quote=ronaldraygun;216625]Actually the American Urological Association recommends it, and I would expect them to know what they're talking about since they spend the most time dealing with these issues :-)

http://www.auanet.org/about/policy/services.cfm#circumcision
"While the results of studies in African nations may not necessarily be extrapolated to men in the United States at risk for HIV infection, the American Urological Association recommends that circumcision should be presented as an option for health benefits."[/quote]

Yes, they do. And for reasons. Also not looked at is during the geriatric years the increased risks for infection due to men not cleaning themselves properly. Bacteria builds up under the foreskin...often seen cases of urosepsis. In the elderly this can be life-threatening.

I know some men wish they had the ability to make the choice for themselves and ponder what it might have been like; however, when becoming sexually active, most in the teens, if we cannot get men & women to use condoms & women BC--how do you trust they choose to make the cut in their own health interest?

I wasn't aware of the AUA policy, and while I'm very surprised to see it, it still recommends that "circumcision should be presented as an option" rather than actually recommending that circumcision be performed.

The AAP as we all know doesn't actually recommend circumcision, despite your selective quoting. It does say this:

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.

I hate to think how many lawyers and how many man hours were spent on that.

Women have a prepuce too, but no-one suggests that we should investigate potential health benefits to its removal. Yes, they do split it, or partly remove it in some countries. That's viewed with outrage though, whereas male circumcision is regarded as something completely different.

This sounds nice but I don't think it's practical. There's broken condoms, drunken mistakes, unfaithful partners, etc.
I've never had a condom break in my life. I saw one study on condom failure which said they were more likely to fail with circumcised men btw.
Why not give myself the additional protection?
Because it involves having the most sensitive part of your penis cut off. There is good evidence that some forms of female circumcision result in reduced STD rates btw, but we don't suggest they give themselves "the additional protection"?

Try practicing medicine as a clinician for many years in the US and then debate STD's with me. And the reasons for parents choosing to have it done. See a newborn having the procedure & then an adult male (they usually want general anesthesia despite the increased risk), then tell me which is best. Similar to a Vasectomy men twinge--they must have the general anesthesia. Makes me laugh--women have kids without any Epidurals and then have a tubal ligation? Yet he cannot have a quick anesthetic and cut without coming to near tears?

The AAP recommends it through pointing out the pro's and con's. They provide an informed choice to parents & adult patients. Clearly the pro's outweigh the con's through out a males life time and the female partners.

You are just trying to skew the facts. If you don't care for it recommended that for your patients and your son's. Providing clear and comprehensive information is what we do. As I said; the major fallout to the entire debate is let your young male make his own choice; they cannot even use or discuss condoms. Rudimentary sex education is a must; then expect a young teen to make the right choice for himself?

The US gives both sides; however, note the amount of circumcisions done in the US? PLENTY. I would think you could choose a better battle such as obesity in teens.

Treat enough patients; females & males in the US and then choose your battle.

This is an old argument on this board, fought many times. And frankly anyone who presents a view as exclusively right or wrong is letting their emotions and objectivity get away from them. There is more than enough evidence on BOTH sides to amply prove this is not a "one size fits all" situation. There are cases where circumcision would quite obviously be the right alternative and plenty where it would not.

The original poster's situation may well be a pro-circumcision situation. He's lucky that he's old enough that he's able to gather the different studies out there and make the decision himself and not have it made for him. He has options, and the call is his. Most of my generation were not given any. I still don't think blanket surgery to every male baby is an appropriate substitute for personal responsibility in sexual behavior (a responsibility shared by both sexes) at a later age.

I also find it interesting that the potential of decreased sensations or any of the other potentially negative aspects of circumcision aren't even given lip service by the pro-circ group. Guess that just doesn't matter, eh?

edit: this post was written before the last two came in, obviously covers a lot of the same ground.

Oh by the way, as to the AUA quote . . . . citing a procedure as an "option" is NOT the same as recommending it.

Well, you've gotten a fairly good cross section of (the increasing heated) opinions among the people on this board. There might be more to come, but do yourself a favor and do a lot of research from multiple sources - both pro and con - and make the choice right for you.

"And I have friends of friends who say that getting circumcised as an adult was the best thing they ever did for their sex lives."

Yeah, and I have friends (not even of friends) who've weren't as happy about it. Why did the "friends of friends" have it done? If they were having problems with their foreskin (as you are) then it probably was a very positive thing to do.

[quote=DVDBear;216632]Well, you've gotten a fairly good cross section of (the increasing heated) opinions among the people on this board. There might be more to come, but do yourself a favor and do a lot of research from multiple sources - both pro and con - and make the choice right for you.

"And I have friends of friends who say that getting circumcised as an adult was the best thing they ever did for their sex lives."

Yeah, and I have friends (not even of friends) who've weren't as happy about it. Why did the "friends of friends" have it done? If they were having problems with their foreskin (as you are) then it probably was a very positive thing to do.[/quote]

You are most correct DVD. I thought through it prior to a nephew being born & researched, presented various thoughts, and some of your opinions. Despite me being seen as narrow minded; the OP is getting a full listing!

Well you have various opinion's! Two from medical professionals & other's as observers and some as data collectors.

Causing a heated debate? Not really. These matters happen every so often; debating matters are good--prefer politics though! Good luck in your choices!

At least you asked! And you have various responses; the worse are those who don't ask questions where various positions are stated. :)

[QUOTE=ronaldraygun;216630]I don't think that female circumcision is a fair comparison, and throwing it out there is not going to gain you many supporters. Only the extreme forms of FGM have a protective effect, but that's probably due to the increased rate of sexual dysfunction. Furthermore they are simple observational studies, not controlled experiments.

Finally, you can't just claim that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of MY penis! That's ridiculous. And I have friends of friends who say that getting circumcised as an adult was the best thing they ever did for their sex lives.[/QUOTE]

Actually, it's not that clear which forms of FGM appear to offer the most protection or why, and there haven't been that many "controlled experiments" about male circ either, but it seems likely that controlled experiments might show some potential benefits to some minor forms of female circ/FGM. If people were looking as hard for those as they are for reasons to defend male circ, they'd certainly have found something. It's certainly a legitimate comparison. In some countries, you will find educated intelligent female doctors who will insist that female circ is cleaner, more hygienic, improves their sex life etc. Almost all countries which circumcise women also circumcise men, and it's hard to get them to see a difference.

Ths USA used to circumcise girls btw. There are several references to the practice in the USA, though they are uncommon after the early 1950's. Most of them point out the similarity with male circumcision, and suggest that it should be performed for the same reasons. Blue Cross/Blue Shield paid for clitoridectomies till 1977.

One victim wrote a book about it:
Robinett, Patricia (2006). "The rape of innocence: One woman's story of female genital mutilation in the USA."
N.p.: Aesculapius Press. ISBN 1-878411-04-7.

Try actually measuring the sensitivity of the various parts of your penis, both flaccid and erect. It's mostly around the frenulum, and just below the rim. The glans itself really isn't anything like as sensitive as you'd think, and it's the interaction between the sulcus and inner foreskin that provides most of the sensation. Some of the inner foreskin will be kept with a loose circumcision, and you may even get to keep the frenulum. You can actually try using local anaesthetic on (or covering up) the bits that get removed during circumcision, and see what the difference is.

People that are unable to easily retract their foreskins typically will find an improvement with circumcision, but often their real problem was not being able to retract, and there are other ways to fix that.

I can put you in touch with people who say that being circumcised as an adult was the worst thing they ever did, as well as some who are resigned to the fact that it had to be done, but complain about how much worse things are since. You may not have a choice, but I would want to hear that from a urologist who is against routine circumcision.

You may be interested in this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision

in particular:
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06646.x
About 6% answered that their sex lives improved, while 20% reported a worse sex life after circumcision.

If you see a study that shows no difference in sensitivity between circumcised and uncirumcised men, then you will find they only measured sensitivity of the glans.

I doubt I would trust either of those two references. Citing Wiki?:confused:

Here is one from his citing--written by Jack Elder Department of Urology; Henry Ford Health System, etc.--Michigan, US . Pretty good analysis of this specific procedure with good information.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/action/showFullText?submitFullText=Full+Text+HTML&doi=10.1111%2Fj.1464-410X.2007.06959.x&cookieSet=1

[QUOTE=ronaldraygun;216636]That's for sure! It wasn't my intention to turn it into a big debate or whatever - I've already done the research and decided that circumcision is the way to go, I was just curious if the different styles had different health ramifications.
[/QUOTE]Well then, come back after a year or so and tell us what you think! :D I always respect first person accounts! I won't even say "I told you so" if you don't like it. lol

[QUOTE=sera300;216639]I doubt I would trust either of those two references. Citing Wiki?:confused:[/QUOTE]Why does Wiki get slammed so much? If it contains accurate source links I don't see why it's discounted completely. I wouldn't use the Wiki article itself particularly, especially if I was writing a paper, but the entries are usually a good jump off point for many legitimate links.

I don't know anything about the 2nd one.

[quote=DVDBear;216645]Why does Wiki get slammed so much? If it contains accurate source links I don't see why it's discounted completely. I wouldn't use the Wiki article itself particularly, especially if I was writing a paper, but the entries are usually a good jump off point for many legitimate links.

I don't know anything about the 2nd one.[/quote]

I see it as a good point for "looking up" what something means; I guess using it & the threat of being thrown of of Grad School was enough. I look stuff up but don't find it as "citing" information; just overall info. All the research stuff is what is pounded into us. :)

[quote=ronaldraygun;216649]Um, if you're trying to encourage me to get circumcised, you're not doing a very good job! LOL...that really drives it home...[/quote]

No...it's a decent analysis. The pictures? Well, at least you can say you were informed, LOL!...

Have to say this one have some type of vendetta against women! If men have them so should women? Okay, so then let them men have kids and a tubal ligation or life time of hormones--I assume he does not see these points.

The US "freed women in 1964 as no longer being chattel of the spouses; I highly doubt many women had their Clitoris removed routinely since I do see many which fall in that age range in the US during exams--they are intact. Insurance companies perhaps paid if there was an existing medical condition which warranted such. However, it was not induced upon citizens in the US by the government as a medical procedure. Neither are male circumcisions mandatory.

[QUOTE=ronaldraygun;216641]I was just curious if the different styles had different health ramifications.[/QUOTE]I guess it depends if you include normal function in the definition of health. Like, someone could pull all your teeth and say you're in perfect oral health - lacking tooth decay or gum disease. I think that is about how sound that logic is for most health-related analyses of circumcision.

If was having recurring balanitis and someone hoodwinked me into thinking my glans need to be uncovered, I would first try Der Penis Schlauch, a German undergarment that keeps the skin retracted. http://www.penisschlauch.com/en/index.htm

If I was desperate for surgery, I would see if someone could slice about an inch out of my sleeve of shaft skin near the base. That way I would lose none of the exquisite mucosa (assuming I didn't lose the whole penis to infection from the pointless surgery).

-Ron

REVIEW SHOWS MALE CIRCUMCISION PROTECTS FEMALE PARTNERS FROM HIV AND OTHER STDs

A statistical review of the past medical files of more than 300 couples in Uganda, in which the female partner was HIV negative and the male was HIV positive, provides solid documentation of the protective effects of male circumcision in reducing the risk of infection among women. Male circumcision also reduced rates of trichomonas and bacterial vaginosis in female partners. The study is believed to be the first to demonstrate the benefits to female partners of male circumcision.
Hopkins scientists Oliver Laeyendecker, M.S., M.B.A., Steven Reynolds, M.D., M.P.H., and Thomas C. Quinn, M.D., in Rakai, Uganda.
Specifically, male circumcision reduced by 30 percent the likelihood that the female partner would become infected with the virus that causes AIDS, with 299 women contracting HIV from uncircumcised partners and only 44 women becoming infected by circumcised men. Similar reductions in risk were observed for the other two kinds of infection, but not for other common STDs, including human papillomavirus, syphilis, gonorrhea and Chlamydia.
According to the Hopkins researchers who led the study, Ronald Gray, M.D., and Steven Reynolds, M.D., M.P.H., the findings support efforts to assess male circumcision as an effective means of preventing HIV infection. Circumcision is a practice common in North America and among Jews and Muslims, but not generally in Eastern and Southern Africa, Europe or Asia.
The couples in the study come from the Rakai cohort, a population of roughly 12,000 in Uganda whom researchers are monitoring to see how HIV infection spreads. The researches based their findings on extensive interviews with each participant and annual check-ups and blood tests.
The findings confirm what has been noticed anecdotally in Africa, where regions in which circumcision is common have lower rates of HIV infection than those without. And, the results confirm what was first reported in summer 2005 from a clinical trial conducted in South Africa about the protective effects of circumcision on HIV-negative men who have sex with HIV-positive women.
According to researchers, circumcision’s effects come from the nature of the foreskin’s inner lining, or mucosa, whose cells bind to the virus more easily and have roughly nine times more virus in them than the outer layer of the foreskin. Removal of the foreskin, they say, may simply reduce the susceptibility factor, or degree of exposure to HIV, for the sexual partner.
Thomas C. Quinn, M.D., professor of infectious diseases at Hopkins and a senior investigator at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, will present an overview of this trial, plus two others presently under way, as part of a plenary discussion at CROI on circumcision and HIV. But, he says, “We will have to wait for the ongoing two trials before drawing conclusive recommendations about circumcision for all men, and whether or not the benefits apply to transmission from females to males only, or to females from men as well. However, early indications are dramatic and, if proven, one case of HIV disease could be prevented through circumcising anywhere from 15 to 60 males.”
Male Circumcision and the Risks of Female HIV and STI Acquisition in Rakai, Uganda, by Ronald Gray, Marie Thoma, Oliver Laeyendecker, David Serwadda, Fred Nalugoda, Godfrey Kigozi, Noah Kiwanuka, Nelson Sewankambo, Steven Reynolds, Maria Wawer, and Thomas Quinn. And, Circumcision and HIV Transmission:The Cutting Edge, by Thomas Quinn.
Cited from: John's Hopkins

[COLOR=black][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT='Times New Roman']Male circumcision reduces men's HIV infection risk by 65%[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=black][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT='Times New Roman']Published: Sunday, 25-Feb-2007 Men's Health News [/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=black][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT='Times New Roman']Routine male circumcision could reduce a man's risk of HIV infection through heterosexual sex by 65%, according to final data from two [COLOR=#0066cc]NIH[/COLOR]-funded studies conducted in Kenya and Uganda published in the Feb. 23 issue of the journal Lancet, the [COLOR=#0066cc]New York Times[/COLOR] reports (McNeil, New York Times, 2/23). [/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=black][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT='Times New Roman']Early data from the two studies released in December 2006 indicated that circumcision reduced a man's risk of HIV infection by 50%. For the studies, researchers monitored 4,996 men ages 15 to 49 living in Uganda and 2,784 men ages 18 to 24 living in Kenya -- half of whom were randomly assigned to be circumcised and the other half served as a control group -- to determine if circumcision reduced HIV infection. All participants in both studies received counseling on HIV risk reduction and were advised to use condoms. According to researchers, male circumcision eliminates the cells most vulnerable to HIV. In addition, a circumcised penis develops thicker skin that is resistant to HIV infection. The Uganda study found 43 cases of HIV among the uncircumcised men, compared with 22 among the circumcised men -- a 48% reduction of HIV transmission. The Kenya study found 47 cases of HIV among uncircumcised men, compared with 22 among the circumcised men -- a 53% reduction. The results of the studies were so overwhelming that NIH stopped the trials early and offered circumcision to all participants. The results of the Uganda and Kenya studies mirrored similar results of a [COLOR=#0066cc]study[/COLOR] conducted in South Africa in 2005 ([COLOR=#0066cc]Kaiser Daily HIV/AIDS Report[/COLOR], 12/14/06). According to the Times, some men assigned to the circumcision groups in Kenya and Uganda never went to clinics to undergo circumcisions, and some men in the control groups had private circumcisions before the study period ended. While re-evaluating the data, the researchers excluded a few men whose HIV status was misdiagnosed during the study. They also combined the results of the Kenya and Uganda trials with the South Africa trial and found that male circumcision might reduce a man's risk of HIV infection through heterosexual sex by 65% (New York Times, 2/23). [/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=black][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT='Times New Roman']Reaction, Next Steps [/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=black][FONT='Times New Roman'][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT='Times New Roman']Kevin de Cock, director of the [COLOR=#0066cc]World Health Organization[/COLOR]'s [COLOR=#0066cc]HIV/AIDS Department[/COLOR], called the results an "extraordinary development," adding, "Circumcision is the most potent intervention in HIV prevention that has been described." WHO and [COLOR=#0066cc]UNAIDS[/COLOR] next month will meet in Switzerland to evaluate the data and decide the next steps in addressing HIV/AIDS, the [COLOR=#0066cc]AP/Globe and Mail[/COLOR] reports. Some African countries have met with United Nations agencies to discuss ways to increase access to circumcision. According the AP/Globe and Mail, a 2006 modeling study found that male circumcision could prevent two million HIV cases and 300,000 deaths within the next 10 years (Cheng, AP/Globe and Mail, 2/22). Marie-Louise Newell of the [COLOR=#0066cc]University of KwaZulu-Natal[/COLOR] in South Africa and Till Barnighausen of the [COLOR=#0066cc]Harvard School of Public Health[/COLOR] in a [COLOR=#0066cc]commentary[/COLOR] that accompanied the study said that the findings are "proof of a permanent intervention that can reduce the risk of HIV infection in men." They added that efforts to quickly implement circumcision campaigns should be taken with caution ([COLOR=#0066cc]AFP/Yahoo! News[/COLOR], 2/22). De Cock said that circumcision should not replace other HIV prevention efforts but should be used as an "additional tool" in the fight against HIV/AIDS (AP/Globe and Mail, 2/22). Anthony Fauci, director of NIH's [COLOR=#0066cc]National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases[/COLOR], said that the [COLOR=#0066cc]President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief[/COLOR] and WHO would look into providing circumcisions in endemic countries but that training and equipment for medical workers performing the circumcisions should be addressed first. Fauci added that he plans to continue using the 50% reduction in risk cited in the December 2006 study because the accuracy of clinical trials depends on following randomized groups and not selected ones (New York Times, 2/23). According to AFP/Yahoo! News, some experts have cautioned against widespread circumcision over concerns about different cultural attitudes toward the practice.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[QUOTE=sera300;216624][LIST]
[*]A slightly lower risk of urinary tract infections (UTIs). A circumcised infant boy has about a 1 in 1,000 chance of developing a UTI in the first year of life; an uncircumcised infant boy has about a 1 in 100 chance of developing a UTI in the first year of life.[/list][/quote]So of every 1000 circumcisions, 990 are wasted because he wouldn't have got a UTI, and one more is wasted because he gets a UTI in spite of being circumcised. That's a 0.9% effectiveness. And those figures come from Wiswell, who studied only boys born in military hospitals where only premature (and hence catheterised) babies were likely to go uncircumcised, and who assumed that any bacteria in the urine was a UTI.

[quote][list][*]A lower risk of getting cancer of the penis. However, this type of cancer is very rare in both circumcised and uncircumcised males.[/list][/quote]Very rare and strikes mainly old men, so the Number Needed to Treat, already ~1000 goes even higher because so many never live to benefit. (Oh and the original studies claiming to show a benefit failed to correct for age - the old men with cancer were intact because circumcision hadn't come into fashion when they were born.)
[quote][list][*]A slightly lower risk of getting sexually transmitted diseases (STDs),[/list][/quote]No, many studies, such as most recently Dickson's, show no such benefit.
[quote] including HIV, the AIDS virus.[/quote]There is room for doubt even there.
[quote][list][*]Prevention of foreskin infections.[/list][/quote]You've got me! Cutting off the foreskin absolutely prevents foreskin infections. And how many foreskin infections are iatrogenic, caused by premature forcible retraction?
[quote][list][*]Prevention of phimosis, a condition in uncircumcised males that makes foreskin retraction impossible.[/list][/quote]- but which can be treated non-surgically, or by lesser surgery than cutting the whole thing off.
[quote][list][*]Easier genital hygiene.[/LIST][/QUOTE]Trivially easier. Cleaning under one's foreskin is simple, quick - and fun! (and that's one reason they started cutting them off)

[quote]AAP cited.[/quote]The trouble with the AAP is that its policy-making has to be intensely political. If it swung 180 degrees against circumcision in less than a lifetime, its membership could face horrendous suits from men who had been circumcised contrary to its new recommendations. Why is its male circumcision policy decided by a task force on circumcision, while its female circumcision policy (total condemnation, of course) is decided by its bioethics committee? Its coverage of the ethics of circumcision is very much once over lightly. For years that task force was chaired by arch-circumcisor Edgar Schoen, who loves the operation so much he's written poems in its praise.

Dear Hugh:

Please go tell John's Hopkins, the institute in Austria which published the second study, the AAP, the WHO that they are incorrect. Please I beg of you, I cited these studies for reasons; and your credentials are please? PhD in which areas or MD in which? Please tell us since the remainder of us post with our credentials.

One last though HUGH:

I am pro non-governmental intervention; part of a Democracy meaning government cannot dictate what is done. If you choose to live under a regime feel free.

In the US, doctors present to parents the pro's and con's to parents of cut v. non-cut. Take issue with parents if these are your beliefs. We only explain the sides as practitioners.

Yes, penile CA is seen in majorily older men so, your point is?

Hey, I can cite studies which show little or no difference to STD's from being circumcised. There was one from New Zealand earlier this year. Many countries which don't circumcise have lower rates of all the bad stuff including HIV anyway. Did you know that there are six African countries where circumcised men are more likely to be HIV+ than intact men (Rwanda, Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, and Tanzania)? In Rwanda for example, 3.5% of circumcised men are HIV+ v 2.1% of intact men, but for some reason, they've started a circumcision campaign there.

Latest news is that circumcised virgin males are more likely to be HIV+ than intact virgin males (suggesting the operation itself can be transmits the procedure), and that HIV+ men are more likely to infect their partners if they are circumcised (the difference was not statistically significant after the healing period is over, but eight additional women seem to have been infected during the study solely because their partner was circumcised).

I believe that the push to promote circumcision in Africa is more about promoting circumcision (or in some cases anything-but-condoms), rather than fighting AIDS.

There are other ways to avoid STD's anyway - it's not like they strike people at random.

What's the big deal about citing a Wikipedia link btw? It's a pretty good roundup of all the studies on circumcision and sexuality, linking to over 30 studies, some of which routinely get quoted by both supporters and opponents of circ. I don't know why you'd dismiss the other link either about the Korean study. It seems one of the better ones to me, and no, that's not just because the results seem to be more anti-circ.

I don't have a problem with anyone choosing to be circed, but I think it's very wrong to be doing to children without their informed consent.

Brandye, you didn't actually say whether or not you are Jewish or Muslim. Assuming you're not, when and why did you become so pro-circ? You'd have to admit that your views are unusual for Europe.

[QUOTE=sera300;216628]...
The AAP recommends it through pointing out the pro's and con's. They provide an informed choice to parents & adult patients. Clearly the pro's outweigh the con's through out a males life time and the female partners.
...
The US gives both sides; however, note the amount of circumcisions done in the US?[/QUOTE]

I do not believe that the AAP statement is in any way a recommendation of circumcision. They seem keen to pass the decision on to parents possibly to avoid lawsuits. Even in the USA though, the neonatal circ rate has dropped from 90% to 56%, and in other countries, the drop has been more dramatic:

drops in male circumcision:
USA: from 90% to 56%
Canada: from 47% to 14%
UK: from 35% to about 3% (less than 1% among non-Muslims)
Australia: 90% to 12.6% ("routine" circumcision has recently been banned in public hospitals in all states except one, so the rate will now be a lot lower)
New Zealand: 95% to below 3% (mostly Samoans and Tongans)
South America and Europe: never above 5%

There seem to be a lot more circumcised physicians saying that circumcision is unnecessary, than there are intact physicians recommending it.

To answer the original question, I suspect that removing as much mucosal tissue as possible would minimise any possible risk. Personally, if I was in your position, I would only undergo circumcision if it was recommended as a last resort by a urologist who is against routine circumcision, and then I would want to keep as much mucosal tissue as possible.

[quote=ml66uk;216727]\

There seem to be a lot more circumcised physicians saying that circumcision is unnecessary, than there are intact physicians recommending it.

To answer the original question, I suspect that removing as much mucosal tissue as possible would minimise any possible risk. Personally, if I was in your position, I would only undergo circumcision if it was recommended as a last resort by a urologist who is against routine circumcision, and then I would want to keep as much mucosal tissue as possible.[/quote]

Informing parents and allowing them to make the choice is what we do in the US; there is not increased chances of lawsuits. No one states it's mandatory. I was there when family had to sign consents, I had presented the pros & cons to the parents of my family members.

The docs ask, the parents can decline. No biggie. I would say In Africa the increased risk of cut with HIV is their technique and perhaps lack of sterilization of instruments.

Wiki? Good for looking info up--cite it and you get tossed out of Grad School fast--dismissed.

Since I am not a man & do not have a child--I am not certain what choice I would make if the parent or a male. I just see the fall out of infections. I am responsible to point out pro's & con's of each, nothing is forced upon anyone. Personally, I am responsible for my health as a woman. As I always have stated my greatest risk has been from a spouse. I have had to under-go the treatment for his sexual choices or his perceived rights. Neither had to do with being cut or not.

I have the greatest issue with Government forcing a policy on any person in the US.

[QUOTE=sera300;216725]One last though HUGH:

I am pro non-governmental intervention; part of a Democracy meaning government cannot dictate what is done. If you choose to live under a regime feel free.

In the US, doctors present to parents the pro's and con's to parents of cut v. non-cut. Take issue with parents if these are your beliefs. We only explain the sides as practitioners.

Yes, penile CA is seen in majorily older men so, your point is?[/QUOTE]

Please try to stay on-topic. No-one here's arguing that they want to live under a regime. Even where you live, it is illegal to cut off a child's ears, or to make an incision on a girl's genitals without medical need (even without removing any tissue).

I don't think that you and Brandye are presenting a balanced view of the pros and cons of circumcision. It's certainly very different from mainstream medical views in most countries.

The point about penile CA is that we're talking about circumcising I think hundreds of children to prevent one case of penile cancer in an old man with very poor hygiene. "3 of every one million men who are not circumcised will develop penile cancer each year" (Canadian Paediatric Society). It's so rare that nen are more likely to get breast cancer than penile cancer. Women are more likely to get vulval cancer.

And finally, there are countries which don't circumcise which have lower rates of penile cancer.

[QUOTE=sera300;216724]Dear Hugh:

Please go tell John's Hopkins, the institute in Austria which published the second study, the AAP, the WHO that they are incorrect. Please I beg of you, I cited these studies for reasons; and your credentials are please? PhD in which areas or MD in which? Please tell us since the remainder of us post with our credentials. [/QUOTE]

For what it's worth, I have three degrees, though they are non-medical. It wouldn't matter if I was an illiterate bricklayer though, if I ask why the medical establishment in Australia are so anti-circ, despite being mostly circumcised themselves (or married to circumcised men), it's still a valid question. There are no intact countries which promote circumcision, and when non-religious circumcision became popular, it was for very bad reasons. Basically, they thought that masturbation was bad, and that circumcision would stop, or least cut down on masturbation. (anyone reading that finds this preposterous should see this link of quotes from medical journals http://www.noharmm.org/docswords.htm )

Or how about this from the Canadian Paediatric Society (also medics with letters after their name):

Circumcision is a “non-therapeutic” procedure, which means it is not medically necessary. Parents who decide to circumcise their newborns often do so for religious, social or cultural reasons. To help make the decision about circumcision, parents should have information about risks and benefits. It is helpful to speak with your baby’s doctor.

After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions.

http://www.caringforkids.cps.ca/babies/Circumcision.htm

I cannot speak for the actions of the government in either the US or the views of those in Austria.

Honestly, in the US, the information is presented to a parent by a MD & it's parental options. if they choose not to have the procedure done, their choice. No one has any obligation to do it. How can you state there is no medical need if you are not practicing medicine? Please tell your opinions to the MEN in the US who perform these surgery's why they should not. Write the US government about banning it. I present to all the pro's and con's...all I can tell you are my random observations as a practitioner.

One matter which is notable; in the US we have an epidemic of STD's--CONDOMS are a must. Now, if we can get men to use them and women they are involved with to say no condom; no sex...might be somewhere...and get women responsible for their own BC.

I have an issue with the US government forcing mandatory policies on anyone.

Additionally, ML et al.

Please see my other thread if you feel this strongly regarding the topic...as a PhD write to even the Bio-ethics Scholar's in the US regarding you discontent with the US practices.

I cited the studies chosen since one is John's Hopkins which is World renowned, provides excellent medical & research for the US, and many non-US citizens seek care which is not offered in their country for all area of specialty. Saudi Arabia just contributed to some of their research as well.

The latter I cited is a med/net publication I receive from Australia on current topics of study.

I figured they would provide an two-fold opinion.

[QUOTE=sera300;216724]Dear Hugh:

Please go tell John's Hopkins, the institute in Austria which published the second study, the AAP, the WHO that they are incorrect. Please I beg of you, I cited these studies for reasons; and your credentials are please? PhD in which areas or MD in which? Please tell us since the remainder of us post with our credentials. [/QUOTE]
This is called the Fallacy of Appeal to Authority (delivered in a particularly bullying tone - I do not give you permission to ruin my day, either). My qualifications are irrelevant.

I have studied the original papers and find many flaws in them. EG, the three random controlled tests of circumcision in Africa were none of them placebo controlled or double-blinded, and had drop-out rates about five times the number of men who seroconverted, which could completely overthrow the findings. If, for example men who had just had this painful and marking operation were tested elsewhere (as they were encouraged to do) and found they had HIV anyway, they would quite probably be so disillusioned that they didn't bother going back.

I find it somewhat astounding that leaders of a forum about sex advice seems to take it as normal that men should have had a significant part of their genitalia removed in infancy. 3/4 of the world's men have, not "uncircumcised penises", just penises. (I said "whole penises" somewhere else and nearly had my head bitten off.)

I also find it somewhat astounding that these people think medical qualifications give them the right to pontificate about the normal functioning of the healthy male genitalia - especially when they may have had little or no experience with the full set. A foreskin is not a birth defect.

(Non-religious circumcision, lacking pressing medical need, has never been practised in Austria and is of no interest there.)

As I said if you find flaws please point them out to the experts in the field, as suggested, which recommend them rather debate your stats with me. If you believe there are flawed studies take it to the "experts" not the practitioners which are bound under the license they practice medicine. If I do not present the pro's & con's my malpractice & medical rep in the community & centers I practice in are jeopardized. Certainly parents have sufficient time to prepare all aspect prior to delivery & these matters are discussed with the parents in depth in the OB/Gyn office during a pregnancy.

Informed consent & "guardianship choice" is what Medical practice is based upon is the US and I am bound by license to present the "experts" in medical studies--I do not present to patients the flaws of studies & perceived inaccurate stats. I believe your rationale for not pointing out the skewed stats of flawed studies suggest you have no true basis for your claims; otherwise, they would be taken under advisement by such experts. Hence, you strike at those on the board here as you out-lash.

Just because you do not care for the medical system; take it to where it belongs. No one forces parents to have this procedure done. I do not dictate the system, I am bound to follow the "Medical Experts" in the field.

Any rational medical practitioner relies upon medical experts & hospital guidelines--no rebelling against a "cause" is that not what your stats should demonstrate to these experts if presented as a case?

Bullying tone, no just a rational approach to medical practice. And yes, a Medical degree does allow me to be an expert in specific areas of medical practice. You appear to be the one pontificating without backing a Scholarly Writing to be presented if you feel the "system" should be changed.

Ruin your day? Me. Only you can dear--enjoy it since life is too short to debate such an circular logic argument with you. Again, as I said, this procedure is not mandatory or forced--it's elective.

If you believe so strongly in your statistical analysis; why not write a paper to change Public Policy issies in the US?

[QUOTE=sera300;216757]If you believe there are flawed studies take it to the "experts" not the practitioners which are bound under the license they practice medicine. If I do not present the pro's & con's my malpractice & medical rep in the community & centers I practice in are jeopardized.[/quote]You are not practising medicine here and we are not your patients. You can present sources you may claim are authoritative, but that doesn't mean you have to be authoritarian.

[quote]Informed consent & "guardianship choice" is what Medical practice is based upon is the US[/quote]The last time I looked this forum was www.sexinfo101.com, not usww.sexinfo.com. We are not all in the US. The US is unique among developed countries in practising parentally-elective genital reduction surgery on (male) babies at parental whim. (They are not tested to demonstrate that their wish is anything but a whim.)
The Australian Medical Association supported the statement of the Australian College of Paediatrics that it "should continue to discourage the practice of circumcision in newborns".
An official statement of the Canadian Paediatric Society recommends:
"Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed."
"After extensive review of the literature the R[oyal] A[ustralasian] C[ollege of] P[hysicians] reaffirms that there is no medical indication for routine male circumcision."
Other countries don't seem to have a policy - non-religious, non medically-indicated neonatal circumcision just doesn't happen.

[quote]I believe your rationale for not pointing out the skewed stats of flawed studies suggest you have no true basis for your claims;[/quote]I'll point out anything you wish.
[quote]otherwise, they would be taken under advisement by such experts.[/quote]How you reason! There are many, many reasons for inertia within the profession that have nothing to do with the facts.

[quote]Only you can dear[/quote]Don't matronise me.

[quote]If you believe so strongly in your statistical analysis; why not write a paper to change Public Policy issies in the US?[/QUOTE]It'll take more than one paper, but we're working on it. Policies such as the AAP's are not set in stone. They can and have changed. Why should today's policy be taken as the last word?

I believe you need to remain under your Country's Guidelines...until then medicine will be practiced in the US as is. Recommendations of the NHS & US will continue, dear.

Now end of discussions since you have nothing to generally debate with me--you reside in Austria, I in the US. I have the medical degree as does Brandye. End of story, end of debate, you are dismissed and have no credibility in my eyes...you demonstrate circular logic. Have a good day.

This will be my last response to you or your "cohorts". In essence, getting published is not difficult.

[QUOTE=sera300;216773]I believe you need to remain under your Country's Guidelines...until then medicine will be practiced in the US as is. Recommendations of the NHS & US will continue, dear.

Now end of discussions since you have nothing to generally debate with me--you reside in Austria, I in the US. I have the medical degree as does Brandye. End of story, end of debate, you are dismissed and have no credibility in my eyes...you demonstrate circular logic. Have a good day.

This will be my last response to you or your "cohorts". In essence, getting published is not difficult.[/QUOTE]

I believe you have lost this debate and you know it. You kind of give it away by saying things like "dear", "end of story, end of debate", "you are dismissed and have no credibility in my eyes", and "have a good day", and being generally patronising and dismissive rather than debating the issues. Where was the "circular logic" btw?

You portray neonatal circumcision as something obviously in the public good, but have been unable to explain why national organisations of doctors in Canada, the UK, and Australia are all against it. These are all people with medical degrees too - it's not like you and Brandye are only people who have "the medical degree". They used to circumcise 90% of boys in Australia (a different country from Austria), so you'd expect any bias there to be pro-circ. Like I said before, even the AAP does not recommend circumcision.

Even in the USA, the circumcision is dropping as you well know:
Drops in male circumcision:
USA: from 90% to 56%
Canada: from 47% to 14%
UK: from 35% to about 3% (less than 1% among non-Muslims)
Australia: 90% to 12.6% ("routine" circumcision has recently been banned in public hospitals in all states except one, so the rate will now be a lot lower)
New Zealand: 95% to below 3% (mostly Samoans and Tongans)
South America and Europe: never above 5%

It concerns me that me pointing this out appears only likely to harden your views, and make you even more emotionally attached to circumcision. It's like you're going to be even more pro-circ just to irritate people like me and Hugh7. Do you tell your patients how low the rates of circumcision are, both worldwide, and in north America? Or that other national medical organisations say that circumcision is unnecessary? I suspect not.

Well, you have given me greater understanding of the poitics involved in addressing what is essentially a medical problem - cervical cancer. Not many men develop this.

Hi Ronald
I just wanted to reply to your original post and say, if you feel your only option is a circumcision because all the alternatives have failed then choose a mild one which keeps your frenulum and as much of the highly sensitive inner skin as possible. This won't just help to preserve your sexual sensations for you but also your partner (for the same reasons that condoms sometimes are made "ribbed for her pleasure"!!)

Bear in mind also in listening to the likes of Brandye and Sera that they may be serial pro-circers who patrol message boards such as this to deny circ has any harms and to inflate the benefits. Some of the people who pop up on boards like this are actually associated with fetish groups who promote circ. Nothing wrong with that but if your reasons are not fetish ones then you may not feel the benefits they feel - so do be wary.

The potential sexual harms of circ are clear from the studies of those who have done it in adult, many for valid reasons such as yours. Look up studies by Masood, Fink, Solinis and Kim and Pang, which show sexual harm in the range of 18-38% in adult men who had a circ (even those who did it for chronic infection/soreness). Solinis also showed i believe that partners were even more dissatisfied! You have no way of knowing whether you will fall into the group which hate the result, those who like it or those who claim there is not much difference (even that their original condition is not much improved).

As concerns what people are saying about hygiene, infection cancer and HIV these is easily proved as bogus. Poor hygiene in female genitals is associated with a higher rate of HPV infection (Franceschi et al, Chennai, India, also see genital cancer websites) as well as general vulvovaginitis and UTI . HPV i probably don't need to say is one of the main causes of cervical cancer but also penile cancer. So dirty women put men at risk....has anyone ever suggested we do mass genital surgery to smooth away all those nasty folds and flaps on female bits? Not that i know of. Likewise we have circumstantial evidence from the patterns of HIV infection in Africa and from Stallings research in Tanzania that female cutting may possibly provide her with protection against HIV. This kind of evidence led eager male-circers to get funding for studies which they delivered (tightly controlled, with paid subjects). Has anyone requested funding to see if mass cutting of the langerhans rich labia minora might slow HIV infections? Not that i know of. Even though HIV disproportionately affects women. Even thought this type IIa female circ is broadly equivalent to male circ. Even though HPV (linked as above to female hygiene) is linked to HIV.

It all adds up to the most enormous double standard. And the fact that we wouldn't promote mass genital surgery in women, the fact that we think their genitals are there for a reason and to be treasured gives you the clue as to why we shouldn't do it for men.

Hope this is helpful. I am now off to f*ck my beautiful man. And he is not going to be put off by the fact that i can get smegma (more than him actually) because you know what, I shower twice per day, and it's gone.

Soap v surgery? Come on Brandye this is a no brainer. And i am a Scot too by the way. You have made me feel ashamed of my nation today with your comments.

[QUOTE=sera300;216773]I believe you need to remain under your Country's Guidelines...until then medicine will be practiced in the US as is. Recommendations of the NHS & US will continue, dear.

Now end of discussions since you have nothing to generally debate with me--you reside in Austria,[/quote]No, I only ever spent one night in Innsbruck on the way from Germany to Italy. A beautiful place, reminded me of home. (I've spent two weeks or so in Australia.) But so what? Babies are the same all over the world, and all being human, they have the same human rights to possession of all of their bodies (except, of course, in the case of pressing medical need, which is vanishingly rare in the case of the neonatal prepuce).

[quote] I in the US. I have the medical degree as does Brandye. End of story, end of debate, you are dismissed and have no credibility in my eyes...[/quote]You do know that you come off sounding like a dominatrix?

[quote]you demonstrate circular logic.[/quote]I don't think you know what circular logic is.

[quote]This will be my last response to you or your "cohorts".[/quote]Glad to hear it (if only I could believe you). You've said NOTHING of substance.

[QUOTE=sera300;216703]REVIEW SHOWS MALE CIRCUMCISION PROTECTS FEMALE PARTNERS FROM HIV AND OTHER STDs

A statistical review of the past medical files of more than 300 couples in Uganda, in which the female partner was HIV negative and the male was HIV positive, provides solid documentation of the protective effects of male circumcision in reducing the risk of infection among women. Male circumcision also reduced rates of trichomonas and bacterial vaginosis in female partners. The study is believed to be the first to demonstrate the benefits to female partners of male circumcision.
Hopkins scientists Oliver Laeyendecker, M.S., M.B.A., Steven Reynolds, M.D., M.P.H., and Thomas C. Quinn, M.D., in Rakai, Uganda.
Specifically, male circumcision reduced by 30 percent the likelihood that the female partner would become infected with the virus that causes AIDS, with 299 women contracting HIV from uncircumcised partners and only 44 women becoming infected by circumcised men.[/quote]
NO! This is a serious misreporting of the study.

299 couples where the man was intact were compared with 44 where the man was circumcised. After 30 months (if the pattern of the rest of the study was followed), infection rates were 7 per 100 person-years for the wives of circumcised men and 10 for the wives of intact men. This may look like a protective effect, but in statistical terms, p=0.22, meaning no statistical significance. In real terms, it can be back-calculated that 8 of the wives of circumcised men were infected. If 11 had been, the rate would be the same for both, and that difference of three infections in 30 months is too few to be considered significant.

But the study was widely reported (by Reuters, as here) as showing that all 299 wives of intact men were infected, compared with only 44 wives of circumcised men, as if these were just the small (infected) samples of two much larger and equal samples. This makes the supposed protective effect look much greater.

See the relevant part of a more accurate report - but even that quotes "not statistically significant" without seeming to understand what it means. This is a not-untypical example of how pro-circumcision bias bends neutral or even pro-intact facts into pro-circ news and policy.

I haven't studied the figures for the other diseases, but excuse me if I'm skeptical there too.

[QUOTE=Brandye;216782]Well, you have given me greater understanding of the poitics involved in addressing what is essentially a medical problem - cervical cancer. Not many men develop this.[/QUOTE]Here is what I have found about circumcision and cervical cancer. The only thing the American Cancer Society says about circumcision and cervical cancer is a news report of the Castellsagué study, which essentially compared the wives of circumcised men in the Philippines with the wives of intact men in five other countries and only achieved statistical significance by pooling the data, a very poor way of doing statistics.

Before you even consider advocating neonatal circumcision as a preventive measure you need to do a risk/benefit analysis, involving Numbers Needed to Treat (NNTs). Currently in the US, about 1.2 million baby boys are circumcised annually, and the American Cancer Society predicts that there will be about 11,070 new cases of invasive cervical cancer in the United States in 2008. So without knowing anything about the circumcision status of the husbands of those 11,070 women or the effectiveness of circumcision, we can say that the NNT must be greater than 100. To be considered effective, NNTs usually have to be in single digits.

Ron,

It is a shame that your original thread was ghijacked by some net guerrillas pushing their view. You seem to have gotten your answer - and then some.

I appreciate your comment about who was misleading. It is interesting that we had two circumcision threads in two days with three newbies descending upon us with anit- ideas. Vikingirl signed in and then immediately posted only on a circumcision thread. Unusual that a woman would find that as a place to start.

Good luck.