""Considerations for Circumcision: (3)
Prevention of Cervical Cancer in Females - Circumcision was once
believed to reduce the incidence of cervical cancer in females, but
recent studies in Great Britain and the U.S show no significant
relationship between male circumcision status and incidence of
cervical cancer in their partners."
Yes, it is estimated that 70% of Americans have been infected with HPV. With an 80% circumcision rate, it is clear male circumcision has had no prophylactic effect.
Two highly effective vaccines for HPV have been introduced in the past 5 years. These vaccines have an honest promise of ending the epidemic but circumcision promoters have carefully avoided mentioning them.
Indeed, The National HPV and Cervical Cancer Campaign has said that 97% of individuals will develop a natural immunity to HPV and stand at no risk meaning that only 3% of people are at risk.
Male circumcision does not provide absolute protection and probably provides no protection at all. The infection is easily passed between individuals simply by one touching a contaminated surface and then shaking hands with someone else. The virus can be live on any part of the body for a period of time, not just the genitals.
"So why was it an argument FOR circumcision?"
The arguments for circumcision have never been reasonable or logical. They have always centered on myths and lies and deception.
"we stand by our position."
Which means he had no reasonable and logical explanation. He just wanted the money.
"he said "there are certain lifetime benefits to the procedure".
And he is either ignorant or was deceiving you. He was dodging the issue simply because he really didn't know the answer.
"she'll want him to look like his father." I was flabbergasted, because father is intact"
This is the fall-back. Obviously the doctor assumed the father is circumcised and used that in his deception.
"And he changed bases again when he said, "well, you know it comes
down to personal choice." I said, "you were telling me there were
medical reasons now you're saying they don't matter?"
Good for you. That was quick thinking and you cornered him. It is indeed a "personal choice." It's only personal to the individual the organ is attached to. It is not personal to the parents or the family. No one has the investment that the (potential) victim has in the issue and the potential victim is the only one who should have a say in the decision. According to The AAP, it is not necessary to the child's immediate health so the decision can be foregone until he is of an age where he can make a carefully considered decision.
"I wanted advice, and I didn't get any. So I finally said, "How should parents be in a position of advising a doctor about a surgical procedure?" He answered "It's customary".
He's dancing here. He changes every time you counter him. It appears he is very practiced at this. He'd probably make a very good used car salesman with those talents.
"I agree, and the answers should make sense, and they shouldn't change. But it looks like nobody really knows why baby boys should be circumcised at birth."
No they don't know because there are no reasons, just made up justifications. Not a single medical association in the world recommends infant circumcision
"UTIs in boys (both doctors mentioned them) haven't happened in our family (but a couple of parents in the neighborhood say their girls get UTIs). "
Right! about 1% of baby boys will get a UTI in the first 6 months of life but about 4.5% of baby girls will get a UTI. The girls get medications that appear to solve the problem but boys are likely to get amputative surgery and medications.
Now, I'm going to give everyone a short science lesson. Bacterials, fungals (yeasts) and virals can not discern or discriminate between male and female cells. This means the infections boys get are the exact same infections girls get and are appropriately treated with the exact same medications with equal results. Girls never recieve amputative surgery for these infections while it is often the treatment of first choice for boys. That's just sexist and wrong.
"Looks like people are deciding it's not worth paying for."
That appears to be the case around the country as well. In the states where Medicaid funding has been withdrawn, the circumcision rate has fallen by about 20% instantly. AND, there are not boys running around with their penises falling off.
"I'm disgusted."
Welcome to the real world, a world will decieve you and take your money while also harming you and your family for the almighty dollar.
Comment Reply
""Considerations for Circumcision: (3)
Prevention of Cervical Cancer in Females - Circumcision was once
believed to reduce the incidence of cervical cancer in females, but
recent studies in Great Britain and the U.S show no significant
relationship between male circumcision status and incidence of
cervical cancer in their partners."
Yes, it is estimated that 70% of Americans have been infected with HPV. With an 80% circumcision rate, it is clear male circumcision has had no prophylactic effect.
Two highly effective vaccines for HPV have been introduced in the past 5 years. These vaccines have an honest promise of ending the epidemic but circumcision promoters have carefully avoided mentioning them.
Indeed, The National HPV and Cervical Cancer Campaign has said that 97% of individuals will develop a natural immunity to HPV and stand at no risk meaning that only 3% of people are at risk.
Male circumcision does not provide absolute protection and probably provides no protection at all. The infection is easily passed between individuals simply by one touching a contaminated surface and then shaking hands with someone else. The virus can be live on any part of the body for a period of time, not just the genitals.
"So why was it an argument FOR circumcision?"
The arguments for circumcision have never been reasonable or logical. They have always centered on myths and lies and deception.
"we stand by our position."
Which means he had no reasonable and logical explanation. He just wanted the money.
"he said "there are certain lifetime benefits to the procedure".
And he is either ignorant or was deceiving you. He was dodging the issue simply because he really didn't know the answer.
"she'll want him to look like his father." I was flabbergasted, because father is intact"
This is the fall-back. Obviously the doctor assumed the father is circumcised and used that in his deception.
"And he changed bases again when he said, "well, you know it comes
down to personal choice." I said, "you were telling me there were
medical reasons now you're saying they don't matter?"
Good for you. That was quick thinking and you cornered him. It is indeed a "personal choice." It's only personal to the individual the organ is attached to. It is not personal to the parents or the family. No one has the investment that the (potential) victim has in the issue and the potential victim is the only one who should have a say in the decision. According to The AAP, it is not necessary to the child's immediate health so the decision can be foregone until he is of an age where he can make a carefully considered decision.
"I wanted advice, and I didn't get any. So I finally said, "How should parents be in a position of advising a doctor about a surgical procedure?" He answered "It's customary".
He's dancing here. He changes every time you counter him. It appears he is very practiced at this. He'd probably make a very good used car salesman with those talents.
"I agree, and the answers should make sense, and they shouldn't change. But it looks like nobody really knows why baby boys should be circumcised at birth."
No they don't know because there are no reasons, just made up justifications. Not a single medical association in the world recommends infant circumcision
"UTIs in boys (both doctors mentioned them) haven't happened in our family (but a couple of parents in the neighborhood say their girls get UTIs). "
Right! about 1% of baby boys will get a UTI in the first 6 months of life but about 4.5% of baby girls will get a UTI. The girls get medications that appear to solve the problem but boys are likely to get amputative surgery and medications.
Now, I'm going to give everyone a short science lesson. Bacterials, fungals (yeasts) and virals can not discern or discriminate between male and female cells. This means the infections boys get are the exact same infections girls get and are appropriately treated with the exact same medications with equal results. Girls never recieve amputative surgery for these infections while it is often the treatment of first choice for boys. That's just sexist and wrong.
"Looks like people are deciding it's not worth paying for."
That appears to be the case around the country as well. In the states where Medicaid funding has been withdrawn, the circumcision rate has fallen by about 20% instantly. AND, there are not boys running around with their penises falling off.
"I'm disgusted."
Welcome to the real world, a world will decieve you and take your money while also harming you and your family for the almighty dollar.
Frank
May 7, 2011 - 8:24pmThis Comment
Reply