Talk:Circumcision/Archive 21

message: I added this google video of a circumcision in the external links; i hope nobody will disagree. Username9 15:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a short NWS warning to the video, for anyone silly enough to click on it and not expect to see surgical techniques. :)Draffa 17:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: An activist's video at Google Video? I don't think it's a terribly encyclopaedic link. Jakew 17:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Video

message: In the second paragraph of the Topic find this sentence:
The genital integrity movement condemns infant circumcision as a form of male genital mutilation that they consider comparable to female circumcision, and does not differentiate between religio-ritualistic versus purely elective circumcision of minors. 
That representative link should be replaced with TipPt 23:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. One is a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal. The other is seems more like a shock site. -- Avi 00:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the major requirement for a shock site is that the site has to be shocking. IMO that page is not shocking. I agree with you however, the link should not be changed. Christopher 06:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, that is not appropriate. However, the initial source does not support the claim. Jakew 11:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is not a representative of the genital integrity movement . 

message: The best protection from UTIs comes not from cutting off a small piece of the baby's skin, but from the mother herself. Jan Winberg et al (the Lancet, March 1989) concludes that the number of UTIs in newborn males could be reduced by strict rooming in of mother and baby or by active colonization of the baby with his mother's anaerobic gut flora. In this research, UTIs in newborn males were caused by Escherichia coli, bacteria not of maternal origin; therefore, infants had no passive resistance to these pathogens.
During delivery in a natural setting, the infant acquires aerobic and anaerobic intestinal flora from the mother, together with the necessary immunoglobins to resist infections from these agents through the placenta and breastmilk. When an infant is born in a sterile hospital setting, he is carefully protected from the possible contamination caused by his mother's body fluids, and then isolated in a nursery. His first contact with the E. coli strain is from the hospital environment itself, against which the infant has no resistance.
During the first few days of the infant's life, he should be handled by the mother and other members of his immediate family as exclusively as possible, whether circumcised or intact. The mother's resistance to the pathogenic effects of her own gut flora and that of the other family members should protect the infant from early UTIs. Once the infant has established his own gut bacteria colony, this will help protect him from colonization by stray pathogens.
The baby born in a typical hospital labor setting who is then removed to the nursery is at much greater risk for UTIs from stray bacteria than the infant born at home. Circumcision is no guarantee of health; contact with the mother and her breastmilk are an infant's first and foremost protection from infections.
-Diana Haught, Midwifery Today Issue 14
:If I'm not mistaken, this seems to be merely the opinion of the author. An opinion piece is very weak evidence. However, Haught cites Winberg, which may be a appropriate for the article, if it refers to circumcision. Jakew 11:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here's the UTI ... perspective ... article.  I'll look up the Lancet study. 

message: Peer reviewed, published, and both more to the point (of the sentence) than the current version link.TipPt 01:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither seem to support the claim in the article (as an aside, both are letters, which are rarely peer-reviewed. Most tend to receive editor review instead, with less scrutiny in the case of e-letters. That doesn't make them unreliable, I'm just pointing it out for the sake of correctness). Jakew 11:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Last night I realized saying peer reviewed was exagerating; sorry.  Your source/article is better than the ones I found, and much better than what's in the Topic.  Could you please put it in (I haven't learned to use the detailed format)the paragraph?TipPt 14:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Already done. :) Jakew 14:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A couple links for the second paragraph genital intergity/mutilation citation 

message: I don't want to be bold in such a controversial article, but I noticed there's already a fairly extensive article on the medical analysis of circumcision which is already linked from this article. This article is already enormous, shouldn't most of the material on the medical aspects be removed from this article, with just a brief summary and link remaining? Vicarious 01:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a medical topic, so some discussion needs to be included. However, I'd certainly agree that the discussion is too long and does need to be condensed. Unfortunately that's very hard to do in a manner that all editors find acceptable. Jakew 10:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jakew would like to think circumcision is a medical topic, but factually it's a religious, then a ritual or cultural act (the decision to circ) according to all medical associations.  Benefits exist, but are minor and have failed to justify the risks.  Many editors love the emphasis on potential benefits (and the short shift on harms) because it misleads the reader into thinking the "benefits" are relevant.  The very short text devoted to harms is much more telling...remember, harms roughtly equal benefits (according to cost'benefit studies); so they should be given equal representation...you can assume the pro-circ dominate this Topic!TipPt 16:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing medical effects section 

message: Here's what I see as important points (in bold) in the statement (already condensed below)...
====Australia and New Zealand====
The Royal Australasian College of Physicians position is as follows:
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TipPt  (talk • contribs) 12:30, November 11, 2006   (UTC)
: It's fine as it currently is, TipPt, leave well enough alone and stop editing for POV.  Draffa 17:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would you help me summarize the RACP? 

message: The Royal Australasian College of Physicians position is as follows:
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TipPt  (talk • contribs) 12:30, November 11, 2006   (UTC)
: It's fine as it currently is, TipPt, leave well enough alone and stop editing for POV.  Draffa 17:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Australia and New Zealand

message: I recently read the book "Behind the mask of medicine" which was published in 1941. While I was reading Atkinson's cahpter entitled 'Excesses in Surgery' I was constantly comparing the color of the pages to the color of the copyright page, to be certain that someone had not slipped the pages in recently. His views are very modern, indeed if footnotes were added citing the appropriate modern studies, you would be able to convince me that it had been published in the 21st century. I wasn't sure how to work this into the history section, plus I don't have the time at the moment, so decided to post this here and invite another editor to help.
Here are some quotes:
It would seem that doctors in the forties were not all completely clueless. Especially considering how much riskier circumcision is when antibiotics are not available and doctors didn't wash their hands. Christopher 20:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure why you'd think these views modern. I'd have thought that such claims might be common prior to 1966 (Masters and Johnson), but after that date would indicate a lack of familiarity with the evidence. :) But I guess it might belong somewhere in history of male circumcision. Jakew 21:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circumcision in the early '40's 

message: I have edited this section to make it easier to read, by using shorter sentences. Two other changes should be noted. I have removed the word 'controversial' from the beginning of the section. This value judgment is not appropriate under the NPOV rule. The whole section gives a fair description of the law and those who have objected to it. A second change is to replace the word 'noted' with 'stated'.  'Noted' implies that the comparison with the Nazis is true; 'stated' is a non-judgmental way of stating that this was said without implying anything about its accuracy.Michael Glass 01:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Swedish law

message: I noticed that someone removed the emphasis from the quotation of the RACP policy. This policy has been criticised but that is beside the point. A quotation must be as accurate as possible. Certain words in that quotation were bolded in the original; therefore they should be bolded when they are quoted in Wikipedia. Michael Glass 02:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Accurate quotations