Talk:Circumcision/Archive 10

message: What do professional medical organizations actually say about infant circumcision as a medical procedure?
*The Royal Australasian College of Physicians. Policy Statement On Circumcision. Sep 2004. http://www.racp.edu.au/hpu/paed/circumcision/summary.htm
:"After extensive review of the literature the RACP reaffirms that there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision." (emphasis in original document)
:"The possibility that routine circumcision may contravene human rights has been raised because circumcision is performed on a minor and is without proven medical benefit."
:"Review of the literature in relation to risks and benefits shows there is no evidence of benefit outweighing harm for circumcision as a routine procedure in the neonate."
*British Medical Association. The Law & Ethics of Male Circumcision - Guidance for Doctors. March 2003. http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/malecircumcision2003
:"Unnecessarily invasive procedures should not be used where alternative, less invasive techniques, are equally efficient and available.  It is important that doctors keep up to date and ensure that any decisions to undertake an invasive procedure are based on the best available evidence.  Therefore, to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate."
:"Male circumcision in cases where there is a clear clinical need is not normally controversial.  Nevertheless, normal anatomical and physiological characteristics of the infant foreskin have in the past been misinterpreted as being abnormal.  The British Association of Paediatric Surgeons advises that there is rarely a clinical indication for circumcision.  Doctors should be aware of this and reassure parents accordingly."
:"Male circumcision that is performed for any reason other than physical clinical need is termed non-therapeutic (or sometimes 'ritual') circumcision."
*Canadian Paediatric Society. Neonatal Circumcision Revisited. http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/FN/fn96-01.htm
:"Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed."
:"The overall evidence of the benefits and harms of circumcision is so evenly balanced that it does not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns.  There is therefore no indication that the position taken by the CPS in 1982 should be changed."
:Note - In 1982 the CPS took a stand against routine infant circumcision because "there are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period."  In March 2002 the CPS reaffirmed its 1996 position statement.
*American Academy of Pediatrics. Circumcision Policy Statement (RE9850). http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;103/3/686
:"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.  In the case of circumcision, 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."
*American Medical Association. Report 10 of the Council on Scientific Affairs (I-99), Neonatal Circumcision. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13585.html
:"This report is confined to circumcisions that are not performed for ritualistic or religious purposes. In this case, the term 'non-therapeutic' is synonymous with elective circumcisions that are still commonly performed on newborn males in the United States."
:"The AMA supports the general principles of the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics"
:Note - The summary of the AMA report is very similar to the summary of the AAP policy statement with one important exception.  The AMA report does not include the following sentence: "It is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to the medical factors, when making this decision."
*College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia. Infant Male Circumcision. Jun 2004. https://www.cpsbc.ca/cps/physician_resources/publications/resource_manual/malecircum
:"Infant male circumcision was once considered a preventive health measure and was therefore adopted extensively in Western countries.  Current understanding of the benefits, risks and potential harm of this procedure, however, no longer supports this practice for prophylactic health benefit.  Routine infant male circumcision performed on a healthy infant is now considered a non-therapeutic and medically unnecessary intervention."
There is unanimous agreement among professional medical organizations in Australia, Canada, Great Britain, and the United States that circumcision of healthy boys is not medically necessary.  They all say there is no medical indication for circumcision of a healthy boy.  The professional medical organizations recognize that circumcision of healthy boys is a cultural and religious practice, not a medically indicated procedure.  Only a handful of pro-circumcision advocates still try to present elective, non-therapeutic circumcision of healthy boys as a surgery with medical justification. -- DanBlackham 10:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Medical organization statements

message: In order to put non-therapeutic circumcision in context with other pediatric surgeries I think we need to ask one very important question.  What other surgeries will doctors perform on children that have a ratio of medical benefits to risks similar to infant circumcision and that do not correct a congenital condition? -- DanBlackham 03:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I suggest rephrasing the question, Dan, since congenital phimosis is by definition a congenital condition? Jakew 12:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently, hopefully none. But my guess is, history of medicine is full of stories of fads that cut-happy doctors figured were a good idea to make a naturally born and healthy child "better". Dabljuh 11:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's enough material to create an article on the history of circumcision that would fit  nicely in the pseudo-science category. --ZimZum 12:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already a history of circumcision article, ZimZum, but adding such a category would violate WP:NPOV. Jakew 12:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're confusing that with WP:JPOV, but I agree "Circumcision as pseudoscience" isn't appropriate. Dabljuh 12:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I keep reading and re-reading this phrase you have used, WP:JPOV, and don't understand.  Could you elaborate on what you mean? Nandesuka 17:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: female genital mutilation ? At least when it is performed by doctors.... Dabljuh 16:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not aware of any medical benefits to that. Jakew 16:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, excision of the labia would for example reduce the chance that you get cancer of the vulva... destroying any form of pleasure in sex can reduce the rate that you get STDs.... but you know that already... Dabljuh 17:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I'm interested in studies that have actually found benefits, rather than speculative ones. Jakew 17:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: That it might be beneficial? (Toby Murcott suggests in 'The whole story' that any benefit is more likely through the caring person-centric way of working than the 'medications' themselves, but that's an aside) Jakew 17:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Putting circumcision in context 

message: I moved the information in this section to the top of the section. I agree that former title wasn't terribly good, but it seems to me that this info needed to be consolidated with the body modification subsection, since that subsection was about non-religious circumcision, too. Benami 12:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed the title to "Aesthetics" as it is probably more catchy. Dabljuh 15:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was a happy choice. Benami 21:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circumcision for non-religious reasons 

message: What exactly is the purpose of including the masturbation section? No matter what your position on either masturbation or circumcision is, there's no causal link suggested; it would seem to be a case of post hoc, propter hoc.
:No one today (afaik) truly believes there is an important link between the two (there may be a slight difference, but I doubt it's of importance).  It's included for historical purposes, as one of the main "reasons" behind the push for widespread routine infant circumcision in America was the idea that circumcision would prevent or reduce masturbation, which was seen by those pushing this as dirty and/or sinful.  You're of course right that today, the "masturbation is sinful" argument is almost never heard, but as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia owes it to the public to explain not only the situation as it is, but how it came to be this way.  The "issue" of masturbation played a role in the original campaign to get the American public and medical establishment to see routine circumcision in a more favorable light.  Therefore, the statistic showing that circumcised men actually masturbate slightly more often than uncircumcised men is interesting, because it would seem to be one point of evidence that the promoters of circumcision were mistaken.  At least, that's how I read it. -Kasreyn 05:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe this could be profitably moved to the section on history? Benami 20:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but that makes no sense. the Maturbation heading is under the larger section about Sexual effects of circumcision. And yet, there is simply no causal link given between circumcision and masturbation. This belongs in the history section. Benami 23:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You don't seem to understand my point. Keeping the information in a section dealing with the sexual effects of circumcision is stating that the supposed increase of masturbation is an effect of circumcision. But there is simply no evidence given that that is the case. Claiming that it is an effect in the absence of evidence supporting that, based solely on the fact that circumcised men are reported to masturbate more, is an example of the logical fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc. If you can't show that it is an effect of circumcision, then it doesn't belong in this section. Benami 00:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You are correct: we don't know what effect, if any, circumcision has on masturbation. Since there is no evidence one way or the other, including information suggesting that there is a link would be a mistake. I've moved the masturbation study information to the history section. Benami 01:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: In order to posit a link, you would need some sort of evidence to support the idea that such a link exists. There is simply no evidence. Benami 01:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A couple of those links don't seem to have anything to do with masturbation at all, but even the first two, that do, simply report that circumcised men masturbate more. They do not even get close to showing a causal link. Hell, the second one, a letter from DOC, points out that circumcised men report more oral sex than uncircumcise men; is it your position that circumcision is the direct cause of more blowjobs? Following the link to the study published in JAMA about increased variety of sexual practice in circumcised men, I found the following sentence in the abstract: "This pattern differs across ethnic groups, suggesting the influence of social factors." Yes, circumcised men report more masturbation. Who knows why? And frankly, who cares? What is the point? Benami 02:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It could be partially that. Or, since circumcision rates are not constant among all ethnic or social groups (African-Americans and Latinos, for example, have lower incidences of circumcision) it could reflect a lower incidence of reported masturbation (or oral sex, or anal sex, or homosexual experiences, etc.) in those groups, either because they are really having those types of experience less because of cultural reasons, or because they report them less because everything but "plain vanilla" is looked down on. Benami 12:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Masturbation