|
|
Post by angra on Aug 27, 2012 19:34:22 GMT 10
The American Academy of Paediatrics has come out in favour of circumcision, saying the health benefits outweigh any disadvantage.
Having worked in Pacific countries where the threat of AIDS affects all, the reduction in risk of infection by more than 30% means promoting circumcision is a no-brainer. Even Catholics agree.
So why do Western activists continue to portray this as some sort of mutilation?
It save lives - pure and simple.
Get cut, get a life, and save others.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Aug 27, 2012 21:05:20 GMT 10
"So why do Western activists continue to portray this as some sort of mutilation?"
Squeamishness.
I don't have a strong view either way, although my hazy recollections of primary school change rooms suggests that circumcision was basically the overwhelming norm where I grew up (nice leafy inner south suburbs of adelaide in the 70's). To me, unchopped kids looked funny :-)
If there's a benefit, then it's a no-brainer. If there's NO benefit, then I don't see any difference between it and the "symbolic nick" that some pediatricians suggested to offset certain practices which then led to a public outcry about giving in to terrorists.
Whether or not there's a benefit, it strikes me as such a close call that leaving it up to the parents seems like the sensible thing to do. On the other hand, there are people who apparently get very het up about this, and vilify groups that do it and pass laws to ban it. I just don't think they've got evidence on their side.
My very inexpert understanding is that the pros/cons tend to waver this way and that as new studies are published.
|
|
|
|
Post by angra on Aug 28, 2012 7:58:58 GMT 10
There is a pretty comprehensive summary of all the evidence at this site... www.circinfo.net/There is significant data from west Africa which compares STI rates amongst c and non-c communities which suggests that circumcision significantly reduces infection rates by 30% or more. And I suppose you heard about the Rabbi who made a wallet out of the foreskins he'd collected. When stroked, it turned into a suitcase. |
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Aug 28, 2012 8:07:35 GMT 10
Eyewww!
|
|
|
|
Post by jack on Aug 28, 2012 13:03:36 GMT 10
If you give a particular cohort some dodgy medical dispensation to engage in risky behaviour, then you shouldn't be at all surprised if an increased rate of circumcision has no mitigating effect on rate of STD or HIV infection.
What’s more, all things being equal you could also expect increase in young males suffering needlessly from complications arising out of an unnecessary elective procedure.
Seriously, if people in the first world want to avoid STDs or HIV then use condoms.
|
|
|
|
Post by angra on Aug 28, 2012 13:36:27 GMT 10
Jack - you are quite right about condoms and the Catholics have a lot to answer for by their continued opposition to them.
But there is evidence showing a statistically lower rate of STI's amongst communities where circumcision is the norm, compared to similar communities where it isn't. This has led to a push to increase circumcision rates in developing countries by MSF and others.
|
|
