Infant Male Circumcision

[JTBaby]

http://www.rt.com/news/germany-religious-circumcision-ban-772/

Germany courts rule religious circumcision of infants is illegal.

Discuss.

Germans doing something that Jews won't like.

There's a surprise.

Oh snap!

I pose this question though: We do place limits on religious freedom. If one was to take another rule in the Bible literally and beat their children for talking back, for example, we would trump their religious freedom with our concept of what is proper and not. So why does unnecessary genital mutilation of infant males get a free pass, even for religious reasons?

For health reasons ?

At least according to the WHO

http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/

[soapit]

"WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence."

dont know if germany qualifies there.

[JTBaby]

"WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence."

dont know if germany qualifies there.

Germans are impervious to AIDS.

[soapit]

bit of a range between epidemic/high HIV prevalence and being impervious to AIDS.

[JTBaby]

bit of a range between epidemic/high HIV prevalence and being impervious to AIDS.

Seems a lot of well renowned organizations don't consider the only advantage to be in epidemic situation



http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/circumcision-public-health-concern/story?id=12555810#.T_Jbh_XuXuU

http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2011/10/highlighting-the-health-benefits-of-circumcision

[soapit]

bit of a range between epidemic/high HIV prevalence and being impervious to AIDS.

Seems a lot of well renowned organizations don't consider the only advantage to be in epidemic situation



http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/circumcision-public-health-concern/story?id=12555810#.T_Jbh_XuXuU

http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2011/10/highlighting-the-health-benefits-of-circumcision

shame you didnt post those in the first place to support your opinion, they do a much better job (although two of them refer to the same organisation so we can really only say a couple of well renowned organisations from those links).

i dare say that 60% reduction would be much lower in western countries where the proportion of those infected through unprotected sex will be much lower than in africa. plus the incidence rate is quite low already so not hugely convinced its worthwhile but when compounded with the other things in the links above (HPV, Chlamydia, syphilis) it becomes slightly more compelling (although HPV has a vaccine).

not in favour of a country banning it as it doesnt seem to hurt the child long term (0.2-2% chance of complication in the US - pain, mild bleeding) and there may even be a slight health benefit as you've shown. i predict more work will need to be done to show the potential benefits in western society before we get a lot of well renowned organisations recommending it in the west.

[JTBaby]

bit of a range between epidemic/high HIV prevalence and being impervious to AIDS.

Seems a lot of well renowned organizations don't consider the only advantage to be in epidemic situation



http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/circumcision-public-health-concern/story?id=12555810#.T_Jbh_XuXuU

http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2011/10/highlighting-the-health-benefits-of-circumcision

shame you didnt post those in the first place to support your opinion, they do a much better job (although two of them refer to the same organisation so we can really only say a couple of well renowned organisations from those links).

i dare say that 60% reduction would be much lower in western countries where the proportion of those infected through unprotected sex will be much lower than in africa. plus the incidence rate is quite low already so not hugely convinced its worthwhile but when compounded with the other things in the links above (HPV, Chlamydia, syphilis) it becomes slightly more compelling (although HPV has a vaccine).

not in favour of a country banning it as it doesnt seem to hurt the child long term (0.2-2% chance of complication in the US - pain, mild bleeding) and there may even be a slight health benefit as you've shown. i predict more work will need to be done to show the potential benefits in western society before we get a lot of well renowned organisations recommending it in the west.

bit of a range between epidemic/high HIV prevalence and being impervious to AIDS.

Seems a lot of well renowned organizations don't consider the only advantage to be in epidemic situation



http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/circumcision-public-health-concern/story?id=12555810#.T_Jbh_XuXuU

http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2011/10/highlighting-the-health-benefits-of-circumcision

shame you didnt post those in the first place to support your opinion, they do a much better job (although two of them refer to the same organisation so we can really only say a couple of well renowned organisations from those links).

i dare say that 60% reduction would be much lower in western countries where the proportion of those infected through unprotected sex will be much lower than in africa. plus the incidence rate is quite low already so not hugely convinced its worthwhile but when compounded with the other things in the links above (HPV, Chlamydia, syphilis) it becomes slightly more compelling (although HPV has a vaccine).

not in favour of a country banning it as it doesnt seem to hurt the child long term (0.2-2% chance of complication in the US - pain, mild bleeding) and there may even be a slight health benefit as you've shown. i predict more work will need to be done to show the potential benefits in western society before we get a lot of well renowned organisations recommending it in the west.

Well, when the organizations in question are johns Hopkins, CDC and WHO I think there's a decent enough pedigree there.

It's not like it's an opinion from a Rolling Stone writer.........

[soapit]

Well, when the organizations in question are johns Hopkins, CDC and WHO I think there's a decent enough pedigree there.

It's not like it's an opinion from a Rolling Stone writer.........

yes there certainly seems to be some benefit though not strong enough for CDC or WHO to recommend it in the west. they agree with me, its an option that will slightly improve your risk and may or may not be worth it to the individual.

[JTBaby]

Well, when the organizations in question are johns Hopkins, CDC and WHO I think there's a decent enough pedigree there.

It's not like it's an opinion from a Rolling Stone writer.........

yes there certainly seems to be some benefit though not strong enough for CDC or WHO to recommend it in the west. they agree with me, its an option that will slightly improve your risk and may or may not be worth it to the individual.

Yes, I'm sure they also look at it as agreeing with you.

[soapit]

Well, when the organizations in question are johns Hopkins, CDC and WHO I think there's a decent enough pedigree there.

It's not like it's an opinion from a Rolling Stone writer.........

yes there certainly seems to be some benefit though not strong enough for CDC or WHO to recommend it in the west. they agree with me, its an option that will slightly improve your risk and may or may not be worth it to the individual.

Yes, I'm sure they also look at it as agreeing with you.

they usually do when you agree with them.

[singnomore]

bit of a range between epidemic/high HIV prevalence and being impervious to AIDS.

Seems a lot of well renowned organizations don't consider the only advantage to be in epidemic situation



http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/circumcision-public-health-concern/story?id=12555810#.T_Jbh_XuXuU

http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2011/10/highlighting-the-health-benefits-of-circumcision

shame you didnt post those in the first place to support your opinion, they do a much better job (although two of them refer to the same organisation so we can really only say a couple of well renowned organisations from those links).

i dare say that 60% reduction would be much lower in western countries where the proportion of those infected through unprotected sex will be much lower than in africa. plus the incidence rate is quite low already so not hugely convinced its worthwhile but when compounded with the other things in the links above (HPV, Chlamydia, syphilis) it becomes slightly more compelling (although HPV has a vaccine).

not in favour of a country banning it as it doesnt seem to hurt the child long term (0.2-2% chance of complication in the US - pain, mild bleeding) and there may even be a slight health benefit as you've shown. i predict more work will need to be done to show the potential benefits in western society before we get a lot of well renowned organisations recommending it in the west.

bit of a range between epidemic/high HIV prevalence and being impervious to AIDS.

Seems a lot of well renowned organizations don't consider the only advantage to be in epidemic situation



http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/circumcision-public-health-concern/story?id=12555810#.T_Jbh_XuXuU

http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2011/10/highlighting-the-health-benefits-of-circumcision

shame you didnt post those in the first place to support your opinion, they do a much better job (although two of them refer to the same organisation so we can really only say a couple of well renowned organisations from those links).

i dare say that 60% reduction would be much lower in western countries where the proportion of those infected through unprotected sex will be much lower than in africa. plus the incidence rate is quite low already so not hugely convinced its worthwhile but when compounded with the other things in the links above (HPV, Chlamydia, syphilis) it becomes slightly more compelling (although HPV has a vaccine).

not in favour of a country banning it as it doesnt seem to hurt the child long term (0.2-2% chance of complication in the US - pain, mild bleeding) and there may even be a slight health benefit as you've shown. i predict more work will need to be done to show the potential benefits in western society before we get a lot of well renowned organisations recommending it in the west.

Well, when the organizations in question are johns Hopkins, CDC and WHO I think there's a decent enough pedigree there.

It's not like it's an opinion from a Rolling Stone writer.........

Hmmm and it spills over into other threads - its all about opinions thats all 

[Droo]

Health benefits aside, shouldn't it still be the choice of the guy himself whether or not to have it done? Present him with the medical information when he gets older and let him make the choice for himself.

[Tumbling Dice]

Health benefits aside, shouldn't it still be the choice of the guy himself whether or not to have it done? Present him with the medical information when he gets older and let him make the choice for himself.

When young men get to 18 and haven't had any health problems due to having a foreskin but have enjoyed the benefits - like the large majority of uncircumcised men -  I don't think many sane young men would be signing up for the cut.

[Droo]

Which is precisely why it becomes questionable to force it on them without consent at an age when they are incapable of doing so.

[soapit]

one of those articles jtbaby linked says that the risks of doing it as ab adult are higher and the benefits lower (from memory).

there are many decisions and procedures we ask parents to make calls on through a childs life. not sensible to wait till they're 18 for health procedures if theres an earlier benefit. just a question of how much of benefit there is.