POLL: is circumcision a genital mutilation?

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,949
575
126
Not to worry, someone has already went through all those studies for you and reviewed them.

Sucrose for analgesia in newborn infants undergoing painful procedures

Reviewers: Stevens B., Yamada J., Ohlsson A.

Review first published: The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 1998

This review updates the existing review (Sucrose in neonates undergoing painful procedures) initially published in the Cochrane Library in Issue 2, 1998. In an updated search to April 2001, nineteen new studies were identified. Results of these studies continue to support the efficacy and safety of sucrose for procedural pain relief in term and preterm neonates.

Synopsis:

Sucrose provides pain relief for newborn babies having painful procedures such as needles or heel lances.

Newborn babies undergoing painful procedures need help to have their pain reduced. This is done routinely for major procedures but may not be done for tests (such as taking blood) or needles. Drugs can be used to reduce pain but there are several other methods including sucking a pacifier with or without sucrose (sugar). The review of trials found that giving sucrose to babies decreases their crying time and other pain indicators such as facial action. More research is needed into the effect of repeated doses of sucrose, especially for very low birthweight or ventilated babies.

Background:

Management of pain for neonates is less than optimal. The administration of sucrose with and without non-nutritive sucking (pacifiers) has been the most frequently studied non-pharmacological intervention for relief of procedural pain in neonates.

Objectives:

To determine the efficacy, effect of dose, and safety of sucrose for relieving procedural pain as assessed by validated individual pain indicators and composite pain scores.

Search strategy:

Standard methods as per the Neonatal Collaborative Review Group. A MEDLINE search was carried out for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from January 1966 - April 2001, EMBASE from 1993-2001 and search of the Cochrane Library, Issue 2, April 2001. Key words and (MeSH) terms included infant/newborn, pain, analgesia and sucrose. Language restrictions were not imposed. Bibliographies, personal files, the most recent relevant neonatal and pain journals and recent major pediatric pain conference proceedings were searched manually. Unpublished studies, or studies reported only as abstracts, were not included. Additional information from published studies was obtained.

Selection criteria:

RCTs in which term and/or preterm neonates (postnatal age maximum of 28 days after reaching 40 weeks corrected gestational age) received sucrose via oral syringe, NG-tube, dropper or pacifier for procedural pain from heel lance or venepuncture. In the control group, water, pacifier or positioning/containing were used. Studies in which the painful stimulus was circumcision were excluded.

Data collection & analysis:

Trial quality was assessed according to the methods of the Neonatal Collaborative Review Group. Quality measures included blinding of randomization, blinding of intervention, completeness of follow up and blinding of outcome measurement. Data were abstracted and independently checked for accuracy by the three investigators.

Statistical Analysis:

The statistical package (RevMan 4.1) of the Cochrane Collaboration was used. For meta-analysis, a weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the fixed effects model was reported for continuous outcome measures.

Main results:

Thirty-eight studies were identified for possible inclusion in this review. Seven studies reported only as abstracts, and fourteen additional studies were excluded, leaving 17 studies included in this review. Sucrose in a wide variety of dosages was generally found to decrease physiologic (heart rate) and behavioural (the mean percent time crying, total cry duration, duration of first cry, and facial action) pain indicators and composite pain scores in neonates undergoing heel stick or venepuncture. When pain scores (Premature Infant Pain Profiles) were pooled across 3 studies (Gibbins 2001, Johnston 1999, Stevens 1999), they were significantly reduced in infants who were given sucrose (dose range 0.012 g to 0.12 g) compared to the control group, [WMD -1.64 (95% CI -2.47,- 0.81); p = 0.0001] at 30 seconds and [WMD -2.05, (95% CI -3.08, -1.02); p = 0.00010] at 60 seconds after heel lance. When results for change in heart rate were pooled for two studies (Haouari 1995, Isik 2000), there were no significant differences between changes in heart rate for infants given sucrose (dose range 0.5 g to 0.6 g) compared to the control group, [WMD 0.90 (95% CI -5.81, 7.61); p = 0.8] at one minute and [WMD -6.20 (95% CI -15.27, 2.88); p = 0.18] at three minutes after heel lance.

Reviewers' conclusions:

Sucrose is safe and effective for reducing procedural pain from single painful events (heel lance, venepuncture). There was inconsistency in the dose of sucrose that was effective (dose range of 0.012 g to 0.12 g), and therefore an optimal dose to be used in preterm and/or term infants could not be identified.

The use of repeated administrations of sucrose in neonates needs to be investigated as does the use of sucrose in combination with other behavioural (e.g., facilitated tucking, kangaroo care) and pharmacologic (e.g., morphine, fentanyl) interventions. Use of sucrose in neonates who are of very low birth weight, unstable and/or ventilated also needs to be addressed.
 

ProviaFan

Lifer
Mar 17, 2001
14,993
1
0
Originally posted by: tcsenter
What makes "pain" the "bad" thing as we higher cognitive animals know it is purely cultural and learned. Other cultures set fractures and drive sharpened bones through their noses and scrotums without analgesics, it doesn't bother them.
Maybe you're just masocistic, but I find it hard to accept that pain is bad "just because" our culture says so. Pain is the body's way of saying something's not right. Repeated sharp pains in your appendix are good because they tell you that you need to go see a doctor to have the problem taken care of. However, to say that pain in general is good, and we are wrong to think it is generally something to be avoided, is very silly, IMHO.

On the other hand, there is pleasure. Our culture generally says pleasure is good; since pleasure is the opposite of pain (basically speaking), pleasure must then be bad, if pain is good. The logic is not there; the only reason you're bringing up the whole "pain is good" thing is to give yet another reason why circumcision (cutting off a useful part of your body) is something that everyone should have done on their children.
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,949
575
126
The logic is not there; the only reason you're bringing up the whole "pain is good" thing is to give yet another reason why circumcision (cutting off a useful part of your body) is something that everyone should have done on their children.
To extrapolate "pain is good" from anything I have thus far stated instructs me you lack either the intelligence or the honesty to really understand what I'm saying, anyhoo. Carry on...
 

SnapIT

Banned
Jul 8, 2002
4,355
1
0
Originally posted by: tcsenter
Twenty percent of the world's males are circumcised -- the prospect appalls many of the rest. There are no medical reasons for male circumcision
Whoop stop right there. When you see any diatribe introduced with a fantistically ignorant statement like "There are no medical reasons for male circumcision..." despite REAMS of evidence and a consensus among pediatricians as well as urologists and family practitioners, little lights and sirens go off indicating "WARNING BULLSH_T ALERT". Its a discussion stopper/precluder like "Abortion is MURDER!".
Such utter BS, even fetuses can feel pain... get your facts straight...
lol! Fetuses can feel pain? What, did you ask one? Or do you remember your father punching your mother in the stomach when you were in there? LMAO!

Sure, planaria can feel pain stimulus, too. This is a low animal function, like a reflex. What makes "pain" the "bad" thing as we higher cognitive animals know it is purely cultural and learned. Other cultures set fractures and drive sharpened bones through their noses and scrotums without analgesics, it doesn't bother them.
And why on earth use Sucrose when Dextrose is a more fasteracting-powerful carbohydrate? You don't know? Well of course you don't because you do not know anything about it... You believe what you have been told, and that is about it, no research, no nothing...
Would you like me to tell you? Or would you rather sift through this:

Abad F, Diaz NM, Domenech E, Robayna M, Rico J. Oral sweet solution reduces pain-related behavior in preterm infants. Acta Paediatr 1996;85:854-8.

Akman I, et al. ANALGESIA FROM ORAL SUGAR SOLUTIONS IN NEWBORNS. The Journal of Pain 2002;3(3):199-202)

Blass EM, Watt LB. Suckling- and sucrose-induced analgesia in human newborns. Pain 1999;82:1-13.

Bucher H-U, Moser T, von Siebenthal K, Keel M, Wolf M, Duc G. Sucrose reduces pain reaction to heel lancing in preterm infants: A placebo-controlled, randomized and masked study. Pediatr Res 1995;38:332-5.

Carbajal R, Chauvet X, Couderc SD, Olivier-Martin M. Randomised trial of anagesic effects of sucrose, glucose, and pacifiers in term neonates. BMJ 1999;319:1393-1397.

Gibbins SA. Efficacy and safety of sucrose for procedural pain relief in preterm and term neonates[dissertation] 2001.

Gormally S, Barr RG, Wertheim L, Alkawaf R, Calinoiu N, Young SN. Contact and nutrient caregiving effects on newborn infant pain responses. Develop Med Child Neurol 2001;43:28-38.

Haouari N, Wood C, Griffiths G, Levene M. The analgesic effect of sucrose in full term infants: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ 1995;310:1498-500.

Isik U, Ozek E, Bilgen H, Cebeci D. Comparison of oral glucose and sucrose solutions on pain response in neonates. J Pain 2000;1(4):275-78.

Johnston C, Stremler R, Stevens B, Horton L, Stremler R. Effectiveness of oral sucrose and simulated rocking on pain response in preterm neonates. Pain 1997;72:193-9.

Johnston CC, Stremler R, Horton L, Friedman A. Effect of repeated doses of sucrose during heel stick procedure in preterm neonates. Biol Neonat 1999;75:160-66.

Ors R, Ozek E, Baysoy G, Cebeci D, Bilgen H, Turkuner M, Basaran M. Comparison of sucrose and human milk on pain response in newborns. Eur J Pediatr 1999;158:63-66.

Overgaard C, Knudesen A. Pain-relieving effect of sucrose in newborns during heel prick. Biol Neonate 1999;75:279-284.

Ramenghi LA, Wood CM, Griffith GC, Levene MI. Reduction of pain response in premature infants using intraoral sucrose. Arch Dis Child 1996;74:F126-128.

Ramenghi L, Griffith G, Wood C, Levene M. Effect of non-sucrose sweet tasting solution on neonatal heel prick responses. Arch Dis Child 1996;74:F129-31.

Ramenghi LA, Evans DJ, Levene MI. "Sucrose analgesia": absorptive mechanism or taste perception? Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 1999;80:F146-F147.

Rushforth JA, Levene MI. Effect of sucrose on crying in response to heel prick. Arch Dis Child 1993;69:388-9.

Stevens B, Johnston C, Franck P, et al. The efficacy of developmentally sensitive interventions and sucrose for relieving pain in very low birth weight infants. Nurs Res 1999;48:35-43.

Johnston CC, Sherrard A, Stevens B, Franck L, Stremler R, Jack A. Do cry features reflect pain intensity in preterm neonates? Biology of the Neonate 1999;76:120-24.

OK, my bad, but do you believe born children can feel pain?
 

ProviaFan

Lifer
Mar 17, 2001
14,993
1
0
Originally posted by: tcsenter
The logic is not there; the only reason you're bringing up the whole "pain is good" thing is to give yet another reason why circumcision (cutting off a useful part of your body) is something that everyone should have done on their children.
To extrapolate "pain is good" from anything I have thus far stated instructs me you lack either the intelligence or the honesty to really understand what I'm saying, anyhoo. Carry on...
You have been saying that to believe pain is bad is something that our culture has taught us. You give the example of the foreign cultures where they perform very painful acts upon their bodies without the use of any anesthetics.

The main point of your argument seems to be that since pain is not necessarily "bad" (what is it, then? not good? Tell me what is in between), it is ok to perform circumcision on infants.

I was circumcised when I was very young, but still old enough to remember it very well. The surgery was painless (since they used an anesthetic, of course), but the process of recovery afterwards was definitely not painless. The surgery was done for necessary reasons (phimosis), and thus it was necessary for me to endure the pain to be much better off afterward.

However, throwing around statistics that show questionable or extremely minimal benefits to support circumcising every male child born in the world (if it were possible), despite the pain and the possible complications, seems to be a rather pointless idea.
 

PlatinumGold

Lifer
Aug 11, 2000
23,168
0
71
Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The logic is not there; the only reason you're bringing up the whole "pain is good" thing is to give yet another reason why circumcision (cutting off a useful part of your body) is something that everyone should have done on their children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To extrapolate "pain is good" from anything I have thus far stated instructs me you lack either the intelligence or the honesty to really understand what I'm saying, anyhoo. Carry on...

he obviously erred when he attributed that to you, BUT on the other hand, can you honestly justify inflicting that pain on a child for what is at best a marginal change?? do circumcised men go around believing that uncircumcised men are dirty?? i'm more likely to be dirty behind the ears than i am under the foreskin. it is part of SHOWERING. most americans shower daily.

anyway, i don't know of any OB/GYN anywhere that WOULDN'T give the parent the choice to circumcise or not circumcise, hence there is no arguement. there is NO compelling reason to circumcise because if there were, I GUARANTEE you doctors would find a way to circumcise children even against the wishes of the parents OR the parents would be required to fill out extensive forms to accept responsibility (and we know how well those things hold up in court, the doctor will still get screwed).
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,949
575
126
OK, my bad, but do you believe born children can feel pain?
Sure, I also believe they will react adversely when they're hungry, too cold, too warm, when startled, or when poked with a needle for drawing blood or immunization. They're not going to be in counseling for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as adults because they caught a draft, because their next bottle feeding was an hour or two late, or because they had blood drawn a few times.
However, throwing around statistics that show questionable or extremely minimal benefits to support circumcising every male child born in the world (if it were possible), despite the pain and the possible complications, seems to be a rather pointless idea.
I'm not sure any circumcision proponent advocates that circumcision be anything but an elective procedure and a personal decision, unlike anticircumcision zealots, whose incendiary comparisons between mutilation of female genitalia in Africa and western circumcision smack of an intent and desire to see the procedure banned.

For that matter, it would seem even the most zealous circumcision advocates are willing to extend a good faith effort in coming to the side of their opponents insofar as conceeding that the health benefits of circumcision are relatively minor in nature. Whereas anticircumcision zealots are too busy using incendiary and inflammatory language like 'mutilation' or 'barbaric' and making profoundly ignorant and dishonest statements like 'there are no medical reasons for circumcision' to show any similar extension of good faith.

IOW, one is truly a position of irrational zealotry in every sense of the word, and its not circumcision proponents.

If I didn't know any better, and I don't, I would suspect that one of the predominant motives behind the anticircumcision movement is that they were likely teased by other children about their dinky looking funny and they harbor a lot of resentment and anger. How else are zealots made but by making their 'cause' so very personal?
 

WinkOsmosis

Banned
Sep 18, 2002
13,990
1
0
I can't believe that I read in this very thread people arguing that babies cannot feel pain. Then I read that because you can't remember the pain, you didn't feel it. Wow. I am truly amazed. I don't remember being 3 years old and my leg being crushed by a tractor wheel, but I'm pretty sure I felt pain.
 

PlatinumGold

Lifer
Aug 11, 2000
23,168
0
71
For that matter, it would seem even the most zealous circumcision advocates are willing to extend a good faith effort in coming to the side of their opponents insofar as conceeding that the health benefits of circumcision are relatively minor in nature. Whereas anticircumcision zealots are too busy using incendiary and inflammatory language like 'mutilation' or 'barbaric' and making profoundly ignorant and dishonest statements like 'there are no medical reasons for circumcision' to show any similar extension of good faith.

IOW, one is truly a position of irrational zealotry in every sense of the word, and its not circumcision proponents.

If I didn't know any better, and I don't, I would suspect that one of the predominant motives behind the anticircumcision movement is that they were likely teased by other children about their dinky looking funny and they harbor a lot of resentment and anger. How else are zealots made but by making their 'cause' so very personal?

that's RIDICULOUS and you know better. the reason why there is an appearance of zealotry is because CIRCUMCISION IS THE STATUS QUO. any time you stand against the status quo it is seen as more than it is. the only way you can make your voice heard when you stand against the status quo is to speak more loudly than you normally would. You know that, so just give it up. you can't defend the status quo.

Again, the question w/ the earlobes come up again, but let's change it, let's say nipples on boys, should we allow parents to have nipples on boys removed at birth because it can lead to breast cancer in say 1 out 400,000 men??
 

SnapIT

Banned
Jul 8, 2002
4,355
1
0
Originally posted by: tcsenter
OK, my bad, but do you believe born children can feel pain?
Sure, I also believe they will react adversely when they're hungry, too cold, too warm, when startled, or when poked with a needle for drawing blood or immunization. They're not going to be in counseling for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as adults because they caught a draft, because their next bottle feeding was an hour or two late, or because they had blood drawn a few times.
However, throwing around statistics that show questionable or extremely minimal benefits to support circumcising every male child born in the world (if it were possible), despite the pain and the possible complications, seems to be a rather pointless idea.
I'm not sure any circumcision proponent advocates that circumcision be anything but an elective procedure and a personal decision, unlike anticircumcision zealots, whose incendiary comparisons between mutilation of female genitalia in Africa and western circumcision smack of an intent and desire to see the procedure banned.

For that matter, it would seem even the most zealous circumcision advocates are willing to extend a good faith effort in coming to the side of their opponents insofar as conceeding that the health benefits of circumcision are relatively minor in nature. Whereas anticircumcision zealots are too busy using incendiary and inflammatory language like 'mutilation' or 'barbaric' and making profoundly ignorant and dishonest statements like 'there are no medical reasons for circumcision' to show any similar extension of good faith.

IOW, one is truly a position of irrational zealotry in every sense of the word, and its not circumcision proponents.

If I didn't know any better, and I don't, I would suspect that one of the predominant motives behind the anticircumcision movement is that they were likely teased by other children about their dinky looking funny and they harbor a lot of resentment and anger. How else are zealots made but by making their 'cause' so very personal?


OK we disagree on this...
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,949
575
126
that's RIDICULOUS and you know better. the reason why there is an appearance of zealotry is because CIRCUMCISION IS THE STATUS QUO. any time you stand against the status quo it is seen as more than it is. the only way you can make your voice heard when you stand against the status quo is to speak more loudly than you normally would.
Status quo has nothing to do with the fact that:

"...it would seem even the most zealous circumcision advocates are willing to extend a good faith effort in coming to the side of their opponents insofar as conceeding that the health benefits of circumcision are relatively minor in nature. Whereas anticircumcision zealots are too busy using incendiary and inflammatory language like 'mutilation' or 'barbaric' and making profoundly ignorant and dishonest statements like 'there are no medical reasons for circumcision' to show any similar extension of good faith."
You know that, so just give it up. you can't defend the status quo.
Funny, I thought I was doing rather well.
Again, the question w/ the earlobes come up again, but let's change it, let's say nipples on boys, should we allow parents to have nipples on boys removed at birth because it can lead to breast cancer in say 1 out 400,000 men??
1. The incidence of foreskin related problems is far higher than 1 in 400,000 2. Removing the nipple will prevent neither gynecomastia nor breast cancer in males.

Care to try another?
 

PlatinumGold

Lifer
Aug 11, 2000
23,168
0
71
Status quo has nothing to do with the fact that:

"...it would seem even the most zealous circumcision advocates are willing to extend a good faith effort in coming to the side of their opponents insofar as conceeding that the health benefits of circumcision are relatively minor in nature. Whereas anticircumcision zealots are too busy using incendiary and inflammatory language like 'mutilation' or 'barbaric' and making profoundly ignorant and dishonest statements like 'there are no medical reasons for circumcision' to show any similar extension of good faith."

of course it does.

IF circumcision WASN'T the status quo, most anti circumcision people wouldn't be ZEALOTS and most Pro circumcision people WOULD be seen as zealots.

now your just arguing for the sake of arguing.

as to the scenario of the nipples, OF COURSE cutting off nipples wouldn't prevent breast cancer, I NEVER SAID IT DID. I said, IF it WAS the case THEN. it was an IF THEN statement.

care to try another
smugness doesn't work when your wrong. :)
 

SnapIT

Banned
Jul 8, 2002
4,355
1
0
Originally posted by: tcsenter
that's RIDICULOUS and you know better. the reason why there is an appearance of zealotry is because CIRCUMCISION IS THE STATUS QUO. any time you stand against the status quo it is seen as more than it is. the only way you can make your voice heard when you stand against the status quo is to speak more loudly than you normally would.
Status quo has nothing to do with the fact that:

"...it would seem even the most zealous circumcision advocates are willing to extend a good faith effort in coming to the side of their opponents insofar as conceeding that the health benefits of circumcision are relatively minor in nature. Whereas anticircumcision zealots are too busy using incendiary and inflammatory language like 'mutilation' or 'barbaric' and making profoundly ignorant and dishonest statements like 'there are no medical reasons for circumcision' to show any similar extension of good faith."
You know that, so just give it up. you can't defend the status quo.
Funny, I thought I was doing rather well.
Again, the question w/ the earlobes come up again, but let's change it, let's say nipples on boys, should we allow parents to have nipples on boys removed at birth because it can lead to breast cancer in say 1 out 400,000 men??
1. The incidence of foreskin related problems is far higher than 1 in 400,000 2. Removing the nipple will prevent neither gynecomastia nor breast cancer in males.

Care to try another?

Strange, i have my foreskin, so do 100% of everyone i have ever known, nobody have problems, maybe you americans do not shower every day?

Maybe it is because you are just dirty, yeah, that is the only reason i can think of why you have to cut it off, and the only good reason you have stated... so, maybe you aren't keeping it clean like we are?

we have nema problemas with it, why would you have unless you are just dirty?
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,949
575
126
IF circumcision WASN'T the status quo, most anti circumcision people wouldn't be ZEALOTS and most Pro circumcision people WOULD be seen as zealots.
So you admit this is really about little boys feeling 'different' from and teased by other little boys when they're all in the shower?
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,949
575
126
we have nema problemas with it, why would you have unless you are just dirty?
Well you know that Americans are far more concerned about their personal hygiene than Europeans. If you're an American who has ever been to Europe and smelled the body odor and bad breath emanating from the people over there, you know just what I'm talking about.

So it cannot possibly be that Americans are less vigilant about their personal hygiene.

Could it be that Europeans have as many if not more problems but YOU either: A. aren't willing to admit it B. are ignorant of the problems?

Things that make you go hmmmm....
 

PlatinumGold

Lifer
Aug 11, 2000
23,168
0
71
Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IF circumcision WASN'T the status quo, most anti circumcision people wouldn't be ZEALOTS and most Pro circumcision people WOULD be seen as zealots.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So you admit this is really about little boys feeling 'different' from and teased by other little boys when they're all in the shower?

man i'm sorry i got into this w/ you. your not arguing for the sake of arguing, your just DENSE.

listen up kid. It's not about teasing, you made the claim that pro circumcision people were zealots, i was just saying that when you speak up against the STATUS quo, you have to speak louder just to be heard, hence making you look like a ZEALOT. If we were in europe the OPPOSITE would be the case, a Pro Circumcision person would have to speak louder JUST TO BE HEARD, making the PRO CIRCUMCISION person appear to be a zealot.

BUT THAT IS NOT RELEVANT to the issue. you brought up the issue of zealotry. THE ISSUE is, IS THE PROCEDURE NECESSARY?? (ok, the issue was is the procedure genital mutilation and i'm not gonna go as far as to say mutilation or barbaric) but IS IT NECESSARY that's the only issue i was addressing from the begnning, NOWHERE in my posts will you see where i said it was barbaric or mutilation. and the answer to the question of IS IT NECESSARY is as you yourself have acknowledged NO.

 

DivideBYZero

Lifer
May 18, 2001
24,117
2
0
Originally posted by: tcsenter
we have nema problemas with it, why would you have unless you are just dirty?
Well you know that Americans are far more concerned about their personal hygiene than Europeans. If you're an American who has ever been to Europe and smelled the body odor and bad breath emanating from the people over there, you know just what I'm talking about.

So it cannot possibly be that Americans are less vigilant about their personal hygiene.

Could it be that Europeans have as many if not more problems but YOU either: A. aren't willing to admit it B. are ignorant of the problems?

Things that make you go hmmmm....

Ignorant troll
rolleye.gif


What you said:
'...concerned about their personal hygiene than Europeans. If you're an American who has ever been to Europe and smelled the body odor... '

What I heard:
'....Troll...'
 

Ornery

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
20,022
17
81
There are no medical reasons for circumcision.

Neonatal Circumcision
  • "Virtually all current policy statements from specialty societies and medical organizations do not recommend routine neonatal circumcision, and support the provision of accurate and unbiased information to parents to inform their choice. The recent policy revision by the American Academy of Pediatrics also states that analgesia (anesthesia) should be provided for the procedure."

    "The AMA supports the general principles of the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which reads as follows: Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision."
 

BadNewsBears

Diamond Member
Dec 14, 2000
3,426
0
0
GOnad.............NO its not a defect. But it can be bad. Infections and the such, hygene.Go into a locker room shower and see if u get teased bout that slug.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IF circumcision WASN'T the status quo, most anti circumcision people wouldn't be ZEALOTS and most Pro circumcision people WOULD be seen as zealots.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So you admit this is really about little boys feeling 'different' from and teased by other little boys when they're all in the shower?

man i'm sorry i got into this w/ you. your not arguing for the sake of arguing, your just DENSE.

listen up kid. It's not about teasing, you made the claim that pro circumcision people were zealots, i was just saying that when you speak up against the STATUS quo, you have to speak louder just to be heard, hence making you look like a ZEALOT. If we were in europe the OPPOSITE would be the case, a Pro Circumcision person would have to speak louder JUST TO BE HEARD, making the PRO CIRCUMCISION person appear to be a zealot.

BUT THAT IS NOT RELEVANT to the issue. you brought up the issue of zealotry. THE ISSUE is, IS THE PROCEDURE NECESSARY?? (ok, the issue was is the procedure genital mutilation and i'm not gonna go as far as to say mutilation or barbaric) but IS IT NECESSARY that's the only issue i was addressing from the begnning, NOWHERE in my posts will you see where i said it was barbaric or mutilation. and the answer to the question of IS IT NECESSARY is as you yourself have acknowledged NO.

No wonder we're not seeing eye to eye. I was under the impression that the majority of the discussion had to do with whether or not circumcision had any benefits to it. But, according to you, <<IS IT NECESSARY that's the only issue i was addressing from the beginning>>.

 

vladgur

Golden Member
Jul 31, 2000
1,825
0
0
Neccessary shmessessary...
Is it true that circumcised men last longer? Id like to see statistics of random sample of circumcised man and uncircumcised man with average intercourse time before ejaculation.....
 

GasX

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
29,033
6
81
Originally posted by: Spagina
The cleanliness argument for uncircumsized to circumsized is a non-issue in my opinion, but people constantly bring it up. I'm uncircumcised, and it is kept very clean. When I have kids they will be uncircumsized as well. This isn't 300 BC in the Middle East, it is very easy to keep yourself clean and not worry about infection. If a male doesn't have the time to pull some skin back to clean, then he deserves to have his penis fall off, it's literally a 2 second act.
I agree. I pull mine back many times a day as fast as possible....