Silly pro-circ arguments 1 - "infection"

[JohnC]

I thought it might be useful to progressively deal with the litany of false arguments commonly dragged out to support circumcision. First cab off the rank is the dreaded foreskin/glans infection that will inevitably befall all boys whose parents are thoughtless enough to not have them circumcised as quickly as possible.

We've all heard it -- circumcision will protect my boy from a horrible infection and traumatic circumcision at a later age, usually accompanied by some anecdote about a relative or friend of a friend.

The first thing to say is that if you remove a body part then of course there is no longer any risk of it getting infected. Problem: implementing this approach would lead to an expontential increase in childhood prophylactic surgery as we removed all the bits they won't really need.

But let's go further, and challenge the underlying assumption. How common is balanposthitis, really? Well in 2006-7 there were 413 admissions for this condition for boys aged 1-9 years, the peak time (by 15-24 years there were 40 admissions).

Now 413 may sound like a lot, except that is out of a cohort of 1,246,336 boys. Hmmm.

But there is another part of the anatomy that also tends to become infected at that age, and can also be cured by a "simple" surgical excision when infection proves resistant to conventional medical treatment - the tonsils.

So how many boys aged 1-9 underwent a tonsilectomy in 2006-7?

Answer: 10,283 tonsilectomies vs 413 circumcisions for balanoposthitis in the same group. That would be a difference of 25 times.

Routine tonsilectomy, anyone?

[LG]

And isn't heart disease the biggest killer in the developed world? Why don't we take out our hearts to protect ourselves? lol

[GraceUnhearing]

thanks John

that quite interesting really

thats not a huge number considering how many boys there are!

[MimiGrace]

And isn't heart disease the biggest killer in the developed world? Why don't we take out our hearts to protect ourselves? lol
thats a good point. what about removing all breasts before we hit puberty since breastcancer is a huge killer in women.

And since skin cancer is such an issue, could we just remove the skin off all of our children to avoid them getting cancer...

Thanks for posting that JohnC :thumbsup: awesome information to know. Those numbers are tiny tiny

[Phyllis Stein]

Thank you. I'm so glad information like this is being disseminated. :)

[Fuchsia!]

Thanks for the info, just wondering if you have the links available?

[Freya]

Shall we take out our cervix aswell?

Thanks for that info.

[JohnC]

Thanks for the info, just wondering if you have the links available?

The statistical information I post on Bubhub is as far as possible based on primary rather than secondary sources, so there are often no links as such.

The data for balanposthitis and tonsilliectomy comes from the National Hospital Morbidity Database maintained by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare: the former extracted from the Principal Diagnosis datacube and the latter from the Procedures datacube, both of which can be accessed here (http://www.aihw.gov.au/hospitals/datacubes/index.cfm).

Demographic data comes from Estimated Resident Population spreadsheets (3201) published annually by the ABS and available for download from their site.

[stardance]

Thankyou
great thread :)

[JohnC]

A discussion today flared and rapidly closed (edit: and now deleted) in the anit-circ section that is relevant to this thread since there were several mentions of tonsils in obvious reference to my original post here.

Let me make two points and an observation:

1. Routine tonsillectomy has not been performed for several decades in Australia. It would now be regarded as unethical to remove a child's tonsils without proper medical indication (ie persistent infection).

2. The comparison with circumcision is therefore entirely valid and instructive. Indeed at the time routine tonsillectomy was practised it was so intimately linked with circumcision that the term "T&C" was in vogue for a while, when boys admitted to hospital for a sore throat were discharged missing both their tonsils and their foreskins.

Though this thread was posted in the anti-circ section because of the content guidelines, I would hope for, and invite, debate. The point of these threads IMHO is to provide some hopefully useful discussion for those who are unsure about this issue. It is not to pass judgement on those who have already made their decisions.

[Roopee]

Yes. It's 'funny' isn't it.

My child has to go through immeasurable amounts of pain and repeat infections, days/weeks off school and misery and yet they still wont take their tonsils out.

Yet..................

I can have a baby boy and within the month have a preventative anatomically altering 'procedure' performed on him without any history of infection or even discomfort.

I dont know? It just doesn't seem right to me?

[JohnC]

The "infection" argument takes many different forms, and I admit I haven't dealt with all of them. I didn't deal, for instance, with the line of reasoning presented in this post (http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/showpost.php?p=1184236&postcount=61):

Circumcision of the male has been reccomended for employment situations such when sailors spend a lot of time in engine rooms and they can get affected by infections which once got can look like they have a dose of VD. The pinky finger is not going to get that infected that it looks like the patient has VD. Circumcision of the male might be considered in this situation if they are going to be likely to enter employment of this nature later on in life.

Now while this might read like a parody of a pro-circ argument, it was in fact put forward in deadly earnest, and since the person who posted it is still very active in this forum (and this forum only), let me say that I would be happy to have a discussion about the problems of sailors in engine rooms, mythical recommendations, "pinky finger" infections and the relation of these pressing matters to the issue of RIC.

[JohnC]

Since there has been no reply to the previous post, perhaps I could put the matter a little more directly.

1. Could the author of the quoted words please provide evidence of any recommendation in the past 50 years that circumcision has been recommended for "sailors", working in engine rooms or not.

2. Could the author of the quoted words please provide evidence that circumcised men are less likely to contract infections in any employment situation than intact men.

[circangel]

Hello JohnC,

You do have a reason to ask. In a technicality I am stumped. I was making a hash from this website http://www.circinfo.com/guide_to_dec...dications.html Could you possibly contact the author from that website and ask them. I really do not know how they would get such information as it should be confidential and private.

[JohnC]

You do have a reason to ask. In a technicality I am stumped. I was making a hash from this website http://www.circinfo.com/guide_to_dec...dications.html Could you possibly contact the author from that website and ask them. I really do not know how they would get such information as it should be confidential and private.

Circangel, though your request for me to verify the information in your post is a little unusual, to say the least, I can provide some information.

The website to which you refer is run by an outfit called the Gilgal Society whose core membership has close associations with the Circlist organisation, a circumcision sexual fetish group.

This grouping has a number of Australian associations, inluding Brian Morris and the pseudonymous James Badger, who is actually an academic working at the same university as Morris.

None of the sites associated with these organisations or individuals should be regarded as sources of reliable information by parents.

[ButterflyKissesX]

The thing that annoys me with this argument to "prevent infection" is IMO wouldnt basic Cleanliness and Hygiene prevent infections??? And also during sex wearing a condom???

[WorkingClassMum]

My DS had numerous ear-infections as a child, and needed to have had one a month for three months before the GP and ENT would finally decide to put grommets in.

DS had ONE slight infection in his penis and the GP (not our normal one) was suggesting we consider circ'ng DS.

I instead treated him for the UTI and waited to see if the masive amounts of AB's that he was on for EI's cleared up the penile infection - it did.:rolleyes:

So DS now has scarred ear-drums from repeated EI's but has an intact foreskin...

[LG]

The thing that annoys me with this argument to "prevent infection" is IMO wouldnt basic Cleanliness and Hygiene prevent infections??? And also during sex wearing a condom???

Exactly! It's like any part of our body really, if you are slack with hygiene you may possibly encounter problems. I have no idea how circumcision came about, but I'm still at a loss to know why modern humans do it :confused:

[PaperTiger]

The website to which you refer is run by an outfit called the Gilgal Society whose core membership has close associations with the Circlist organisation, a circumcision sexual fetish group.

This grouping has a number of Australian associations, inluding Brian Morris and the pseudonymous James Badger, who is actually an academic working at the same university as Morris.


This all sounds rather nauseating and distasteful doesn't it?
I checked this website (Gilgal) along with their Australian counterpart - The Acorn Society - (which if you remember what an acorn looks like is even more distasteful. :confused:)
They have lists of people around the world who circumcise and actively promote this painful practice.
If you consider that they are about actively promoting cicumcision and disseminating trumped up false information, all the while to basically satisify the sexual fetishes of a core group, well, what can one actually say but.....:barf:

[84zsazsa]

:yelclap: Fab points JohnC and I couldnt agree with you more!! You have held your posts well and I believe show this practice for what it is...unnecessary. HUGE thumbs up to this thread. From someone whom worked in Aged care for yrs and was reponsible for the hygene of hundreds of men Im yet to find a reason we should be cutting skin off our childrens genitals!!

Danni

[serendipity22]

If you consider that they are about actively promoting cicumcision and disseminating trumped up false information, all the while to basically satisify the sexual fetishes of a core group, well, what can one actually say but.....

Isn't this exactly what the guy who goes to Africa to watch ritual circumcisions and who is the golden boy of Circlist, Brian Morris does?

[serendipity22]

bump

[Opinionated]

:yelclap: Fab points JohnC and I couldnt agree with you more!! You have held your posts well and I believe show this practice for what it is...unnecessary. HUGE thumbs up to this thread. From someone whom worked in Aged care for yrs and was reponsible for the hygene of hundreds of men Im yet to find a reason we should be cutting skin off our childrens genitals!!

Danni


Exactly Danni. I have worked in aged care for a number of years and have only once seen an infection in a foreskin once. Mind you, that infection was in someone completely incontinent who wore adult nappies full time, had dementia, and an extreme water phobia. We cured the problem by cleaning him daily with baby wipes and applying an antiseptic cream at every change as a preventative. There is no need to alter a child's genitals.

[Sian]

This is a very common pro-circ argument, especially the fact that an uncircumcised boy is more likely to contract a UTI than a circumcised boy. Whilst this is true, an uncircumcised boy is still less likely to contract a UTI than a girl. Why is it that a girl's UTI is treated with antibiotics whilst meanwhile boys are having their foreskins removed. It doesn't make sense to me.

[serendipity22]

The fact that an uncircumcised boy is more likely to contract a UTI than a circumcised boy

Its worth adding that the studies by Thomas Wiswell only applied to infants under 12 months old else (like Chinese whispers) the idea spreads that it applies to older boys. (Without Wiswell its unlikely there would be a claimed link between UTIs and infant circ status).

Wiswell's work was eventually rejected as methodologically flawed by the (US) AAP.
http://www.circumstitions.com/Utis.html but not before it was widely regarded as fact.

To et al found more intact boys were diagnosed with UTIs,but if include cases that didn't lead to hospitalization, the difference is not statiscally significant.

Its likely some utis in intact boys are caused by premature retraction.

If parents are worried about the rare chance of a uti, they could look at
breastfeeding
promptly changing nappies
nappy free time
teaching the child not to 'hold on'
avoid dehydration etc

Also
http://www.circumstitions.com/Utis.html#cause

[leightag]

I totally agree with the anti C. I am a mother of a 6 yo and he is still intact. the way i saw it was it is part of his body and to remove without cause didnt make sense. My partner (not his dad) is not done and he has never had infection or anything. my son is fine and has never had any problems either. so as a mother I agree with you and i dont have that anatomy myself. to me its just nonsense the myths i have heard when i have been asked have you had son done and my answer is no i havn't:wave: