View Full Version : The pro choice of the ethical dilemma and why you need to feel good about it.
circangel
23-03-2009, 17:41
To begin I am just speaking about what would seem logical. The penis is permanently altered during circumcision and to what extent I am not sure despite reading lots of articles. I have also read there can be a 40 in a 1000 chance that medically a circumcision can be necessary. Would you not think these 40 in a 1000 are the lucky ones? What about the ones who were unfortunate enough not to make it this far if at all there are any. I will say it again and if there is anyone out there who can correct me on this one please do. Cancer of the penis is possible at the rate of about 1 in 600 and the most likely outcome is amputation of the penis from what I have read. In light of that is it unethical to circumcise your child? No doubt there will be people who still think it is but to be fair it is a personal choice for the parents to make. I think parents are pleased they were able to get it done only because they have felt they have done is right for their child, and not because they have had the authority to do it. It is not for everyone and parents also have the right not to get it done for their child but I do not think they have the right to talk down to the parents who choose to get it done no matter what their reasoning is to be. There are many other reasons for getting it done but be proud and express your opinions loud.
Since the 40 in 1000 is actually my figure from another thread, let me clarify that it refers to a lifetime probability of an uncircumcised male requiring a circumcision, and is based on Australian data from 2005. As has been the case in the UK, this figure has been falling as a result of changes in medical practice.
Anyway, as luck would have it :), I have been crunching the Australian data on penile cancer (and genital cancers in general). You can read the results (complete with graphs and charts) here (http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/showthread.php?t=246433). Oh, and since penectomy was mentioned, there were a total of 30 full penis amputations in Australia in 2007. Since the age ranges do not match penile cancer diagnoses, many of those 30 probably resulted from other causes, such as trauma injury.
There is no evidence that circumcision status has any relationship to penile cancer in the developed world, including Australia.
Please feel free to comment, either here or there.
Cancer of the penis is possible at the rate of about 1 in 600
In the interests of accuracy, let's pin down this number, which refers to the US. It actually comes from Brian Morris, Australia's leading advocate for routine circumcision, and is supported by a single citation to an outdated and peculiar 1980 paper. Peculiar because the life-table analysis is based on the premise that only intact men contract penile cancer. This premise is false, as has been shown by many, many published studies.
In any case, it would be impossible to extract anything like this number from the Australian data over the past decade. At an average of 138 cases annually, penile cancer is the least common of all genital malignancies among both men and women.
forbetoel
26-03-2009, 13:19
Sorry to get back to basics but....
Circ angel are we going to chop everything off that 'might' become cancerous one day.
sockstealingpoltergeist
26-03-2009, 13:26
Clearly as JohnC pointed out, if you are circing to ensure your son will not get cancer of the penis, then there is no need because it won't help.
rainbow road
26-03-2009, 16:48
I don't understand...the implication here is cut off anything which may get cancerous one day?? Breast cancer is much more prevalent than penile cancer but I don't see queues of women chopping off their breasts because they *might* get it. That logic is warped to me, sorry!
And just because penile cancer occurs it cannot be solely attributed to circ status. In fact, I highly doubt penile cancer is related to circ status at all, since cancer is caused by rapid and uncontrollable cell division.
I would hazard a guess that the majority of cases of penile cancer occur in later stages and as a byproduct of another type of cancer but I don't know that's just a guess.
But yes, cancer is so vicious that even if it was caused by the penis in it's natural state (ie with a foreskin) I highly doubt the absence of that foreskin will be any barrier to cancer!
GraceUnhearing
26-03-2009, 18:50
Clearly as JohnC pointed out, if you are circing to ensure your son will not get cancer of the penis, then there is no need because it won't help.
i agree
i was just going to ask
how many of the men who did get penis cancer were circed?
sam's mum
26-03-2009, 19:50
Can posters please remember that this is the pro circ section of the forum.
Pippi Longstocking
26-03-2009, 19:56
Can posters please remember that this is the pro circ section of the forum.
Duly noted. :o
WarriorMummy
26-03-2009, 20:08
i was just going to say it is a PRO circ section.
my opinion on the whole thing is- its none of your business what other parents do regarding this issue, but if you think its your business to tell a parent why they have done something wrong to their child then do it in the anti circ thread. if we want to see your opinions then we will look there.
i was just going to say it is a PRO circ section and all i have seen is people being stupid ...
Having taken the trouble to seriously reply to the OP, I rather object. Do you have anything to say about the topic ?
WarriorMummy
26-03-2009, 20:31
sorry, with the exception of JohnC
i do have an opinion on it, i dont believe a 1 in 600 chance is enough to circumcise if thats the only reason for doing it. if it is 1 of many different reasons then that is different but i would not circumcise a child purely for a 1 in 600 chance of cancer
RedPanda
26-03-2009, 20:34
my opinion on the whole thing is- its none of your business what other parents do regarding this issue, but if you think its your business to tell a parent why they have done something wrong to their child then do it in the anti circ thread. if we want to see your opinions then we will look there.
WarriorMummy - I sort of agree with you. It's awful to have strangers tell you you're doing something wrong when they are just random, strange people on the internet. I like to think I'm sensitive, and I also like to remember that I'm in the "pro" section, but it's hard when you consider that to some people, myself included, circumcision is a really personal and emotive topic.
Just reminding ppl of the purpose of this section:
For those wanting to ask questions about the procedure, medical practitioners, after-effects etc. Any attempts by viewers to tell viewers why they shouldn't circumcise will be removed.
This thread is about the relationship between circ status and penile cancer, it is not a thread about the rights and wrongs of circumcision itself. Further off topic posts will be deleted.
Cheers
i do have an opinion on it, i dont believe a 1 in 600 chance is enough to circumcise if thats the only reason for doing it. if it is 1 of many different reasons then that is different but i would not circumcise a child purely for a 1 in 600 chance of cancer
Thankyou. My original point is that the 1 in 600 figure is most certainly wrong. It simply doesn't match the current data, and the only way you can get even close is by assuming in advance that circumcised males do not contract penis cancer. We know this is false.
Abraham Wolbarst, who first hypothesised that circumcision provided 100% protection against penis cancer, was equally admanant that it provided a cure for epilepsy. The epilepsy argument has long since been retired from the debate. It's time we did the same with the cancer argument.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.9 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.