Response to JohnC data and statistics

[Father]

In another thread regarding the law reform institute, sockstealingpoltergeist requested that I read some previous Bubhub threads.

I have now read them, the initial post at least.

In regard to the HIV links.
I agree that HIV is rare in Australia. No argument there. The data that JohnC shows doesn't actually cover the difference between circ'd and uncir'd. He is merely stating that it's rare, and not contracted until one is older.
I would have liked him to say that "of the 77 cases, __% were uncircumcised". But there is really no correlation in his 'evidence'.
I also agree that HIV prevention is not a good enough reason on it's own to warrant circumcision.


Male circumcision provides a high degree of protection against HIV infection acquisition. Male circumcision is equivalent to a vaccine with a 63% efficacy.http://www.circs.org/library/auvert/index.html

In regard to penis cancer.
As above, very rare, and on it's own does not warrant circumcision. No argument.


newborn circumcision is 99.9 percent effective in eliminating cancer of the penishttp://www.circs.org/library/schoen/index.html

The above 2 problems are rare. But I would not want to be one of the unlucky ones.


How common is balanposthitis, really?Good job JohnC on referring to a very rare infection to try and get a point across. Most complication data does not even refer to balanposthitis.


Of 63 circumcisions performed at our institution between 1987 and 1989, 28.6% were for the treatment of balanitis; 44.4%, for phimosis (which was probably induced by chronic balanitis); 19% in preparation for placement of penile prostheses; and 8% for miscellaneous reasons. No complications of circumcision were reported.http://www.circs.org/library/fakjian/index.html

Here is some data from studies that I have found.


Table 1. Penile Problems in Boys 0 to 8 Years of Age by Circumcision Status*
Condition Circumcised Uncircumcised
Penile inflammation 7.6 (11) 14.4 (62)
Phimosis 0.0 (0) 3.7 (16)
Inadequate circumcision 2.8 (4) 0.0 (0)
Postcircumcision infection 0.7 (1) 0.7 (3)
Total 11.1 (16) 18.8 (78)
* Results are number of problems per 100 boys at risk. The number of children studied are in parentheses


http://www.circs.org/library/fergusson/index.html

And another.


Table 2: Complications

No. (%)
Uncircumcised Circumcised
Balanitis 16 (5.9) 8 (2.9)*
Irritation 10 (3.6) 3 (1.1)*
Adhesions 4 (1.5) 4 (1.5)
Phimosis 7 (2.6) 1 (0.4)
Paraphimosis 2 (0.7) 0 (0)
Total complications 39 (14.3) 16 (5.9)*
Medical visits 28 (10.3) 15 (5.5)*

That is more than double the trouble for uncircumcised boys. The rates of infections and complications are alot higher than JohnC is claiming.

In regard to UTI's

A meta-analysis of the published reports found at least a 12-fold increased risk for UTI among uncircumcised male infants. The risk is also increased among male children between 1 and 16 years of age [13] (http://www.circs.org/library/wiswell/index.html#n13) and adult males [14] (http://www.circs.org/library/wiswell/index.html#n14). There are no contrary data. Urinary tract infections are not benign. http://www.circs.org/library/wiswell/index.html

None of this has come from the website that all anti-circ people hate. http://www.circinfo.net/

For some of you (or in BubHub forums - most of you) this may not warrant circumcising newborns. That is your decision to make and I respect that.
But for some of us, the benefits do outweigh the risks. This is the informed decision that some parents make. They have weighed up the pros and cons, and have made there OWN decision on what they feel is best for their child. It would be nice if anti-circ people can respect the decisions of these parents.
There ARE medical benefits for circumcision. They may not be big enough for you to do it, but they are there. To say that there aren't just shows that you have not done any research.

The human rights argument will never be solved. Parents will always raise there children how they feel best. What is 'right' for one parent, might be 'wrong' for another. It will always be that way. Some smack, some have a naughty corner. At the end of the day, it is the parent's responsibility to make that decision on how they are going to raise their children.

[JabberJaw]

Meh.... i am still going to let my son choose for himself, if he wants it chopped off, well good luck to him, i will even pay, but till he asks, his skin stays as it was when he was born :D

[Roopee]

meh- and removing baby girls breast buds at birth may prove 100% effective at eliminating the risk of breast cancer but I'm not about to go doing that.

[Herchy]

meh- and removing baby girls breast buds at birth may prove 100% effective at eliminating the risk of breast cancer but I'm not about to go doing that.

:iagree::yelclap:

[MimiGrace]

meh- and removing baby girls breast buds at birth may prove 100% effective at eliminating the risk of breast cancer but I'm not about to go doing that.
:thumbsup:i was thinking something similar :p

as far as i'm concerned, there is NO difference between female circumcision and male circumcision, except for our societies views on the matter.

[beebs]

meh- and removing baby girls breast buds at birth may prove 100% effective at eliminating the risk of breast cancer but I'm not about to go doing that.

:iagree::iagree:

Yes - I was thinking the same thing. Meh;)

[Looshkin]

At the end of the day - your opinion is your opinion and no one can ever change someone elses mind:yes:

However the stats do tell us that eventually circing will slowly die out anyway (80 odd% not being circed at birth minus the small amount that are later in life due to complications..)

I think it's changed from the majority in the 50's to almost under 10 percent as of 2007...? so I'm pretty confident that those 80+ percent will go on to not circ their own sons unless medically required, and perhaps some of the 12+ percent will also decide to not circ so the percentage will become less and less anyway.

Eventually I believe it will only be done for medical reasons, and hopefully our culture will reflect an understanding of it being done for medical reasons at an age when general anesthetic is appropriately used, rather than purely cosmetic or preventative reasonings without any adequate anaesthetic... simply because they won't 'remember it'. :yes:

[tomtom]

A sincere question.........

Can someone please explain to me how an circ'd penis has less chance of contracting hiv that an uncirc'd one. I thought it was blood to blood disease. What am I missing here?

[sockstealingpoltergeist]

Father are your stats from a pro circ site? Looks pro circ to me.

[Looshkin]

I agree.

The study is all well and good, but you are looking at a very small number there.

I am sure in the links to threads SSP provided by JohnC you will find the medicare actual figures of infections etc etc... so an actual realistic total overall national figure.

Numbers can be easily skewed to suit your argument if you look at the puddle instead of the lake.

[Pippi Longstocking]

In regard to the HIV links.
I agree that HIV is rare in Australia. No argument there. The data that JohnC shows doesn't actually cover the difference between circ'd and uncir'd. He is merely stating that it's rare, and not contracted until one is older.
I would have liked him to say that "of the 77 cases, __% were uncircumcised". But there is really no correlation in his 'evidence'.
I also agree that HIV prevention is not a good enough reason on it's own to warrant circumcision.

http://www.circs.org/library/auvert/index.html


Firstly, circs.org is a well-know circumfetishist website with a clear bias towards circumcision. Secondly, I agree completely that aids prevention is a ridiculous reason to circumcise a baby boy in Australia. Happily, the Aids Action Council (http://aidsaction.org.au/content/hiv_sti_health/circumcision.php) also agrees.


Recent studies suggesting that male circumcision could reduce HIV transmission in Africa have been getting significant media attention. The implications of these studies are complex and controversial. Australia has a very different epidemic to that in Africa, and male circumcision is not a suitable strategy to prevent transmission here.


In regard to penis cancer.
As above, very rare, and on it's own does not warrant circumcision. No argument.

http://www.circs.org/library/schoen/index.html


Yep, so rare as to be entirely insignificant, and how far could you take that anyway? Cutting the penis off entirely would give 100% protection from cancer of the penis.



The above 2 problems are rare. But I would not want to be one of the unlucky ones. It all comes down to how you define "unlucky". I'd argue that having a piece of my genitals taken from against my will is pretty unlucky.


Good job JohnC on referring to a very rare infection to try and get a point across. Most complication data does not even refer to balanposthitis.<snip biased links>That is more than double the trouble for uncircumcised boys. The rates of infections and complications are alot higher than JohnC is claiming.
The thing is, even the less rare infections are easily treated non-surgically. It is only in extreme cases that surgery becomes necessary. To operate "just in case" strikes me as being entirely ludicrous and at best, over cautious. The tonsils become infected far more frequently than foreskins, as do ears, yet we don't pre-emptively operate.








None of this has come from the website that all anti-circ people hate. http://www.circinfo.net/ No, but it has come from an equally biased source. It's not neutral data, it's notoriously unreliable and distorted and frankly, rubbish.


For some of you (or in BubHub forums - most of you) this may not warrant circumcising newborns. That is your decision to make and I respect that.
But for some of us, the benefits do outweigh the risks. This is the informed decision that some parents make. They have weighed up the pros and cons, and have made there OWN decision on what they feel is best for their child. It would be nice if anti-circ people can respect the decisions of these parents.
There ARE medical benefits for circumcision. They may not be big enough for you to do it, but they are there. To say that there aren't just shows that you have not done any research.

With respect, when your sources come from circs.org, I wonder how much of that research is factual:o. I have been arguing against RIC for many years now, and have therefore researched heavily in order to back up my arguments. :p Many of the anti-RIC posters on this forum are very well read on the topic - MotherNurture springs to mind.



And of course you can respect our decision to not circumcise - our choice is clearly not a harmful one. I believe that circumcision is harmful, it is damaging, it disadvantages the child and therefore, of course I don't respect RIC. That is not to say I don't respect the parents, I just don't respect the action.




The human rights argument will never be solved. Parents will always raise there children how they feel best. What is 'right' for one parent, might be 'wrong' for another. It will always be that way. Some smack, some have a naughty corner. At the end of the day, it is the parent's responsibility to make that decision on how they are going to raise their children.
And it is our responsibility as members of society to rally for change when we feel that people are being harmed. I am far more hopeful and believe that human rights issues can be solved. Change happens slowly but it does happen if enough people push for it. And that is happening with circumcision. :yelclap:

Finally, I'd ask you this. If you believe in the benefits of circumcision, and most of these possible benefits are ones that would only impact on the child post childhood, why not allow your son the choice once he reaches an age of being able to offer consent? HIV, cancer of the penis etc are not going to pose a problem to the child. Infections may, but can be easily treated without resorting to surgery (in most cases).
Why not allow him choice once he reaches puberty? It's not imperative that the operation occurs in infancy, so why do it then?

[serendipity22]

I believe the website mentioned in this thread is Jake Wasketts. I will double check because i am not 100% certain.

If it is Wasketts, the information is entirely useless.

Waskett is a pro-circumcision fanatic and extremist who has worked with extremist Brian Morris (one of the very rare people who agitate for universal male circumcision).

Waskett has peformed over 10,000 edits on Wikipedia (mostly in the circumcision section) and uses his considerable technical Wikipedia editing skills to disseminate false pro-circ information and statistics, and prevent others from correcting it.

Morris is associated with Circlist, the circumfetish group.

There is a good chance Waskett is a circumfetishest.

[serendipity22]

Yup,

the domain name of the website is registered to Jake Waskett.

Hence completely unreliable.

I think this thread was posted in good faith, but Father didn't realise the source was a pro-circ extremist.

Not really suitable for parents wanting to find honest information about circumcision.

[forbetoel]

Father your 'stats' or whatever you prefer to call them are bias, and a load of....

I seriously hope that nobody is willing to even entertain the idea that your 'stats' have any merit, other than to perpetuate myths and outdated opinions.

[Father]

With respect, when your sources come from circs.org, I wonder how much of that research is factual:o. I have been arguing against RIC for many years now, and have therefore researched heavily in order to back up my arguments. :p Many of the anti-RIC posters on this forum are very well read on the topic





but Father didn't realise the source was a pro-circ extremist




Father your 'stats' or whatever you prefer to call them are bias, and a load of....


Thanks for the repeated comments. I find it disappointing that all info/facts/stats from a pro-circ website is false. Just because it supports circumcision - does that mean it's false?
Using the same mentality - I could say that any anti-circ website is 'biased and therefore false'.

Good luck finding a neutral site. If you find one - let me know.

At the end of the day - I have done a lot research on this topic and would consider myself very 'well read'. I have looked for data that opposes the stats that I provided. I have even looked at anti-circ websites to find different figures, because I wanted answers to questions - based on evidence, not emotion. But..... no anti-circ websites provide figures that answer questions like: "how many boys will need to get circumcised" and "how many will have complications". It's unfortunate that anti-circ websites don't answer these important questions. The fact that they don't baffles me. If they are that confident in the lack of medical benefit, why don't they publish the 'true figures' from studies that have been conducted?

Yes the data may be from a pro-circ website, but I don't care. At least there is substance behind it. It provides very detailed references to all the studies and articles on the site, so that people who WANT to read and learn can. It provides links to everything - and at no stage does it say to the reader - "do it". It just answers the questions that people need to ask. Questions the anti-circ sites don't answer.

Help me. As you have researched so much. Please answer (using whatever source you need).

How many boys/men will require circumcision?
How many boys/men will have complications due to the foreskin?



If you believe in the benefits of circumcision, and most of these possible benefits are ones that would only impact on the child post childhood, why not allow your son the choice once he reaches an age of being able to offer consent?


For the STD's - yes, that will only impact later in life. But infections/UTI's/and foreskin complications may impact them alot earlier.

I would much rather explain to my son why I had him done as a baby (which he can't remember), than have to watch him go through the pain, trauma, discomfort, and humiliation as an older child who has developed a problem. Yes it may not happen- but in MY opinion, the risk of a complication later in life far outweighs the extremely small chance that my boy would be 'upset' because he didn't get to choose. We will raise him so that he understands why we did it. He will thank us, because we made the difficult decision that was in his best interest.

[Sheer Bliss]

Just a thought in all of this....how common is tonsilitis and other infections of 'useless' body parts? Should we also routinely be removing tonsils from infants JIC they become infected?

Totally agree with Roopee too - My daughters will not have their breasts removed JIC.

At the end of the day, it needs to be looked at for what it is - elective pastic surgery on an infant who is unable to choose it for themselves. If we were talking about plastic surgery on an infant on any other body part, there would be an uproar. Let the child decide, when they are of an appropriate age.

[andrewJ]

father, to me, the statistics are irrelevant. you could triple all of the supposed potential benefits, and it wouldnt make a difference.

The issue is not at what specific point in our cost/benefit analysis of body parts do we decide that its better to remove it.

The issue is whether or not it is justified to surgically remove healthy body parts of a child.

obviously you think its, but i wonder what other body parts you think should be subjected to this analysis.

perhaps you could complete this list

1. foreskin
2.?
3.?
4.?


if it turns out (as i suspect it will), that your list consists only of the foreskin, then can you explain what is so special about it, that you think it, and only it, requires fixing before it is broken.

Wy should the foreskin be the only healthy bodypart that can justifiably be removed from a child at the whims of the parents?

[Mummaholic]

Funny how all the links seem to come from the same place. Now if you perhaps had offered a wide range of sources from authorities such as university research and established medical journals (and more than just one), I may have been inclined to believe any point of this. Not to mention the obvious bias of the owner of the site.

Do pro-circers ever wonder why there does not seem to be easily accessible articles from the medical fraternity selling the benefits of circ? Perhaps because it is not endorsed by most medical doctors for good reasons? Would that also be why there are so few drs that perform the practice here in Australia?

There is no need to remove parts of my sons' anatomy. If we needed to be foreskin free, we would have evolved that way. HIV is contracted from bodily fluids including blood and semen. It actually has nothing to do with foreskins.

I agree, if I removed my breasts I could avoid the prospect of cancer but that would be considered just ridiculous with no good reason or sign that cnacer was imminent or highly possible.

[forbetoel]

We are talking about the 'routine removal' Father...so there are no stats that support RIC. If's, mights, and maybe's are all you can offer in the way of support for RIC.

My child MIGHT get an infection- is not enough for me to put my tiny baby at risk by agreeing to an operation that could deform him for life, not to mention all the other risks associated with surgery, and don't get even get me started on the fact that we are removing a functioning part of HIS penis, just incase something MAY happen.

For some reason 'some' people feel that the promotion of propaganda in relation to RIC is a 'good' thing...that is why we do not trust your source.
Ask the 99% of the those in the medical profession why they do not support RIC. The fact that it is so hard to find a doctor willing to perform this out-dated cosmetic procedure should speak volumes to anyone contemplating RIC for their infant son.

RIC is NOT the same as circumcision based on sound medical advice.

[Opinionated]

The similarity between removing tonsils and foreskins is often drawn. However, tonsils and foreskins both have a function in the body. Tonsils are only removed when they repeatedly become infected, indicating that their ability to perform their function has become compromised.
The only body part that I can think of that serves no purpose in modern man and often can become infected, with life threatening implications is the appendix. Still, we do not line our kids up for an appendectomy, nor does anyone advocate for this. The fact of the matter is, circumcision is advocated not out of any medical need, but for tradition, religion and cosmetic reasons and because parents believe misinformation. I feel like trying to have a proper debate with pro-circers is just a waste of time. I only hope that my participation in threads like these may help sway those undecided parents who have been considering circ based on outdated information.

[forbetoel]

Opinionated...excellent analogy. The appendix can kill, we don't need it, but we are smart enough to know that the risks of elective surgery far outweigh any perceived benefit, which in this case would be similar to the benifits of RIC. (the whole, if, maybe, might)

[Father]

Funny how all the links seem to come from the same place. Now if you perhaps had offered a wide range of sources from authorities such as university research and established medical journals (and more than just one), I may have been inclined to believe any point of this. Not to mention the obvious bias of the owner of the site.

Here is a link from the SAME website.
http://www.circs.org/library/hammond/index.html
Tell me if this is biased towards circumcision. If you read it, which I assume you won't, but you will find that it is very anti-circ.
There are other articles that are 'anti-circ' on the same website.
But wait!!!! It's from a pro-circ site?????? I'm confused?????
Could this website actually be providing unbiased information??????? It is up to the reader to read and gather the info. Some only read what pleases them. It may just happen to be that there is more research that shows the benefits rather than the negatives, but a site that has links like above should surely deserve more respect than has been granted. Rather than automatically throwing it into the 'biased and flawed' basket. The site is not 'biased'. It has all the data and references listed if people require further analysis or question the authenticy of the data. It is not outdated (the dates of each article are included).

I gather that due to the lack of supporting links that answer the questions of:


How many boys/men will require circumcision?
How many boys/men will have complications due to the foreskin?

that there are no contradictory studies that have been conducted.

These are very valid questions to ask. Questions that not many sites answer.

[sockstealingpoltergeist]

Father that is one article. Amongst all the pro circ rubish.

[Mummaholic]

Actually father, I do read a wide range of sources and have read many pro circ studies in the past. We just draw different conclusions from the arguments presented. But thanks for your guidance. I would if you'll be reading anthing NOT attached to that site?

[Opinionated]

Father, I just don't understand how you could possibly be pro-circ after reading the link at the start of your last post. Yes, I skim read it.

It upsets me that people allow or advocate for their children or others to be hurt in this way.

Personally, I don't have to read any literature to know that it is wrong to alter someone elses genitals without their consent.

[lulu 2]

I am not getting into the circ debate but I am curious about the HIV being rare in australia statement. Its not rare at all there is lots of ppl who have it and its out there in the community ,I work in health and know of more than ten ppl off the top of my head who have been infected and my cousin even died of aids ( he was a heroin addict) its enough to scare me and yeh if i was to get into the debate then circing alone would not be enough to save anyone from contracting these horrible illnesses and I doubt that most ppl get it done for prophelatic reasons anyway.

[andrewJ]

How many boys/men will require circumcision?
How many boys/men will have complications due to the foreskin?

.

i have been looking for a link that i saw years ago. i think it was posted on this board too, but it was long ago.

it was a list of all hospital surgeries (i think in the UK) over a year, listed by procedure.

the gist was that not very many circumcisions were done, and the numbers were far lower than hundreds of other surgeries, none of which we would do 'just in case'.

but the questions you ask are complicated. that is perhaps why not many sites claim to know the answers, and thats why id be suspicious of any site that does.

maybe foreskin problems are under/overdiagnosed?
maybe some people suffer needlessly without being circumcised?
maybe there are other factors involved other than medical need?
etc



But i still dont understand your logic.

I get that you believe that routine circumcision is justified because it can reduce/prevent some health problems. But obviously, you are not advocating a free for all, whereby parents can pick and choose how many fingers their child is allowed to keep, what colour tattoo, or what shaped skull.

obviously, the freedom that you think parents should have to modify their childrens bodies has limits. so where are they?

Is ANY amount of benefit enough?
What is your threshold value of benefit over which routine amputation becomes justified?
Is this threshold value determined before looking at the benefits, or afterwards?
What level of benefit is NOT justified?
What other body parts do you apply these criteria to?
If just the foreskin, why?


Things are so much simpler for me. I only need one principle:
Is amputation of healthy body parts of children justified?

No

[sockstealingpoltergeist]

I get that you believe that routine circumcision is justified because it can reduce/prevent some health problems. But obviously, you are not advocating a free for all, whereby parents can pick and choose how many fingers their child is allowed to keep, what colour tattoo, or what shaped skull.

obviously, the freedom that you think parents should have to modify their childrens bodies has limits. so where are they?

Is ANY amount of benefit enough?
What is your threshold value of benefit over which routine amputation becomes justified?
Is this threshold value determined before looking at the benefits, or afterwards?
What level of benefit is NOT justified?
What other body parts do you apply these criteria to?
If just the foreskin, why?


Things are so much simpler for me. I only need one principle:
Is amputation of healthy body parts of children justified?

No
Indeed. Great post.

Father, how can you acuse us of being repetitive, when you yourself can find nothing new or reputable to back your self up.

I realise you made a mistake, and that's OK, I have made many mistakes in parenting, the ability to acknowledge and move forward is important.:)

[bada]

I realise you made a mistake, and that's OK, I have made many mistakes in parenting, the ability to acknowledge and move forward is important.:):iagree:

[forbetoel]

. Some only read what pleases them. It may just happen to be that there is more research that shows the benefits rather than the negatives,




Hmmm...C'mon father, that is so seriously wrong. Why would I only read what pleases me? My sons are intact, therefore I am still able to have them circumcised. I have not done anything permanent. On the other hand parents of circumcised boys probally do only read what pleases them because they can't take their decicision back.
The latest research proves that RIC is unnecessary and dangerous - so I can see why a parent who has already had their sons foreskin removed may not want to read that, since their is nothing they can do about it anyway.

And on the research thingy - there is NO up to date medical research or other that proves more benefits of RIC, and if you genuinly don't believe that then maybe go and ask 10 random G.P's for a referral for circumcision and see for yourself what the up to date medical opinion is.

Goodluck getting that referral without the help of circangel.;)

[Father]

Father, how can you acuse us of being repetitive, when you yourself can find nothing new or reputable to back your self up.I don't recall acusing anyone of being repetitive. The entire reason of this thread was to counter JohnC's claims that there are NO medical benefits. I was providing articles which showed there was. I am not debating whether everyone should or shouldn't.
I now understand that there are some websites that people really don't like. To prevent me using those sites, feel free to provide a list of 'non-reputable' sites, and I will find the same evidence elsewhere for you.


there is NO up to date medical research or other that proves more benefits of RICI have tried to remove the 'biased' claim by showing that there are links to anti-circ articles too. Now I need to remove the 'outdated' claim. How old is too old? When does research become 'outdated'?
We don't evolve that quickly.
I will endeavour to find more 'updated' info/research for you, but could you please provide a year by which data becomes 'current'?

Another option is for another member to provide an unbiased updated site that does answer the questions that I was interested in. Anti-circ sites don't answer those questions. It would be alot easier if they provided all the info, not just the anti-circ stuff.

[serendipity22]

* How many boys/men will require circumcision?
* How many boys/men will have complications due to the foreskin?

In Finland, I believe the figure is 6 in 100,000 males have a circumcision for a medical reason during their lifetime.

You might this page of interest
http://www.circumstitions.com/Utis.html

There is a lot on this site:
http://www.circumstitions.com

Another site to look at is
http://www.circinfo.org/

[serendipity22]

Anti-circ sites don't answer those questions. It would be alot easier if they provided all the info, not just the anti-circ stuff. by Father.

Which anti-circ sites have you looked at?

[Father]

In Finland, I believe the figure is 6 in 100,000 males have a circumcision for a medical reason during their lifetime.

You believe? That is quite an amazing figure to throw out there. Where did that come from?

[Father]

Which anti-circ sites have you looked at?
All the ones that ever get quoted on here. None of them say how many males will require circumcision during life.

[serendipity22]

Quote:
In Finland, I believe the figure is 6 in 100,000 males have a circumcision for a medical reason during their lifetime.
You believe? That is quite an amazing figure to throw out there. Where did that come from?

Its on a number of sites:

for example

http://www.humanehealthcare.com/Article.asp?art_id=620


and since the risk of needing a late circumcision in Finland is one in 16,667 (roughly the same as 6 in 100,000)

i found this:

First of all, for a man who was not circumcised as an infant the chances of him having to get circumcised as a adult are extremely rare. In fact it's only 6 in 100,000. (0.006%)

Health officials of each Scandanavian country were queried about adult circumcision.. None of the health officials could provide precise data, because the numbers were so small that they weren't worth compiling. Each official stressed that foreskin problems were present but said they were largely treated medically-surgical solutions were extremely rare.

"in Oslo, Norway, over a 26-year period in which 20,000 male babies were cared for, 3 circumcisions were performed-a frequency rate of 0.02%.

In Denmark. 1968 children up to the age of 17 were examined over a period of several years. In this group, 3 circumcisions were performed-a frequency of 0.15%. In this study, in retrospect, the physicians believed that all three operations might have been avoided. Both of these studies related to the infrequency of circumcision and puberty, they did not deal with the issue in adulthood.

Wallerstein, Edward, Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy. pg 128

In Finland -- a non-circumcising country -- the operative rate is only a tiny fraction of this percentage. A male's risk of being circumcised for any reason during his entire lifespan is less than one in 16,000.

http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ...mcision4.shtml

The Finnish National Board of Health provided national case records for the year 1970 for both phimosis and paraphimosis. A total of 409 cases was reported for males 15 years and older,which represents only
2/100ths of 1% (0.023%) of the total male population in that age group. This means that 99.97% did NOT develop a problem. Moreover, according to Finnish authorities, only a fraction of the reported cases required surgery– a number too small to reliably estimate.
Wallerstein, Edward, CIRCUMCISION: AN AMERICAN HEALTH FALLACY p.128

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=269
http://allnurses.com/ob-gyn-nursing/the-circumcision-discussion-195222-page111.html

[Fellow Traveler]

How many boys/men will require circumcision?
How many boys/men will have complications due to the foreskin?


In Finland, I believe the figure is 6 in 100,000 males have a circumcision for a medical reason during their lifetime.




You believe? That is quite an amazing figure to throw out there. Where did that come from?


Well it appears as if Serendipity beat me to the punch but those figures are derived from:

Denniston, G (April 1996). "Circumcision and the Code of Ethics". Humane Health Care International 12: 78–80.

AND/OR

Wallerstein, E., Circumcision: an American Health Fallacy, New York, Springer, 1980.

Those numbers are difficult to figure in a lot of cases if for no other reason than it isn't always clear that there would be an actual need for circumcision. In a place like the US, many doctors are grossly ignorant when it comes to the foreskin which results in much higher than necessary numbers of "medically necessary" circumcisions. Although Australia has largely turned the corner on this issue, there may still be a lot of old school doctors who can't be trusted there too. Since Finland has never had any kind of circumcision, their rate is probably close to the actual clinical need, rates from most other European countries would be closely representative too.

Your second question is not well posed. There are no complications to the foreskin. A complication is the unexpected result of a medical intervention, like a circumcision whose complications can potentially be devastating.

You also don't indicate what you mean by 'complication'. Do you mean problem leading to circumcision? Then the answer is probably on the order of 1/16,667 (6 in 100,000).

[Father]

in Finland is one in 16,667, it follows that almost all of the circumcisions still being done in North America have no medical necessity

I guess america must need to sort out their education system. Their doctors are pretty stupid, since they circumcise around 10%. Or maybe the Fins have extremely superior hygiene - as this can sort out the problems right?

It would be good to see how they came to this figure. Do you have more info?


Both of these studies related to the infrequency of circumcision and puberty, they did not deal with the issue in adulthood

How about adulthood?
It does look like the Scandanavians have it all worked out though, with such low levels of problems.
Pro-circs aren't permitted to quote any info from African countries. Maybe I should start a rule about anti-circs and scandanavian countries.


The Finnish National Board of Health provided national case records for the year 1970 for both phimosis and paraphimosis

Forgive me for my ignorance, but were these just the figures for 1970. ie. 409 cases was reported for males 15 years and older (in the year 1970)? That would change those figueres substantially if you had that many each year. Ambiguous?




http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=269

That was actually quite a good link. Thanks for providing that one. It looks to be quite an unbiased article. Well worth the read.

[andrewJ]

I guess america must need to sort out their education system. Their doctors are pretty stupid, since they circumcise around 10%.

yes actually. obviously 'stupid' isnt the right word, but american doctors overdiagnose phimosis and other issues, and are quick to employ circumcision when less invasive techniques would suffice.
medical text books in america use as their default illustrations, a circumcised penis.

[Father]

I wonder how the Finnish parents feel about seeing their boys with these "issues". Especially the recurring ones.
I'm quite confident that doctors in Australia, since most of them are against circumcision (your words, not mine), would not circumcise if they didn't feel it was necessary. Wouldn't they be doing all they could to avoid it? If you can simply wash it - I'm sure that's what they would be recommending. At the end of the day, if there are issues that can be solved through circumcision, why not? It's better than having repeated issues.

[andrewJ]

if there are issues that can be solved through circumcision, why not? It's better than having repeated issues.

because most people are quite attached to their genitals. amputation should be the last resort.
decapitation solves headaches

[sockstealingpoltergeist]

because most people are quite attached to their genitals. amputation should be the last resort.
decapitation solves headaches
:laughing::yes:

[Opinionated]

Issues can often be resolved with antibiotics and steroid creams.

The foreskin is the only body part that anybody suggests amputating at the first sign of an issue. Teeth are afforded more respect than that and you can get replacements of those.:confused: