Male Genital Mutilation

[Bubbles]

Which is no reason at all for sane people.
What's important to me is not sucking up to the irrational barbarism of barbarians and calling it diversity.

So now they are not sane as well as barbaric? Any more intolerant insults?

The problem appears to be you and some others here are intolerant of difference and other people's right to decide what matters to them,  and to be represented.

You are starting to sound like a bigot!

[Bubbles]

If their religious traditions involve mutilating babies then I say let's be intolerant of these barbaric traditions.

Well you'll be glad to hear it doesn't

It just involves removing a flap of skin from boys which the medical authorities have decided doesn't cause harm to them.

[Gordon]

No.

It's a religious requirement for some groups, medical evidence shows it isn't harmful.

What needs to happen, is that you need to accept diversity, become more tolerant of the ways of others and stop insulting them by calling them barbaric because they won't conform to the things that are important to you.

We share society with a range of different people, with different ideas of what is important.

Tolerance is accepting this, within the law.

When it is done on the basis of religious tradition then any medical argument is irrelevant, since if it was a valid argument there would be compelling medical reasons for routinely circumcising most baby boys - and that simply isn't the case.

As I just said, we need to be intolerant of this 'tradition' and put a stop to it.   

[ad_orientem]

Well you'll be glad to hear it doesn't

It just involves removing a flap of skin from boys which the medical authorities have decided doesn't cause harm to them.

Except to those it does.

[Shaker]

So now they are not sane as well as barbaric?

Correct.

Any more intolerant insults?

Plenty, if you want them. I'm happy to go as far as the house rules allow.

The problem appears to be you and some others here are intolerant of difference and other people's right to decide what matters to them, and to be represented.

I don't give a shit about difference where difference is foisted upon subjects without their informed consent.

You are starting to sound like a bigot!

I'm not starting to sound like one; I am one. I'm bigoted against any amount of things. Most people are.

[Gordon]

Well you'll be glad to hear it doesn't

It just involves removing a flap of skin from boys which the medical authorities have decided doesn't cause harm to them.

The question surely is 'does it do harm for them not to be circumcised':and there you have a problem in that since only a minority of boys in the UK are circumcised, since circumcision isn't a routine procedure then, presumably, by your logic, these medical authorities are exposing baby boys to risk: and that doesn't fly at all.

You seem to have fallen hook, line and sinker into the fallacies of tradition and authority in your support of this barbarism.   

[Shaker]

You seem to have fallen hook, line and sinker into the fallacies of tradition and authority in your support of this barbarism.   

Yup.

[Harrowby Hall]

It just involves removing a flap of skin from boys which the medical authorities have decided doesn't cause harm to them.

Please tell me which "medical authorities" argue that the most highly innervated tissue in the male sexual organs can be routinely removed without causing harm. It is your anatomical and physiological ignorance that categorises the prepuce as "a flap of skin".

In the majority of men in the UK born in the first half of the 20th century, the prepuce was removed by the midwife just a couple of days after birth because it was the fashion. No doctors were involved. It was not for any clinical reason.

[Bubbles]

Please tell me which "medical authorities" argue that the most highly innervated tissue in the male sexual organs can be routinely removed without causing harm. It is your anatomical and physiological ignorance that categorises the prepuce as "a flap of skin".

In the majority of men in the UK born in the first half of the 20th century, the prepuce was removed by the midwife just a couple of days after birth because it was the fashion. No doctors were involved. It was not for any clinical reason.

The world health organisation

[Gordon]

The world health organisation

So, does the WHO recommend the routine circumcision of newborns?

[trippymonkey]

So why the hell are we born WITH this so-called tiny piece of skin if it can be so easily thrown away ?!?!!?

[floo]

If their religious traditions involve mutilating babies then I say let's be intolerant of these barbaric traditions.

I agree.

[Harrowby Hall]

Rose,

Why don't you go to http://www.norm.org/lost.html and spend a little time reading it? It shouldn't take you long, after all, it's only about a little flap of skin.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

So, does the WHO recommend the routine circumcision of newborns?

The WHO are not speaking out against the practice either and advocate circumcision of adults as one aspect of their approach to controlling the spread of HIV in heterosexuals. So it appears the harm caused by circumcision is an acceptable level of harm if it prevents a greater harm.

The issue therefore seems to be about consent rather than whether circumcision causing an unacceptable level of harm to the patient.

Also, provided it is done correctly by a trained person the WHO's position is that the level of harm can be tolerated better with lower risks in an infant compared to as a teenager or adult - hence it becomes the parents' decision as to whether it is a procedure that should be undertaken as an infant when there are minimal risks, compared to leaving it up to a potentially sexually-active teenager to consent when the pain and risk of infection is greater and the healing process is longer. 

As stated previously, there are various cultural religious practices that also had some basis in medical experience/ knowledge at the time they started being practised. And tying circumcision with religious cultural practice would ensure a reason for the practice to continue. If people found mental / physical health benefits from prayer and meditation or fasting they would tie those practices into religion/ culture to try to spread the practice of it. Same with circumcision.

When there is expert consensus that circumcision does not control the spread of HIV in heterosexuals or when there is easy availability of anti-HIV and STD drugs throughout the world a lot of communities will no doubt think the cost/ risks of circumcision outweighs the benefit and the cultural practice will probably greatly reduce.

[floo]

It is fine if an adult male decides to be circumcised, it definitely not ok to circumcise a child if it isn't medically necessary.

[Gordon]

The WHO are not speaking out against the practice either and advocate circumcision of adults as one aspect of their approach to controlling the spread of HIV in heterosexuals. So it appears the harm caused by circumcision is an acceptable level of harm if it prevents a greater harm.

The issue therefore seems to be about consent rather than whether circumcision causing an unacceptable level of harm to the patient.

Also, provided it is done correctly by a trained person the WHO's position is that the level of harm can be tolerated better with lower risks in an infant compared to as a teenager or adult - hence it becomes the parents' decision as to whether it is a procedure that should be undertaken as an infant when there are minimal risks, compared to leaving it up to a potentially sexually-active teenager to consent when the pain and risk of infection is greater and the healing process is longer. 

As stated previously, there are various cultural religious practices that also had some basis in medical experience/ knowledge at the time they started being practised. And tying circumcision with religious cultural practice would ensure a reason for the practice to continue. If people found mental / physical health benefits from prayer and meditation or fasting they would tie those practices into religion/ culture to try to spread the practice of it. Same with circumcision.

When there is expert consensus that circumcision does not control the spread of HIV in heterosexuals or when there is easy availability of anti-HIV and STD drugs throughout the world a lot of communities will no doubt think the cost/ risks of circumcision outweighs the benefit and the cultural practice will probably greatly reduce.

Why then, if the benefits of circumcising newborns so as to manage HIV when these newborns become sexually active many years hence, is the routine circumcision of newborns not considered best practice here in the UK currently? My impression is that while this medical argument might apply to teenage males, who would then be in a position to give informed consent, it doesn't address the problem that newborns are being mutilated before they ate capable of giving informed consent.

A cynic might consider that the 'medical' justification is being used as a smokescreen to justify the mutilation of newborns on the basis of religious/cultural traditions.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Why then, if the benefits of circumcising newborns so as to manage HIV when these newborns become sexually active many years hence, is the routine circumcision of newborns not considered best practice here in the UK currently? My impression is that while this medical argument might apply to teenage males, who would then be in a position to give informed consent, it doesn't address the problem that newborns are being mutilated before they ate capable of giving informed consent.

A cynic might consider that the 'medical' justification is being used as a smokescreen to justify the mutilation of newborns on the basis of religious/cultural traditions.

Fairly obvious why circumcision is considered a valid option by the WHO in a developing country with limited healthcare infrastructure and health workers, no free welfare state and limited access to HIV clinics and expensive anti-HIV drugs but is not considered best practice for those who are certain they will remain in a first world country for the rest of their lives with a welfare state and access to free health care or health insurance and numerous HIV clinics and anti-HIV drugs.

It took about 20 years longer for ARV drugs to become more widely available in Africa compared to Western countries because drug companies had patents that allowed them to recoup their R&D costs by keeping the ARV prices high and unaffordable for African countries for about 20 years.

One WHO study in Uganda reported that there was an increased risk of infecting female partners with HIV if sexual activity happened too soon after the  circumcision of HIV infected men, and that the risk of infecting partners through sexual activity was reduced if the circumcision had already happened in childhood.

A cynic might think the "why doesn't it happen in the UK" argument is just a deliberately obtuse smokescreen to justify ignoring WHO research and findings because those findings happen to support certain religious practices.   

[Harrowby Hall]

I think that the role of circumcision in the control of AIDS is a red herring. If for no other reason than the clinical treatment of HIV infection has reached the stage where it can be managed to the extent that people with the condition can lead relatively normal lives into old age. The idea that infants should be routinely mutilated just in case, as adults, they may be exposed to HIV is risible.

I suspect that "medical" arguments in favour of routine infant mutilation come from clinicians in the USA, where for reasons already outlined, it is still inflicted on a large number of baby boys, and the proponents are quite likely to have been circumcised themselves.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think that the role of circumcision in the control of AIDS is a red herring. If for no other reason than the clinical treatment of HIV infection has reached the stage where it can be managed to the extent that people with the condition can lead relatively normal lives into old age. The idea that infants should be routinely mutilated just in case, as adults, they may be exposed to HIV is risible.

the WHO seem to disagree with you about the red herring part especially in countries that lack the infrastructure to allow easy access to drugs in remote areas. Clearly mutilation is not risible in cultures where infant circumcision is not likely to die out any time soon because they think the benefit outweighs the harm of the mutilation. 

I suspect that "medical" arguments in favour of routine infant mutilation come from clinicians in the USA, where for reasons already outlined, it is still inflicted on a large number of baby boys, and the proponents are quite likely to have been circumcised themselves.

That's one view. There are others.

[Gordon]

Fairly obvious why circumcision is considered a valid option by the WHO in a developing country with limited healthcare infrastructure and health workers, no free welfare state and limited access to HIV clinics and expensive anti-HIV drugs but is not considered best practice for those who are certain they will remain in a first world country for the rest of their lives with a welfare state and access to free health care or health insurance and numerous HIV clinics and anti-HIV drugs.

It took about 20 years longer for ARV drugs to become more widely available in Africa compared to Western countries because drug companies had patents that allowed them to recoup their R&D costs by keeping the ARV prices high and unaffordable for African countries for about 20 years.

One WHO study in Uganda reported that there was an increased risk of infecting female partners with HIV if sexual activity happened too soon after the  circumcision of HIV infected men, and that the risk of infecting partners through sexual activity was reduced if the circumcision had already happened in childhood.

A cynic might think the "why doesn't it happen in the UK" argument is just a deliberately obtuse smokescreen to justify ignoring WHO research and findings because those findings happen to support certain religious practices.   

None of which addresses the simple fact that the routine circumcision of newborns is not recommended medical 'best practice': therefore, in cases where there is no immediate medical need the mutilation of newborns seems to be primarily due to religious/cultural traditions.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

None of which addresses the simple fact that the routine circumcision of newborns is not recommended medical 'best practice': therefore, in cases where there is no immediate medical need the mutilation of newborns seems to be primarily due to religious/cultural traditions.

Ok but this doesn't address the simple fact that it is not medically discouraged so long as it is done safely - which may be because certain health experts think it serves a useful purpose in controlling the spread of HIV in certain parts of the world with poor health infrastructure because there are less men to circumcise as adults, which carries higher risks and more complications and longer time to heal than if done as an infant.

[Gordon]

Ok but this doesn't address the simple fact that it is not medically discouraged so long as it is done safely - which may be because certain health experts think it serves a useful purpose in controlling the spread of HIV in certain parts of the world with poor health infrastructure because there are less men to circumcise as adults, which carries higher risks and more complications and longer time to heal than if done as an infant.

Which seems like a classic case of using people (in this case newborns) as a means to an end.

[Bubbles]

Which seems like a classic case of using people (in this case newborns) as a means to an end.

No it's not! You are twisting what is being said.

[ProfessorDavey]

Which seems like a classic case of using people (in this case newborns) as a means to an end.

I wonder how many men would chose (i.e. consent) to being circumcised when they are old enough actually to decide for themselves.

I suspect not many.

[Gordon]

No it's not! You are twisting what is being said.

No I'm not: if, as has been suggested, mutilating babies is part of a long-term strategy to manage HIV then it is using these newborns as a means to an end. Of course if mutilating babies is being done in order the preserve barbaric religious/cultural traditions then this is still using these newborns as a means to an end: albeit a different end.