Yes, but allow a clause for religious beliefs.
I have never encountered sexual complaints from a male due to circumcision. Although three out of every four men in the Middle East have been circumcised, erectile functionality and fertility are not compromised. Birthrates throughout the region remain very high.
A lot of what you say I have no disagreement with and instead focus on the matters I had brought up previously that have been ignored by circumcisions advocates.
Do you currently or have you previously performed circumcisions? If not, at what date and from where did you obtain your information on this matter?
Keeping with the toenail analogy, I'm sure we could become quite proficient in toenail removal with minimal complications. But its would still be an UNNECESSARY EVASIVE medical procedure.
That is, if circumcisions were allowed in the same places as body piercings were with staff with similar minimal training, do you honestly think that the rate of complications from circumcisions would remain the same?
page 17; Neonatal Circumcision
Conclusions. Although potential medical benefits are associated with newborn male
circumcision, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine performance of this procedure
on medical grounds. However, in the United States, parental decision-making appears to be
based on social and cultural rather than medical concerns. When the decision is made to proceed
with circumcision, local anesthesia should be provided for the procedure.
The following statements, recommended by the Council on Scientific Affairs, were adopted by the
AMA House of Delegates as AMA policy at the 1999 AMA Interim Meeting.
1. The AMA encourages training programs for pediatricians, obstetricians, and family
physicians to incorporate information on the use of local pain control techniques for
2. 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. In circumstances in
which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the
child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the
child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate
and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. If a
decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided.
3. The AMA urges that as part of the informed consent discussion, the risks and benefits of
pain control techniques for circumcision be thoroughly discussed to aid parents in making
Neonatal Circumcision Revisited
We undertook this literature review to consider whether the CPS should change its position on routine neonatal circumcision from that stated in 1982. The review led us to conclude the following.
There is evidence that circumcision results in an approximately 12-fold reduction in the incidence of UTI during infancy. The overall incidence of UTI in male infants appears to be 1% to 2%.
The incidence rate of the complications of circumcision reported in published articles varies, but it is generally in the order of 0.2% to 2%. Most complications are minor, but occasionally serious complications occur. There is a need for good epidemiological data on the incidence of the surgical complications of circumcision, of the later complications of circumcision and of problems associated with lack of circumcision.
Evaluation of alternative methods of preventing UTI in infancy is required.
More information on the effect of simple hygienic interventions is needed.
Information is required on the incidence of circumcision that is truly needed in later childhood.
There is evidence that circumcision results in a reduction in the incidence of penile cancer and of HIV transmission. However, there is inadequate information to recommend circumcision as a public health measure to prevent these diseases.
When circumcision is performed, appropriate attention needs to be paid to pain relief.
The overall evidence of the benefits and harms of circumcision is so evenly balanced that it does not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns. There is therefore no indication that the position taken by the CPS in 1982 should be changed.
When parents are making a decision about circumcision, they should be advised of the present state of medical knowledge about its benefits and harms. Their decision may ultimately be based on personal, religious or cultural factors.
The road to Hell and the road to Jahannam is the same damn road.
I became a conservative by being around liberals. I became a libertarian by being around conservatives. ~ Greg Gutfeld.
Last edited by scourge99; 07-05-11 at 03:44 AM.
BAsically what that all boiled down to was the AMA stating that while there are benefits, in the U.S. they are not recommending that doctors routinely ush the procedure. I don't disagree with that. It should be the parents decision in most cases.
Of course, based upon the CDC article I posted, they may want to rethink that if they are talking about what's the best avenue to take in certan other countries with very high incidents of sexually transmitted diseases.
As for my personal opinion at this time, I can understand a law that bans the practice on any non-adult. You are basically forcing a permanent religious decision (in most cases) on someone before they can make an informed decision about it. Even forced attendances at a religious institution can be reversed. Circumcision cannot. However, the practice should not be banned in and of itself. For that matter, if an adult female wants to get a circumcision as well, then by all means, go for it.
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.