“It’s always been a matter of choice and remains a matter of choice [meaning PARENTAL rather than individual choice],” says Dr. Andrew Eisen, associate professor of pediatrics and associate dean for clinical education at Touro University Nevada College of Osteopathic Medicine. Although circumcision can be an emotionally heated topic, Eisen says, “If you look solely at the medical implications, so you’re looking purely at the matter of risk of the procedure versus the health benefits of it [and ignore the fact the foreskin is an erogenous sensory structure] ... it’s pretty clear that the benefit outweighs the risk.”
According to the CDC, circumcision can reduce by 50 percent to 60 percent a man’s risk of acquiring HIV through sex with an infected female partner, and circumcised men are 30 percent to 45 percent less likely to acquire genital herpes and 30 percent less likely to be infected with “high-risk strains” of HPV, or human papillomavirus [validated only by studies in Africa, the largest study in the Americas found that foreskin excision offered zero benefit and actually decreased the rate of clearance of high-risk HPV strains]. Also, the CDC says, although circumcision hasn’t been shown to cut the risk of HIV transmission to circumcised men’s female partners, rates of such sexually transmitted diseases as bacterial vaginosis, trichomoniasis and HPV were, in clinical trials, reduced in the female partners of circumcised men. And, in observational studies, the CDC says, circumcision has been shown to lower the risk of other sexually transmitted diseases, penile cancer, cervical cancer in the men’s female partners, and urinary tract infections in male infants.
Eisen says even minor complications of the procedure — which involves removing the foreskin of the penis are quite rare. “It’s not completely without risk, but it’s a very low-risk procedure,” Eisen says. The CDC proposal mirrors the American Academy of Pediatrics’ stance in leaving circumcision to an infant’s parents as a personal choice, while also noting its potential health benefits. Eisen says the proposal also reminds doctors that they have a responsibility to make sure patients [meaning the patients parents rather than the actual patient] understand medical implications. “It’s not a strong enough effect on risk reduction to say, ‘This should be done all the time,’ but it is enough of a risk reduction to say, ‘We need to make sure our patients are aware of it so they can make an informed decision,’ ” he says.
Dr. Jason Zommick, a urologist with Urology Specialists of Nevada, has seen what happens when the decision to not circumcise causes problems. “People always ask me, ‘Should I have a circumcision performed?’ and I’ll tell you, I have seen thousands of men that have not been circumcised as a child and they’re coming to see me with infections, irritation, inability to retract the foreskin and (for) cosmetic reasons,” Zommick says. “They want to have it done, and I’ll tell you, in almost 15 years in private practice, I’ve only had one guy who said, ‘Is there a way to replace my foreskin? I want it back.’ ” Besides the risk of STDs, just being uncircumcised has risk of chronic bacterial and fungal infections, Zommick says. “When you have a penis that’s covered with a foreskin, it’s kind of like taking your finger and wrapping it with some Saran Wrap,” Zommick says. “A lot of moisture builds up, and it’s easy for yeast and bacteria to grow.”
This title of this article would more accurately have been "Two Jewish doctors support destroying the foreskin". Of course circumcised doctors who support circumcising all boys and men would ignore the fact that circumcision makes men less tolerant of using condoms as all studies have found except those performed in Africa (that surveyed men who told the researchers what they wanted to hear rather than the truth). This point about condoms is an important intactivist point. Men with circumcised penises are less tolerant of using condoms.
This blog post ignores all the points against involuntary nontherapeutic foreskin excision, and presents Brother K as a weirdo instead of acknowledging that Brother K is hardly alone in opposing nontherapeutic genital surgery, the majority of the world's medical authorities with stated opinions on nontherapeutic foreskin excision oppose it (/r/intactivists/wiki list of some).
Stranger: “So, have you thought about circumcision?”
Me: “Excuse me?”
I would take another step forward, but my belly is already about to ram the person in front of me. There’s no escape.
Stranger: “Oh, you know, are you going to mutilate your child without his consent?”
He actually said that.
Me: “I think I forgot something back in the meat department. Uh, have a nice day.”
Leaving my position at the front of the line, I head for the safety of the refrigerators. I remember the many discussions I have had with my husband on this very topic. It is a fraught one, at the intersection of religion, culture, freedom, privacy, identity, and physical self-determination. It is not something I am remotely interested in reviewing with a stranger in the grocery store checkout line. Or anywhere else.
I also wonder at what age it becomes inappropriate to talk about a child’s genitals. With strangers. In public.
This article was so whiny it was annoying, but it did show clearly one important problem with the language that many intactivists use. The word mutilation is perfectly accurate, but it's also excessively off-putting especially to the people we're most trying to persuade, men with circumcised penises. A better point to make is that the foreskin is a valuable erogenous sensory structure. That point is all that is necessary to persuade people that circumcision is wrong. Everyone who wants to be persuasive (rather than just express your own anger or frustration) should memorize that point and train yourselves to use it instead of mentioning mutilation. That is the most important point that US medical authorities have chosen to ignore in promoting nontherapeutic destructive genital surgery.
All this circumcision activism and anti-intactivism in the news might seem discouraging, but it seems likely it's a sign of circumcision activists' frustration with the truth of intactivism shining through their attempt to persuade people with their usual propaganda (especially lies by omission). I would take this as a sign that they realize that we're winning the debate. Keep up the good work, fellow intactivists!
Submitted March 16, 2015 at 04:20PM by dalkon http://ift.tt/1wPwr7G Intactivists
No comments:
Post a Comment