Is Circumcision of baby boys an effective prevention method against UTIs, HIV, and penile cancer?
UTIs only affect 1% to 2% of boys, while the chances of complications from infant circumcision are between 1% to 5% (including infection, bleeding and penile damage). Therefore UTI prevention cannot be justified by circumcision, but rather good hygiene. The studies on circumcision and HIV have mostly emanated from sub-Saharan Africa. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, the evidence is “complex and conflicting”, and would not justify routine circumcision in developed countries with low prevalence of HIV. Penile cancer is a rare disease, affecting only 1 per 100,000 in developed countries. The rarity of the condition is such that it can not justify routine male infant circumcision. This is what some major health organizations say of infant circumcision: – AAP (USA): “The procedure is not essential to the child’s current well-being.” – NHS (UK): “It is not routinely performed in the UK because there is no clear clinical evidence to suggest that it is has any medical benefit.”
There is no evidence that circumcision prevents HIV, as a matter of fact it’s the opposite; statistics show that in the US where circumcision was performed on up to 80% of males in the recent past, HIV transmission rates are high while in Europe, Asia and South America, where male genital mutilation is rarely performed, the rates are much lower. Yet certain individuals are trying to promote circumcision to ostensibly prevent HIV in African men. Among the most prominent proponents are Dr. Daniel T. Halperin of Harvard University, and Stephen Lewis of the Stephen Lewis Foundation–formerly the Special Envoy to UN Secretary General. Gee, these men have religious affiliations that practice ritual male genital mutilation. Obviously they are biased for this practice; could this be unethical? Especially since one is from a publicly funded university? The African statistics that they use to try to justify spreading this mutilation on unsuspecting African men are flawed. They don’t take into ac
By leaving a boy uncircumcised, if he’s not satisfied with it he can always get cut and end up satisfied in the end. One survey found that about half of circumcised guys would have preferred to had made the decision themselves: http://www.jackinworld.com/qow/q15.html Circumcision has become less common. Circumcision rates were as high as 90% back in the 1960s and 1970s (that’s partly why today’s adults are so… brainwashed, I supposed you could say, about thinking that circumcision is better) but they have fallen to as low as 14% in some states. Here are the statistics: http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/U… The USA is the last developed nation doing it to a large number of newborns without religious or medical needs. (Europeans, Latin Americans, Japanese, and most Australians, Canadians, and Asians don’t circumcise):
No it doesn’t prevent any of those things. It is a needless barbaric, damaging procedure. It is dying out though thankfully in the USA, which is the only western country that still does it. The rate at the moment is 55% which is still too high. In the rest of the world circumcision is less than 1% for non-religious reasons. Here is a good place to get an unbiased opinion on all the diseases you mentioned: http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/ Non-religious circumcision began in England in the late 1800s and it became extremely popular in English-speaking countries between 1920 and 1950. England introduced the practice to the U.S. At the time, it was believed that masturbation caused a host of different illnesses. Masturbation was considered extremely immoral and many children,both male and female, have been circumcised throughout the years because parents discovered them “in the act.” To this day, who doesn’t remember the
