Circumcision benefits outweigh risks, study reports (thoughts anyone?)

2014-04-07T20:35:10+00:00

May be the study is right. But that does not entitle anyone to cut off a child's foreskin without his knowledgeable permission.

SpicedRifle · 2014-04-07T19:38:02+00:00

Brian Morris is a dangerous lunatic and literally a circumcision fetishist.

He should be taken as seriously as Andrew Wakefield.

kaikomai · 2014-04-07T19:31:41+00:00

The comparison to vaccination is such bullshit. Anti-Vaccination arguments tend to come from a place of fear, not concern for moral and bodily autonomy. Also the risks of vaccination are considerably less harmful, and the subject at hand is far less sensitive. Getting a couple shots is a lot different from having your skin torn off without anesthetic.

Also, of course circumcision has some benefits. The whole point of the argument is whether or not the benefits outweight the costs. Unfortunately, the Mayo Clinic refuses to acknowledge any sort of value to the consent and well being of young boys. That means nothing to them. Also many of the problems with an uncircumcised penis go away when people are taught to have proper hygiene. I don't think they even mention that in the study. Nor do they mention the lack of anesthetic used, nor any of the downsides. Basically they just look at the benefits and say, "SEE LOOK ITS BENEFICIAL!!""

In fact, if children should be circumcised like they are vaccinated, as the Mayo Clinic suggests, why not wait a little longer until they are old enough to consent? Or even just wait for the foreskin to grow so that complications don't arise? Pro-circumcision advocates would never do this though, because no one in their right mind would want to mutilate the most sensitive part of their body. It's much easier to mutilate a baby and not feel guilty about it when we pass it off as beneficial, or even worse, when we reduce the autonomy to nothing so that any pain/harm inflicted is just collateral damage.

SirSkeptic · 2014-04-07T23:20:50+00:00

You know, I've heard that gouging out the eyes of a new born has numerous medical and social benefits.

They'll never need glasses.
They'll never be the responsible party in an automobile accident.
Their hearing and sense of smell improve.
No eye cancer.
No cataracts.
They get a cool dog.
Their dating pool increases (they won't know who's ugly)

I could go on and on. Every action or decision is a double edged sword. There are benefits and downsides to everything. Hell, feminists can see the downside for women of young men being dragged violently from their home and being butchered in war; "women are denied the choice to defend their country".

Thoughts? It's not your body, you don't have the right to mutilate it.

anon_and_on · 2014-04-07T19:19:01+00:00

Hmmm..... so If I can demonstrate some theoretical cost benefit of applying mastectomies to all baby girls we should do that? /s

And of course consent is again not mentioned anywhere.... good little male cost benefit unit...now go benefit soceity, your opinions do not matter, your hopes do not matter, your body does not matter, your consent does not matter, all damage to you is collateral.

skinnybignose · 2014-04-07T19:41:59+00:00

Myself and I'm sure most other Europeans look at these sort of studies in disbelief at the utter nonsense they promote.

vivoma · 2014-04-07T19:54:08+00:00

Please just google Brian Morris circumcision. This guy has been claiming outrageous shit for years about the wonders of child circumcision. Here is one example of him attempting to bully and suppress publication of a study linking circumcision to reduced pleasure:

Like in critical letters to the editor following other recent studies that failed to support their agenda,10–12 Morris et al. air a series of harsh criticisms against our study. As seen, however, the points raised are not well founded. It seems that the main purpose, as with prior letters, is to be able in future writings to refer to our study as an ‘outlier study’ or one that has been ‘debunked’, ‘rejected by credible researchers’ or ‘shown wrong in subsequent proper statistical analysis’. This in spite of the fact that our study was carried out using conventional epidemiological and statistical methods, underwent peer-review and was published in an international top-ranking epidemiology journal.

I would like to thank the IJE editors for withstanding the pressure from one particularly discourteous and bullying reviewer who went to extremes to prevent our study from being published. After the paper's online publication, I have received emails from colleagues around the world who felt our contribution was useful and potentially important. One colleague informed me that the angry reviewer was the first author of the above letter to the editor. In an email, Morris had called people on his mailing list to arms against our study, openly admitting that he was the reviewer and that he had tried to get the paper rejected. To inspire his followers, Morris had attached his two exceedingly long and aggressive reviews of our paper (12 858 words and 5291 words, respectively), calling for critical letters in abundance to the IJE editors. Breaking unwritten confidentiality and courtesy rules of the peer-review process, Morris distributed his slandering criticism of our study to people working for the same cause. Rather than resorting to such selective distribution among friends, Morris should make both reviews freely available on the internet by posting them in their entirety on his pro circumcision homepage (www.circinfo.net). Alternatively, interested readers should feel free to request them from me at the e-mail address above.

(italics mine) http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/41/1/312.full

He is author of the book "In Favor of Circumcision", curator of circinfo.net, and head of the Circumcision Foundation of Australia. I don't know how he keeps weaseling his way in to getting attention in the American media. The guy is not a medical doctor, nor is he the neutral "authority" that he presents himself as to journalists.

Ryau · 2014-04-07T20:06:12+00:00

According to the article the benefits it balances against permanent mutilation are:

reduced risk of urinary tract infection, prostate cancer, sexually transmitted diseases and, in female partners, cervical cancer

Three of these do not apply to the infants they are proposing doing the procedure to (infants are not having unprotected sex and prostate cancer is virtually nonexistent in children), that immediately should be a massive red flag about this "study".
The other benefit (UTIs, which are rare in males and in the first world) has many other ways to be treated or prevented, foremost being simple basic cleanliness. That is not worth permanent mutilation...

By the way, the author of the study referenced is not a medical doctor but hold another doctorate, he of course doesn't mention this and just puts dr. in front of his name. He is also part of the "Gilgal society" which publishes circumcision fetish material and whose founder was convicted of possession of child porn.
And heres a video where he states ALL boys should be FORCED to have their genitals mutilated regardless of their parent's wishes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdGbXdEo93U

Final thought: I wonder how far discussion about the cost-benefit of various forms of female genital mutilation would get. In regards to this, remember that even a non-permanently damaging pin prick for ritual was decided to be illegal and wrong but only when the baby is female

JayBopara · 2014-04-08T01:44:17+00:00

I'm sure just as many statistics could be produced about female circumcision. There was a study showing it reduced STIs too. We could then also say female circumcision is just like getting vaccinated. And that female circumcision saves billions of dollars too. What a silly article.

Unaccounted · 2014-04-07T19:31:07+00:00

[permanently deleted]

cantuse · 2014-04-07T19:59:40+00:00

Of course you can't have a discussion on circumcision without vote brigading, hyperbole or denial of studies.

Title	Circumcision benefits outweigh risks, study reports (thoughts anyone?)
Author	Lightfiend
Upvotes	0
Comments	31
Date	April 7, 2014 7:07 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/22g5w6/circumcision_benefits_outweigh_risks_study/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/circumcision-benefits-outweigh-risks-study-reports.1001926 https://theredarchive.com/post/1001926

Comments