San Francisco Circumcision Ban

Banjo said:
But they do not recommend it. That should be enough of a hint for you.
Click to expand...
They don't prohibit it, and they do perform the procedure.

Do some doctors have their sons circumcised? :hmm:
 
TXgolfer said:
But they feel it is safe enough to allow parents to decide.....that should be a hint to you....
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

Neonatal circumcision in the U.S. is a safe procedure; however, it is not without risk. In a study of 130,475 newborns identified in the Washington State Comprehensive Hospital Abstract Reporting System (1987–1996) as circumcised during their birth hospital stay, 0.18% had a bleeding complication, 0.04% had a complication coded as “injury,” and 0.0006% had penile cellulitis diagnosed before discharge.41 In a trade-off analysis based on observed complication rates and published studies of the effect of circumcision on rates of UTIs (urinary tract infection) in the first year of life and lifetime risk of penile cancer, the investigators calculated that a complication might be expected in one out of every 476 circumcisions, that six UTIs can be prevented for every complication endured, and nearly two complications would be expected for every case of penile cancer prevented.

An analysis was conducted of 136,086 boys born in U.S. Army hospitals from 1980 to 1985 with a medical record review for indexed complications related to circumcision status during the first month of life. For 100,157 circumcised boys, 193 (0.19%) complications occurred. The frequencies of UTI (p<0.0001) and bacteremia (p<0.0002) were significantly higher in the uncircumcised boys than among those circumcised. In neither study were any circumcision-related deaths or losses of the glans or entire penis reported.
Click to expand...
Male Circumcision in the United States for the Prevention of HIV Infection and Other Adverse Health Outcomes: Report from a CDC Consultation
 
Reba said:
They don't prohibit it, and they do perform the procedure.
Click to expand...

Yet it's still enough to raise questions about why it's not recommended. They did use to recommend it back in the ol' days, but the only real reason why people did it was to reduce people's sexual energy and to prevent chronic masturbation. Neither worked.

Do some doctors have their sons circumcised? :hmm:
Click to expand...

Why don't you ask them?
 
missywinks said:
Ow, why put anyone or babies through this?!? Just seems so unnecessary. I know some Jewish friends who have opted not to circumcise thier babies and their church is fine with it.
Click to expand...
Church?
 
kokonut said:
So is the appendix and tonsils.
Click to expand...

Yup, I had tonsils removed when I was 4 years old due to continuous of infection.

I still have appendix but my father had removed when he was late teenager.
 
THYMOS: Journal of Boyhood Studies, Vol. 4, No. 1, Spring 2010, 78-90

LOST BOYS: AN ESTIMATE OF U.S. CIRCUMCISION-RELATED INFANT DEATHS

- Dan Bollinger

Abstract: Baby boys can and do succumb as a result of having their foreskin removed. Circumcision-related mortality rates are not known with certainty; this study estimates the scale of this problem. This study finds that approximately 117 neonatal circumcision-related deaths (9.01/100,000) occur annually in the United States, about 1.3% of male neonatal deaths from all causes. Because infant circumcision is elective, all of these deaths are avoidable. This study also identifies reasons why accurate data on these deaths are not available, some of the obstacles to preventing these deaths, and some solutions to overcome them.
Click to expand...

:hmm:
 
Foxrac said:
Yup, I had tonsils removed when I was 4 years old due to continuous of infection.

I still have appendix but my father had removed when he was late teenager.
Click to expand...

I had my tonsils removed at the age of 3. Although I do still have my appendix.
 
Banjo said:
Yes, it's estimated that 10% to 20% of Canadians born these days are left intact. Thank God. There's no need to severe 20,000 nerve endings, it's the most nerve-clustered section of the body. The only reason why circumcision existed was to reduce both men and women's sexual energy, which has failed miserably anyway.
Click to expand...

Kellogg's Battle Creek?
 
Abstract
Objectives

To evaluate the effects of adult circumcision on sexual function in men circumcised only for religious or cosmetic reasons.
Methods

The study group consisted of 42 male patients with a median age of 22.3 years (range 19 to 28) referred for circumcision from June 2002 to January 2003. Of the 42 men, 39 desired circumcision for religious reasons. Before circumcision, their sexual performance was evaluated using the Brief Male Sexual Function Inventory (BMSFI) and ejaculatory latency time. The BMSFI evaluation and ejaculatory latency time measurements were repeated after a postoperative interval of at least 12 weeks. The scores in the five main sections of the BMSFI and the ejaculatory latency times before and after circumcision were analyzed.
Results

The differences in the mean BMSFI scores were not statistically significant in any of the five sections. However, the mean ejaculatory latency time was significantly longer after circumcision (P = 0.02).
Conclusions

Adult circumcision does not adversely affect sexual function. The increase in the ejaculatory latency time can be considered an advantage rather than a complication.
Click to expand...

Elsevier


Currently no consensus exists about the role of the foreskin or the effect circumcision has on penile sensitivity and overall sexual satisfaction.

Results: Fifty-nine percent of patients (88/150) responded. The total mean IIEF-5 score was 22.41 ± 0.94 and 21.13 ± 3.17 before and after circumcision, respectively (p = 0.4). Seventy-four percent of patients had no change in their libido levels, 69% noticed less pain during intercourse (p < 0.05), and 44% of the patients (p = 0.04) and 38% of the partners (p = 0.02) thought the penis appearance improved after circumcision. Penile sensation improved after circumcision in 38% (p = 0.01) but got worse in 18%, with the remainder having no change. Overall satisfaction was 61%. Conclusions: Penile sensitivity had variable outcomes after circumcision.
Click to expand...
Penile Sensitivity and Sexual Satisfaction after Circumcision: Are We Informing Men Correctly?

This tended to be mostly positive on men's circumcision for those between 18 and 60 years who were identified as being circumcised for benign disease between 1999 and 2002. If this outcome is the case in older men who were circumcised while as an adult and the outcome generally positive, then it stand to reason the same for baby boys getting the circumcision will not have any adverse affect on penile sensitivity later in life as men.
 
Reba said:
They don't prohibit it, and they do perform the procedure.

Do some doctors have their sons circumcised? :hmm:
Click to expand...

I am going to take up being a boozin' womanizer who smokes because one of the doctors I had did that.

I means he's a good role model? No? He's brilliant, well-known in the medical community, breaking new grounds. Everything he does MUST be the right thing to do!
 
My opinion:

Banjo insists that the trend towards circumcision is declining. Also, most medical associations do not recommend it. So why not let this trend take its course? Sounds like most people will eventually leave it intact.

In this way, we don't have to make a law that imposes on religion. Let it resolve itself? Or make it a law for all doctors to inform all the risks, statistics, and so on for those who decide to circumcise their child.
 
Daredevel7 said:
My opinion:

Banjo insists that the trend towards circumcision is declining. Also, most medical associations do not recommend it. So why not let this trend take its course? Sounds like most people will eventually leave it intact.

In this way, we don't have to make a law that imposes on religion. Let it resolve itself? Or make it a law for all doctors to inform all the risks, statistics, and so on for those who decide to circumcise their child.
Click to expand...

But by then, Muslims will be the majority in America!1!1!!11111111!!!
 
Daredevel7 said:
My opinion:

Banjo insists that the trend towards circumcision is declining. Also, most medical associations do not recommend it. So why not let this trend take its course? Sounds like most people will eventually leave it intact.

In this way, we don't have to make a law that imposes on religion. Let it resolve itself? Or make it a law for all doctors to inform all the risks, statistics, and so on for those who decide to circumcise their child.
Click to expand...

You need to cite that about the medical associations in the U.S. Else, yours is simply an opinion.
 
kokonut said:
You need to cite that about the medical associations in the U.S. Else, yours is simply an opinion.
Click to expand...

Not really my opinion. That was part of what Banjo was saying. I am assuming what Banjo says is true, so that I can make a point. Get my drift?
 
Back
Top