General News CDC considers recommending circumcision to all men

I completely agree with certain aspects of both sides.

Circumcision is definitely a controversial issue and rightfully so. It is completely reasonable for people to feel strongly about the topic on both sides; however, to act as though the practice does not have any biological benefits in any case is pure ignorance. I can certainly get behind the stance that it should be a more cautious practice and medical professionals, especially in the U.S., should put more effort into determining a need prior to moving forward with surgery; but these cries of unjust mutilation and comparisons towards female circumcision is sensationalizing the subject to grave new heights.

Edit: Just for the record. This are of course general thoughts. My comments about ignorance and extremes are not in reference to your arguments. In fact, I agree with many of your's.

 

I would only support circumcision in case of an emergency to a guy's health that cannot be cured otherwise. Otherwise I see no point; you're losing a shiton of nerves from the procedure. As for the HIV thing, maybe people should just use condoms more. Plus, circumcision can make things more painful to a female partner as well because it takes away natural male lubricant.

Personally, I think if you want to get circumcised....that's your choice, but it shouldn't be forced on society. Plus, there's a double standard. Maybe I might want to cut off parts of my genitalia because vaginas can be really unhygienic and girls are more likely to get UTI's. But if I suggested that to a doctor, they'd think I were crazy. Yet boys have to endure the same thing.

 

As for FGM, not all forms of FGM are even the same. There are some forms that are so so severe that they can't even be comparable to male circumcision (which is usually what people think of), while others could be a tiny little pinprick on the external genitalia; and even that is illegal while male circumcision is not.

 

First, I do take full responsibility on the confusion here. My comments about it being justified were directly exclusively to cases of abnormalities. Given that this article is speaking on the CDC, who are obviously primarily invested in the spread of disease, I do agree that using preventing the spread of STDs as their central argument is quite the stretch. I should have phrased that post differently considering that.

I don't consider advocating against circumcision to be dramatic cries of mutilation, so much as the rhetoric that the act of circumcision leaves commonly destroys significant sensation and leaves men with a hinder sexual future. With the exception of accidental damage that is not nearly as common as some argue, very little harm should be done in a circumcision carried out by a competent professional. It is understandable to feel that it is unnecessary in many cases; however, preach this sentiment that males that have been circumcised were significantly harmed only feeds into this wave of insecurity that some have developed about having been circumcised.

The argument should be that carrying out the surgery opens the door for accidental damage to occur and, therefore, the practice of it should be limited and treated with caution. Not that circumcision inherently leads to a great loss of sensitivity, because any patient who found that to be the case should have reported this the hospital for possible misconduct because that shouldn't be the case.

Female circumcision, however, has only ever been done for religious reasons. Most male circumcisions that are carried out in the modern day are no longer done for done for religious reasons, so much as a cautionary action that become popularized by the medical community. When you take away the religious background, male circumcision is still a justifiable medical practice. Not universally, nor should any surgical practice be, but under certain circumstances.

My only issue is with those who attempt to demonize the practice of circumcision entirely rather than educate parents and professionals on the times when it is justified and not necessary because both of those cases do occur.

 

What boggles my mind about this is made clear in the last paragraph of the article:

Let us assume, just for the sake of argument, that circumcision actually does modestly reduce the risk of contracting HIV. Okay. We have made that assumption. Now, since the research was only done on straight men, every time he has sex without a condom he is putting himself at risk. Every time he has sex with a condom, he is as protected as he can be, short of using something like PrEP (something most straights likely know nothing about).

Okay, let us imagine our hypothetical straight man. Who is he most likely to be having sex with? His wife/girlfriend. Is he likely to use a condom in that situation? In my experience, most girls go on the pill and they stop using condoms. Straight sex becomes more about preventing pregnancy than protecting against STI's. So, in this situation, his protection rate is only modest. He is essentially playing Russian Roulette every time he has sex with his girlfriend / wife. Eventually, he is going to catch HIV, it may just be a few sexual encounters later than normal.

Now, you could argue that a straight guy who has random sex with multiple different women every month might benefit from circumcision. However, this would be a high risk group anyway, and they would benefit more from something like PrEP and condoms than circumcision. Also, this is likely the time most people--gay and straight alike--are most likely to use condoms, because they are most aware of the risks.

So, we are looking at a situation where--even if it is true, and that circumcision provides some minor benefit against HIV--it is effectively irrelevant. It is not going to protect high risk populations, and it is not going to protect the average straight male.

The people who benefit in this situation are doctors and hospitals. They get to charge an arm and a leg for a relatively quick procedure. This puts money directly in their pockets.

The people who get screwed in this situation are all the boys who lack the ability to consent to what is being done to their bodies. Whether they are teenage boys coerced into it by concerned parents after getting the information from their doctor, or young infants who are surgically altered not long after birth. Adult males are also victims, should they consent to it, assuming they are not fully educated and are simply going on what the doctor tells them.

Circumcising children is no different than rape. It is a fundamental violation of another human beings body without their consent. There is no fixing it if the child grows up, and does not wish to be circumcised. It is a permanent and unchangeable alteration of the normal biological function of their bodies without their consent. That is what makes it morally unethical at the deepest level. It does not matter what benefits it may or may not provide, without their consent it is a violation of their bodily integrity.

 

That's fine, cos men can give informed consent to genital mutilation - unlike baby boys and girls, who are given no choice in the matter.

 

I-like millions and millions of men are-am fond of my circumcised penis and feel no harm/anger/animosity over the fact that I'm circumcised. While I probably wouldn't have my son circumcised, it's not a big deal and the major freak-out we've seen in the last few years over it is unnecessary in my opinion.

I think the circumcision debate is the same as the GMO debate and the vaccine debate: based off pseudoscience arguments and spread through various internet screech sites.

 

Having been circumcised at 6 really screwed me up. I had a benign growth and my doctor recommended it to my mother. So, there I am, getting circumcised at the beginning of 1st grade. I had burning in urination for a week. I lost sensitivity, I know this for a fact. If I have a son(which I admit isn't likely), he won't get cut.

 

How is anything that I wrote based off "pseudoscience"? I am telling you straight up, it does not matter even if it could magically prevent HIV in 100% of all cases, it would still be immoral to perform on non-consenting minors. Only adults can consent to the procedure, and when it is performed at all it is only logical and ethical to perform it when all other methods will not work or have failed. Outside of that, it becomes an individuals cosmetic decision, but children are not capable of making these choices--and parents should be disallowed from making them on their child's behalf without a medical emergency.

There is nothing "pseudoscience" in there--it is a straight up argument based off of consent. The fact that you do not personally care what was done to your body is irrelevant to how others might feel. Someone who was slipped a drug and date raped might brush it off as just an undesirable event that they would just like to forget. Someone else might be traumatized by the experience. One persons feelings and experiences does not trivialize or undermine the other, as they are both equally valid. What does not change is the fact that consent was never given, and therefore they were both raped.

 

I think circumcision is one of "my body my choice" things. We don't need to start circumcising all infants because the benefits only affect sexually active men, aside from some disorders like phimosis. But, its worth stating that the benefits far outweigh the risks.

 

AwesomGaytheist -

As Aussie792 and Pret Allez pointed out the point of comparison is consent. How you feel about one issue and another is irrelevant, because other people may feel differently. One person may be completely traumatized by a rape. Another person may show more resilience. One person may be completely traumatized by being circumcised. Another person may show resilience. It is not a question of which response is right, and which response is wrong. What is wrong is the lack of consent in both actions, and that is what makes the individuals the recipients of violence and therefore victims.

No one can ethically argue, that permanently altering the biological function of another human beings body without their consent is not wrong. That is an impossible position to argue. It does not matter what benefits may be derived from circumcision. There are many things that we could do, in theory, that would have great benefits but would be viewed as ethically wrong.

Let us assume, as an example, that we establish mandatory genetic testing on all children for dangerous genetic mutations. For clarity, let us assume that we are looking at the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, which greatly increase the risk of Breast Cancer in women. Now, let us assume that the FDA approves a drug that, when administered to a pre-pubescent girl, it will prevent her from developing breasts during puberty. One shot. No known serious side effects aside from lack of breast development. Next, the CDC begins to encourage doctors to encourage parents of girls who have tested positive for the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes to give this new drug to their daughters.

Now, a woman can function just fine without breasts. In fact, she can get implants later if she has the money, and can cosmetically get them any size she could want. It saves her from having to undergo a double mastectomy later, should she choose to have them removed to reduce the risks, or from having to undergo cancer treatments if she develops cancer.

Undeniably many lives would be saved. However, the ethical question looms: Is it ethically right to alter the biological function of a young girl without her consent? Just because she tested positive for the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes does not mean that she will develop breast cancer. It simply means that her risks are greatly elevated.

In fact, nearly half (about 45%) with the BRCA1 gene and slightly more than half (about 55%) with the BRCA2 gene would have never developed breast cancer by age 70. This is compared to about 12% of all women--so those women with the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes have insanely high odds. However, the fact remains roughly half of them would have never have been impacted by their BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes.

Now, I am sure some women who would receive such a treatment, would feel that their parents did the right thing. They would defend the decision, and encourage other parents to make the same choice. However, there would also be some women who received the treatment, who would be angry that they did not get the right to make the choice about their own bodies. Who is right and who is wrong?

The answer to that is neither. The way both sides feel is irrelevant to the fact that young girls had their biological functions altered, without their consent, at the possibility that they could someday...just maybe... develop breast cancer.

It is unethical to alter the biological function of someones body simply based on the possibility that something might go wrong with them in the future. It all comes down to consent. If the CDC wants to recommend that adult men who engage in unprotected sex be circumcised, fine. I do not think it would make a difference, but at least it would only happen to adults who would have to consent to the procedure.

When it comes to children, it is ethically wrong. It plays upon a parents worst fears. "You want to protect your child, don't you? Then this is the right decision to make." Doctors hold a place of authority in our society, people trust them. They are encouraged to follow their advice. Most people are not medical experts. Doctors make money by performing these procedures, and are thus incentivized to recommend them, even when they are unnecessary. I am not opposed to circumcision on children when it can be proven to be medically necessary. When something is proven to be medically necessary, that is when the judgement of the parent is called upon to make the decision of consent for their child.

The problem with the circumcision debate is that those who feel fine with what happened to them, and those who view it as a trivial procedure are actively telling individuals who feel violated by what happened to them that their feelings are irrelevant. If someone feels violated by what happened to them, who are you to tell them that they are wrong to feel that way? If someone feels violated about what happened to them, and they did not consent to the activity--then something is wrong.

This is not a question of science, because what science has to say on the matter is not relevant. It is a question of medical ethics. Individuals who perform circumcisions on non-consenting individuals are actively causing harm to their patients, intentionally or intentionally, with good motives or bad. This is why informed consent is important in the medical profession.

 

The majority of HIV infections in the developed West (including the U.S.) are among Men who have sex with Men (MSM). This fact is in opposition to the data used to justify the CDC's new draft recommendations on male circumcision- which are based on studies conducted in African third world countries where heterosexual transmission of HIV prevails. When one puts all the scientific evidence from Africa aside, the CDC's recommendation to indirectly promote circumcision as a means of HIV/STD prevention really boils down to cultural norms and biases surrounding the procedure. The biases and cultural norms favoring male circumcision in the U.S. is simply not prevalent in the majority of other developed Western nations.

Ever since the AAP changed their stance on the matter, my questions have always been: 1)How can you say that circumcision will provide a significant public health benefit to a country where female-to-male heterosexual HIV transmission is much less common than MSM transmission; and 2) If the results of the African studies you repetitively cite can actually be applied to heterosexual populations in the developed West (which they can't be), then why haven't medical societies and health authorities in Europe adopted similar policies and recommendations?

From what I've read in the literature, the majority of HIV infections in European countries, as in the U.S., also stem from high-risk MSM sexual relations. If data from the African studies (cited by the CDC) could be applied to the general populace in Europe, surely the health authorities in those countries would have drafted circumcision recommendations similar to those recently published by the CDC. The fact that European medical societies and health authorities have not similarly promoted circumcision as a means of HIV prevention in their own populace (as part of a larger prevention program) clearly indicates cultural bias on the part of the CDC and American medical societies. I challenge anyone to prove to me that similar recommendations (in European countries) ARE actively being considered.

So Bottom Line: If the benefits far outweigh the risks, then why aren't people in European countries circumcising the majority of their men and boys? I mean, it would all be in the name of HIV/STD prevention, wouldn't it?

 

Sure. It would be fine if consenting adults decided to get circumcised because they believed there were significant health benefits. People can do what they like with their bodies.

But that isn't what we're talking about, is it?

 

I recall that the studies that found a slight protective benefit were where the man was circumcised as an adult and provided a bit of an education on STD prevention and the control group was not provided that education...

 

I going to just lurk through here and say this: I'm not posting my opinion on the subject just a word of caution to others considering posting their's- Please think before you post and try not to get very worked up or angry. Everyone is entitled to their opinion so please accept other's thoughts on the subject. Getting upset won't help anything and isn't good for your health.

 

I mean, I had no choice in the matter. At least when you're informing these men now, you're giving them that choice of whether or not they wish to be circumcised, not just do it without their consent.