I don´t buy these alleged benefits. Do you have data/studies which show the reduced risk for cancer and infections?
Maybe you are also for a female circumcision? Maybe those skin parts also impose a risk?
No, this is all religous stuff and the benefits are just made up.
I am a (not circumcized) biologist and if this little skin would impose a risk, nature would have long removed it by mutation & selection. The human body is good as it is and does not need a surgery to get optimized.
Alright, let me take this time to unveil them. There are series of research works done to prove the benefits of male Circumcision, and even my few years of experience in the nursing profession has increased my understanding of it's benefits. For more facts and data kindly go through these research works and links I just shared. I even added one of them in this work.
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/male-circumcision-reduces-risk-genital-herpes-hpv-infection-not-syphilis
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3684945/.
I have written on female Circumcision anyway in my previous post, you can also check out my previous post on female genital mutilation. I am totally against female Circumcision because it clearly has no medical benefits rather it poses high level of risk.
Science is based on facts, and series of researches that I can't even post here have shown the benefits of male Circumcision.
Also, the appendix is a vestigial organ in the body, but most times its prone to infections and inflammation in which its cut off from the body through surgery that's the same reason why this little skin is removed to prevent some of those issues that may surface later if care is not taken.
In this case, my argument is not based on religion or any beliefs, rather it is based on pure facts and it's in no way imposing it on anyone, just as I wrote in my work it's a matter of choice but that wouldn't stop me from bringing to lime light it's benefits as a medical personnel.
Thanks for your comments.
The study and the review you referenced, rely mainly on data from African males who were circumcised as adults - under clinical study conditions by educated and well trained physicians and those subjects were taken care post surgery to treat any complications, unlike the many children and youths circumcised in real life, with occasional (but in sum many) complications. So data from these populations can´t be generalized, alone from the very different sexual behavior in Africa than in many parts of the world, where there is much less promiscuity an hence a much less risk for infections with HIV and HPV. There must have been a reason why they went to Africa, right?
But that´s the point, there is no free choice in most cases. Children are forced to this highly traumatic intervention! It is a mutilation, a crime against humanity and a violation against the right to physical integrity.
I understand the angle you are coming from, but the truth still remains that in the medical field when the benefit of a procedure outweighs the risk involved, then it's seen to be good and this agrees to the principle of consequentialism in which if the consequences of an action is good it's termed right. From my experience as a nurse, I still believe that the benefits of male Circumcision outweighs any risk and that is why it is right medically.
Even if it may be medically useful (in case one has as an adult a high risk due to his sexual preference), is it ethical to enforce it to a boy, considering the risks? I say cleary NO!
Well, having explained everything clearly to you, I can only say that you are entitled to your opinion, as everyone has diverse ways they perceive things or ideas.
I love the argument and as a doctor I don think I can win on this.
The only thing I can say is it circumcision should be done based on consent.
Who gives the consent before the age of 18 is usually the parent. So whatever the parent feel is right is what should be done
Simple question for you; Do the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risk??
Short answer: no. Because it is not only the risk of infections or bad healing after the surgery, but also the foreskin is higly innervated. Nature had some thoughts by "putting" all those nerves there. Many circumcised menalso mentioned that their sex experience is worse after the intervention and that they are desensitized due to the permanent exposure of the glans to the environment. Actually simple logics.
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/130/3/e756/30225/Male-Circumcision
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11904-009-0025-9
What percentage of people have an infection after surgery?
It's not everything that nature puts that are useful in the body.. I hope you are aware.
The appendix is one.
An umbilical hernia is another.
There are a lot of things that you can come up with in nature that might need some form of reconstruction.
Phimosis, balanitis and the likes are not a good experience.
The fact that there is increased risk of his an increased risk of things settling within the foreskin is questionable.
Moving forward, you will probably say that I might also support female circumcision. I do not and the reason is the clitoris is separated from the vagina and so can't get easily infected.
However, the penis goes into the vagina which is a home for a lot of organisms and so makes it more scientific and more beneficial to be circumcised as a male.
As I said, I've nothing against not being circumcised.
I have seen a lot of men who are not circumcised and have not had any complications.
I sincerely love your analogies