2. Circumcision has documented medical benefits.
3. The pleasure reduction is a valid issue that should be considered, especially if the patient is too young to be involved in the decision. I think it's arguable since most people don't have anything to compare to.
4. Trying to make circumcision ineligible for government medical coverage would be an example of social engineering that should be illegal. If they can provide free medical care to illegal aliens and gender-reassignment surgery to felons in prison, they can certainly provide payment for circumcision which aside from the "clouding" impact of religious involvement, has proven medical benefits.
5. It's unfortunate that this procedure is best done when someone is too young to be involved in the decision because no doubt it has gotta be a rougher procedure when done on an adult.
Link us some solid documented medical benefits of this. The only real proven + is it is less likely to get an infection.
Simply put, if you are to lazy/stupid to roll up your foreskin before you piss, you are going to get an infection from something else in life. If you again refuse to roll up your foreskin while you clean yourself, you again deserve to get an infection.
Its no different then a female having to take time to clean our her vagina when she showers. Just to make it easier for guys to be lazy is NOT medical benefits.
Policy Title
Back to Policy Statements
Circumcision
The American Urological Association, Inc.® (AUA) believes that neonatal circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks. Neonatal circumcision is generally a safe procedure when performed by an experienced operator. There are immediate risks to circumcision such as bleeding, infection and penile injury, as well as complications recognized later that may include buried penis, meatal stenosis, skin bridges, chordee and poor cosmetic appearance. Some of these complications may require surgical correction. Nevertheless, when performed on healthy newborn infants as an elective procedure, the incidence of serious complications is extremely low. The minor complications are reported to be three percent.
Properly performed neonatal circumcision prevents phimosis, paraphimosis and balanoposthitis, and is associated with a decreased incidence of cancer of the penis among U.S. males. In addition, there is a connection between the foreskin and urinary tract infections in the neonate. For the first three to six months of life, the incidence of urinary tract infections is at least ten times higher in uncircumcised than circumcised boys. Evidence associating neonatal circumcision with reduced incidence of sexually transmitted diseases is conflicting. Circumcision may be required in a small number of uncircumcized boys when phimosis, paraphimosis or recurrent balanoposthitis occur and may be requested for ethnic and cultural reasons after the newborn period. Circumcision in these children usually requires general anesthesia.
When circumcision is being discussed with parents and informed consent obtained, medical benefits and risks, and ethnic, cultural, religious and individual preferences should be considered. The risks and disadvantages of circumcision are encountered early whereas the advantages and benefits are prospective.
Three studies from African nations published in 2005 and 2007 provide convincing evidence that circumcision reduces by 50-60% the risk of transmitting the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) to HIV negative men through sexual contact with HIV positive females. While the results of studies in African nations may not necessarily be extrapolated to men in the United States at risk for HIV infection, the American Urological Association recommends that circumcision should be presented as an option for health benefits. Circumcision should not be offered as the only strategy for HIV risk reduction. Other methods of HIV risk reduction, including safe sexual practices, should be emphasized.
Board of Directors, May 1989
Board of Directors, October 1996 (Revised)
Board of Directors, February 1998 (Revised)
Board of Directors, February 2003 (Revised)
Board of Directors, May 2007 (Revised)
http://www.auanet.org/content/guidelines-and-quality-care/policy-statements/c/circumcision.cfm from the people who deal with penis issues every day. I think the infection issue is most focused on male children before age 1 non circ have 20% increased risk of UTI and 17% on those that get a UTI before 1 have renal scarring.
When on OB watched or completed about 15 circs. All but 2 the baby only cried when the local was administered.
