You want to know why so many people dismiss the ravings of the anti circumcision fanatics? Just read their latest press release, announcing their intent to demonstrate at this weekend's conference of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
"Intactivists will be protesting what they believe to be an unethical and sexist practice—infant circumcision—at the American Academy of Pediatrics National Conference and Exhibition (AAP NCE, 2009), Washington Convention Center, Washington, DC, October 17-20. . . . Intactivist Dan Strandjord, Chicago, says, “Cutting off the end of a boy’s penis is not what a medical “hero” should do. It is a "villainous" practice, there is no medical reason for it. . . . Demonstrators will be carrying placards satirizing the conference’s cartoon characters of pediatricians as flying super-heroes. It depicts a super-hero protecting a baby boy with the comment: “Real heroes don’t cut babies.” Girls are protected from genital cutting, even a pinprick, by federal law, but boys have no protection. Circumcision is a multi-million dollar income stream for doctors, a source of revenue that is almost doubled in order to repair poorly performed circumcisions."
Well, it will be interesting to see what kind of national news coverage these antics get. The media generally ignores the couple dozen nutcases who show up for their annual penis walk on the U.S. Capitol.
It's pretty much a waste of time to rebut all the lies in this typical anti-circ press release. Circumcision is hardly "villainous" because there are so many medical reasons to do it. And the typical foreskin lover tactic of equating female genital mutilation with male circumcision is getting rather boring. As for docs making money off circs, at $50 or $100 a clip, it's not exactly a money winner.
So let the fanatics march on. It only makes their "cause" seem sillier and sillier.
Showing posts with label fanatics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fanatics. Show all posts
Friday, October 16, 2009
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Why Are Anti-Circumcision People so Fanatic?
I admit there's a whole lot more to my life than circumcision -- which explains why I don't post something on my blog every day. But I have been increasingly struck by how -- for the anti-circumcision crowd -- the only thing in life that's important to them is "Saving the Foreskin."
Why is that so? What drives the foreskin lovers into such rage that they surf the internet to post mind-numbing repetitive comments on every reference to circumcision? Have you noticed that, too? What is their deep-set psychological problem that life for them begins and ends with the foreskin?
I was reminded about that when I noticed that almost all the "blogs" called up by Google when you type in "circumcision" are authored by anti-circs. This blog is one of the few mainstream blogs out there that espouse normal American behavior, the circumcision of male newborns. It got me wondering if I was really all alone out there -- or whether the anti-circs are just so angry that everyone of them needs to hyperventilate on the internet.
For most Americans at least, circumcision is hardly ever thought of. When our sons are born, we circumcise them for all the right reasons, then move on. It's a topic that never really comes up again. At some point -- for me it was health class in school -- we learn that we were circumcised, told it was the healthy thing to do (that's what my health teacher said), and then again move on. The next time it comes up is when we have a son and, once again, we do the right thing and have the kid circumcised just like us. That pretty much ends the circumcision discussion in the average American household!
But for the anti-circ fanatics, every day begins and ends with the foreskin. I don't know how they carry on a normal life being so obsessed with this useless piece of skin. But guess is that the whackiness of it all comes through to the vast majority of Americans -- which is why we so easily dismiss them when they march on the Capitol, demand "genital integrity," and deride our medical institutions when they seek to follow the medical evidence towards universal circumcision.
I'll leave it to commenters to deduce the psychological hang-ups of the anti-circumcision crowd. Those of us who favor a clean foreskin-free society don't need to get rabid about it. We'll just go about our daily business, knowing that sound science is our side.
Why is that so? What drives the foreskin lovers into such rage that they surf the internet to post mind-numbing repetitive comments on every reference to circumcision? Have you noticed that, too? What is their deep-set psychological problem that life for them begins and ends with the foreskin?
I was reminded about that when I noticed that almost all the "blogs" called up by Google when you type in "circumcision" are authored by anti-circs. This blog is one of the few mainstream blogs out there that espouse normal American behavior, the circumcision of male newborns. It got me wondering if I was really all alone out there -- or whether the anti-circs are just so angry that everyone of them needs to hyperventilate on the internet.
For most Americans at least, circumcision is hardly ever thought of. When our sons are born, we circumcise them for all the right reasons, then move on. It's a topic that never really comes up again. At some point -- for me it was health class in school -- we learn that we were circumcised, told it was the healthy thing to do (that's what my health teacher said), and then again move on. The next time it comes up is when we have a son and, once again, we do the right thing and have the kid circumcised just like us. That pretty much ends the circumcision discussion in the average American household!
But for the anti-circ fanatics, every day begins and ends with the foreskin. I don't know how they carry on a normal life being so obsessed with this useless piece of skin. But guess is that the whackiness of it all comes through to the vast majority of Americans -- which is why we so easily dismiss them when they march on the Capitol, demand "genital integrity," and deride our medical institutions when they seek to follow the medical evidence towards universal circumcision.
I'll leave it to commenters to deduce the psychological hang-ups of the anti-circumcision crowd. Those of us who favor a clean foreskin-free society don't need to get rabid about it. We'll just go about our daily business, knowing that sound science is our side.
Friday, September 11, 2009
UN Reaffirms Value of Universal Circumcision
Maybe, just maybe, we are beginning to see government agencies (outside of Africa) embrace the goal of universal circumcision, a society where the foreskin can no longer pose a threat to a male and his partners. Experts from the World Health Organization, UNAIDS, and the South African Centre for Epidemiological Modeling applied mathematical modeling to a number of studies showing the benefits of circumcision.
Here are some of their conclusions:
* "Using a 10-y time horizon, one new HIV infection would be averted for every five to 15 men newly circumcised. For the most successful interventions, where almost all men are circumcised, HIV incidence could be reduced by ~30%–50% over the same period."
* "Women, even if not directly protected, would benefit indirectly from the introduction or expansion of male circumcision services because their probability of encountering an HIV-infected male sexual partner gradually declines with programme scale-up."
* "Circumcising men who have not started sexual activity leads to the greatest population-level benefit in the long term. . . . Of course, circumcising both adult males and neonates would maximise the short- and long-term impact of circumcision on HIV incidence."
* "The estimated costs per adult male circumcision are between $30 and $60 depending on the programme setting, with neonatal circumcision costing about one-third this amount. . . . By comparison, estimates of discounted lifetime treatment costs typically exceed $7,000 per HIV infection if only first-line treatment is provided, and twice as much if second-line treatment is available."
Put simply, universal circumcision at birth provides the best health protection at the lowest cost. Circumcising before sexual activity is best, and one HIV case can be prevented for every five males circumcised. Isn't that worth it?
Now let's hope our friends at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) are able to read this report through the fog of crap being tossed up by the anti-circ fanatics.
Here are some of their conclusions:
* "Using a 10-y time horizon, one new HIV infection would be averted for every five to 15 men newly circumcised. For the most successful interventions, where almost all men are circumcised, HIV incidence could be reduced by ~30%–50% over the same period."
* "Women, even if not directly protected, would benefit indirectly from the introduction or expansion of male circumcision services because their probability of encountering an HIV-infected male sexual partner gradually declines with programme scale-up."
* "Circumcising men who have not started sexual activity leads to the greatest population-level benefit in the long term. . . . Of course, circumcising both adult males and neonates would maximise the short- and long-term impact of circumcision on HIV incidence."
* "The estimated costs per adult male circumcision are between $30 and $60 depending on the programme setting, with neonatal circumcision costing about one-third this amount. . . . By comparison, estimates of discounted lifetime treatment costs typically exceed $7,000 per HIV infection if only first-line treatment is provided, and twice as much if second-line treatment is available."
Put simply, universal circumcision at birth provides the best health protection at the lowest cost. Circumcising before sexual activity is best, and one HIV case can be prevented for every five males circumcised. Isn't that worth it?
Now let's hope our friends at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) are able to read this report through the fog of crap being tossed up by the anti-circ fanatics.
Monday, September 7, 2009
1954 Time Magazine Article Promotes Universal Circumcision
Sometimes the old ways of doing things make the most sense, even if the reasons for doing them advance with medical science. That's what came to mind as I read this 1954 article in an April 5 issue of Time Magazine. Entitled "Medicine: Circumcision & Cancer," the weekly news magazine, which I'm told (before my time) influenced a few generations of American parents, reinforced the growing belief among the parents of Babyboomers in the USA that a clean-cut penis was the only penis to have.
I'm going to reprint the article with my comments in bold italics. Enjoy.
"The fact that 85% of the boy babies born in U.S. private hospitals nowadays are circumcised, regardless of the parents' religious beliefs, may be an important factor in reducing cancer of the uterine cervix (neck of the womb) in years to come. Dr. Ernest L. Wynder. of Manhattan's Memorial Center for Cancer and Allied Diseases, has reached this comforting conclusion after studying the striking differences in the incidence of cervical cancer among women with different marital histories."
So by 1954, 85% of American boys were clean cut. That number probably grew to 95% ten years later. America had become, even 55 years ago, a circumcised nation. And reinforcing a mother's view that her son should be clean-cut is this report that a male's circumcision reduces cervical cancer in a woman.
"It all began with the oft-quoted observation that among Jewish women whose husbands have been routinely, ritually circumcised, cervical cancer is only one-tenth to one-fifth as common as among non-Jewish women of similar age and social status. Was this coincidence or what? To find out, Dr. Wynder arranged exhaustive interviews of 1,900 women in twelve U.S. hospitals scattered over four states; one-third of them had cervical cancer, while the rest (the controls) had other diseases of the pelvis."
"The answers ruled out the possibility of coincidence. They also ruled out pregnancy and number of pregnancies, abortions, miscarriages and douches as possible causes of this type of cancer (which, in frequency, is second only to breast cancer among U.S. women, and takes an estimated 14,000 lives a year, despite thousands of operations for removal).
Looks like Dr. Wynder knew what he was doing here, using lots of women (1,900) in four states. I suspect the anti-circ fanatics (and, fortunately, there were not any at the time) would have found something to complain about.
"Dr. Wynder's key findings:
¶ A woman whose husband is uncircumcised runs 2½ times as great a risk of cervical cancer as a woman, married only once, whose husband has been circumcised.
¶ A woman married only once, but beginning intercourse at 16, is twice as likely to develop cervical cancer as a woman married between 20 and 24. The likelihood keeps going down as the marriage age goes up.
¶ A woman who has two or more marital partners runs a proportionately greater risk of cervical cancer than those married once.
Note that circumcision is not the only factor Dr. Wynder found in the reduced rate of cervical cancer in women. Multiple husbands and early intercourse can increase the rates. But a woman whose husband has a foreskin is 2-1/2 times more likely to get cervical cancer than the woman with a clean-cut circumcised husband. Given that women so often call the shots about whether their son is circumcised, this kind of medical evidence must have been very persuasive indeed.
"That marriage and sexual relations are not the only elements in cervical cancer was shown by the fact that 1% of the victims had never had intercourse. To test his U.S. findings, Dr. Wynder enlisted the help of physicians in India and found direct confirmation: cervical cancer is far commoner among the wives of uncircumcised Hindus than among those of circumcised Moslems, though their hygienic standards are about the same. "
Again, even though cleanliness was the same among both, the wives of uncircumcised Hindus were at greater risk for cancer than circumcised Muslims. No surprise there. In fact, it matches the earlier observation about lower cervical cancer rates among Jewish women.
"Among men, penile cancer is far rarer than cervical cancer among women, but its occurrence follows the same pattern. Dr. Wynder's deduction: circumcision may be a big help in preventing both, presumably because it facilitates personal cleanliness."
When Time Magazine calls circumcision "a big help" back in 1954, you know that American parents were listening. Today, with so much more medical evidence in support of newborn circumcision because it reduces the risk of STDs, HIV, HPV, cancer, and the like, you have to wonder why the Centers for Disease Control and the American Academy of Pediatrics are being so slow to embrace what their parents and grandparents embraced 55 years ago. Except for a few fanatics with loud voices, the vast majority of American parents want to keep America a clean circumcised nation. We knew it in 1954 -- and we know it in 2009!
I'm going to reprint the article with my comments in bold italics. Enjoy.
Medicine: Circumcision & Cancer
TIME: April 5, 1954
"The fact that 85% of the boy babies born in U.S. private hospitals nowadays are circumcised, regardless of the parents' religious beliefs, may be an important factor in reducing cancer of the uterine cervix (neck of the womb) in years to come. Dr. Ernest L. Wynder. of Manhattan's Memorial Center for Cancer and Allied Diseases, has reached this comforting conclusion after studying the striking differences in the incidence of cervical cancer among women with different marital histories."
So by 1954, 85% of American boys were clean cut. That number probably grew to 95% ten years later. America had become, even 55 years ago, a circumcised nation. And reinforcing a mother's view that her son should be clean-cut is this report that a male's circumcision reduces cervical cancer in a woman.
"It all began with the oft-quoted observation that among Jewish women whose husbands have been routinely, ritually circumcised, cervical cancer is only one-tenth to one-fifth as common as among non-Jewish women of similar age and social status. Was this coincidence or what? To find out, Dr. Wynder arranged exhaustive interviews of 1,900 women in twelve U.S. hospitals scattered over four states; one-third of them had cervical cancer, while the rest (the controls) had other diseases of the pelvis."
"The answers ruled out the possibility of coincidence. They also ruled out pregnancy and number of pregnancies, abortions, miscarriages and douches as possible causes of this type of cancer (which, in frequency, is second only to breast cancer among U.S. women, and takes an estimated 14,000 lives a year, despite thousands of operations for removal).
Looks like Dr. Wynder knew what he was doing here, using lots of women (1,900) in four states. I suspect the anti-circ fanatics (and, fortunately, there were not any at the time) would have found something to complain about.
"Dr. Wynder's key findings:
¶ A woman whose husband is uncircumcised runs 2½ times as great a risk of cervical cancer as a woman, married only once, whose husband has been circumcised.
¶ A woman married only once, but beginning intercourse at 16, is twice as likely to develop cervical cancer as a woman married between 20 and 24. The likelihood keeps going down as the marriage age goes up.
¶ A woman who has two or more marital partners runs a proportionately greater risk of cervical cancer than those married once.
Note that circumcision is not the only factor Dr. Wynder found in the reduced rate of cervical cancer in women. Multiple husbands and early intercourse can increase the rates. But a woman whose husband has a foreskin is 2-1/2 times more likely to get cervical cancer than the woman with a clean-cut circumcised husband. Given that women so often call the shots about whether their son is circumcised, this kind of medical evidence must have been very persuasive indeed.
"That marriage and sexual relations are not the only elements in cervical cancer was shown by the fact that 1% of the victims had never had intercourse. To test his U.S. findings, Dr. Wynder enlisted the help of physicians in India and found direct confirmation: cervical cancer is far commoner among the wives of uncircumcised Hindus than among those of circumcised Moslems, though their hygienic standards are about the same. "
Again, even though cleanliness was the same among both, the wives of uncircumcised Hindus were at greater risk for cancer than circumcised Muslims. No surprise there. In fact, it matches the earlier observation about lower cervical cancer rates among Jewish women.
"Among men, penile cancer is far rarer than cervical cancer among women, but its occurrence follows the same pattern. Dr. Wynder's deduction: circumcision may be a big help in preventing both, presumably because it facilitates personal cleanliness."
When Time Magazine calls circumcision "a big help" back in 1954, you know that American parents were listening. Today, with so much more medical evidence in support of newborn circumcision because it reduces the risk of STDs, HIV, HPV, cancer, and the like, you have to wonder why the Centers for Disease Control and the American Academy of Pediatrics are being so slow to embrace what their parents and grandparents embraced 55 years ago. Except for a few fanatics with loud voices, the vast majority of American parents want to keep America a clean circumcised nation. We knew it in 1954 -- and we know it in 2009!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
