According to The Age, a Melbourne newspaper, the Australia/New Zealand college of physicians is not yet ready to do the obvious -- recommend the circumcision of all baby boys. Anti-circumcision fanatics have been more successful on that continent than in the USA, dropping the number of healthy, clean-cut boys over the last twenty years.
Here's the article from its June 6 paper with my comments in boldface:
"THE Royal Australasian College of Physicians has flagged it will not change its policy against circumcision despite evidence the procedure can prevent the spread of HIV and other sexual diseases." [How much medical evidence do these docs need?]
"The college, which represents physicians and pediatricians in Australia and New Zealand, has adopted the position that "there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision" since 2004." [A bad decision in 2004, but much worse in 2009.]
"But it has been reviewing this stance in part following recent scientific research suggesting that the risk of HIV infection could be dramatically reduced by the practice. Three trials conducted in South Africa, Kenya and Uganda between 2005 and 2007 showed conclusively, according to the World Health Organisation, "that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60 per cent". [Repeat, docs, circumcision cuts the risk of HIV by 60% -- what are you waiting for? 100%?].
"Further research, published this year in the New England Journal of Medicine, has found that circumcision can reduce the transfer of human papillomavirus — the chief cause of cervical cancer in women — by 35 per cent, and herpes simplex virus — the chief cause of herpes — by 25 per cent." [So, on top of the HIV reduction, it cuts cervical cancer in women by 35% and herpes by 25%, and you Aussie/NZ docs still won't acknowledge the obvious?]
"The journal said the findings underscored "the potential public health benefits of the procedure". The college, which began its review in 2006 and was supposed to come out with a revised policy at the end of 2007, will not do so until the end of this year, as it considers the new evidence." [Better late than never, but what are you waiting for?]
"It is estimated that 10 to 20 per cent of male infants are circumcised in Australia." [Ewww, the thought of so many filthy foreskins in Australia should make us all sick, especially their future female partners].
"The chairman of the college's panel considering the issue, David Forbes, of the University of Western Australia's school of pediatrics, said the African studies had delayed the new recommendation, but so too had the fact "it is a contentious and non-clear-cut issue". [It's only contentious for the foreskin lovers who won't recognize medical evidence.]
"It's quite clear that there's evidence that circumcision in adult males helps prevent HIV in Africa," said Professor Forbes. "It's not so clear that circumcision in Australia in infants is of benefit to the infants or the community. Policy is about getting the right message to health planners so that we have safe but cost-effective expenditure." [The best time to circumcise is at birth, folks. Safer, cheaper, faster, pain-free, cleaner. Everyone knows that.]
New concerns about the practice of circumcision in Australia were raised last week after the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute found that parental consent might not be enough to protect the circumcisers of baby boys from later legal action. [Another distraction by the foreskin lovers. Since when can parents not consent to life-saving medical procedures for their children?]
No specific laws regulate the removal of the foreskin. [The biggest improvement would be a law to require circumcision before entering school, as a public safety measure like vaccinations.]
Professor Forbes said he wanted to have the college's position "finalised by the end of this year, hopefully before". [Again, better late than never].
"He said the benefit of reducing human papillomavirus "appears not to be such an issue in Australia" because a vaccine was being produced. And there were important differences between the HIV situation in Africa and Australia: HIV rates in Australia were far lower and condom use was much higher." [HIV rates are lower in Australia because the previous generation, now sexually active, were circumcised at birth. With so many young boys now afflicted with a foreskin, those rates will change by 2020].
"He said while there was clear evidence that circumcision reduced the rate of urinary tract infection, this alone did not justify routine use of the procedure as the infection rate was so small.
He said the 10-strong panel consisted of pediatricians, surgeons and policy and public health experts. "There are extremely strong views at both ends of the spectrum for those who promote circumcision and those who oppose it," he said." [Yes, another benefit of circumcision, the reduction of UTI. The list of benefits goes on and on and on, but Aussie docs ignore them].
"Undertaking elective surgery of minors who are not able to consent is for many pediatricians an even bigger issue, especially when there are examples of (Muslim) societies who elect to have it at puberty when people can choose." [This 'consent' issue is another red herring raised by the anti-circ fanatics. What about parental rights and responsibilities to keep their children healthy?]
"Dr Forbes declined to preview what the college's recommendation would be. "Policy change tends to be evolutionary, not revolutionary, and given that there are no trials of neonatal circumcision for prevention of HIV, I wouldn't expect revolutionary change. I would expect evolutionary change." [Just follow the science, dudes].
"Roger Short, from Melbourne University's department of obstetrics and gynaecology, hopes the college will view circumcision in a more favourable light. "It would be exciting to see the Royal College come forward with a slightly more progressive attitude than its previous pronouncements," he said. "The evidence is coming in, and it is irrefutable, that there are major benefits." [Thank you, Dr. Short. You're a doc who speaks the truth on the science].
"Professor Short said there were no grounds for making circumcision mandatory." [Well, I disagree about this. Circumcision should be required for all boys, with exceptions for the obvious conscientious religious objection].
Instead, the college should change its recommendation. "I think we should go from saying 'when in doubt, don't circumcise' to 'when in doubt, do'." [Absolutely. So Aussie/NZ docs, just do it].
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Tim Tebow & Circumcision: a Public Service Circumciser
I feel sorry for Tim Tebow, the awesome quarterback for the University of Florida 'Gators, not because he has a terrific future in front of him. But because people cannot seem to blog about him without tossing in his missionary trip to the Phillipines during the 2008 spring break.
During that trip, Tim took part in circumcising Filipino boys who almost all get circumcised in that country. Circumcision is a rite of passage in a country that is about 95% foreskin-free. To be uncircumcised is to be "supot" or "pisot." Both words carry a negative connotation far beyond the simple expression "uncircumcised," the literal translation. If you call another dude supot, it's like saying he's unclean, a baby, and unworthy to be a man.
While some college kids go on drunken debaucheries during spring break, Tim was helping out his father on a mission trip. Here was the account at the time:
"In an impoverished village outside General Santos City in the Philippines, Tebow helped circumcise impoverished children. On the Friday of a weeklong trip to the orphanage his father's ministry runs in Southeast Asia, Tebow assisted with the care of locals who had walked miles to the temporary clinic that the ministry helped organize. More than 250 people underwent medical and dental procedures, some of them from "Dr. Tebow," who has no formal surgical training."
"The first time, it was nerve-racking," he said. "Hands were shaking a little bit. I mean, I'm cutting somebody. You can't do those kinds of things in the United States. But those people really needed the surgeries. We needed to help them."
"Tebow didn't plan on operating that day in the Philippines -- his job was to preach to the hundreds of people before they had teeth pulled or cysts removed. But as the day rolled on, he grew curious about the three Filipino doctors and his friend, UF graduate and aspiring doctor Richard "R.B." Moleno, in the bus-sized vehicle that served as a mobile hospital.
"Tebow started as a helper and gofer, holding tools and running errands for the medics. By afternoon, he was asking questions and looking for more active ways to help. And by the end of an exhausting day, he was wearing gloves and a mask, wielding surgical scissors, finishing off stitches with a snip."
In my view, Tim Tebow's public service circumcision of Filipino boys is something to praise, not ridicule. But, of course, the media is the media. And Tebow is a lightening rod. I just hope as he enters the NFL, he'll remember how important it is to promote a clean-cut, foreskin-free country both here at home and in Asia, too.
During that trip, Tim took part in circumcising Filipino boys who almost all get circumcised in that country. Circumcision is a rite of passage in a country that is about 95% foreskin-free. To be uncircumcised is to be "supot" or "pisot." Both words carry a negative connotation far beyond the simple expression "uncircumcised," the literal translation. If you call another dude supot, it's like saying he's unclean, a baby, and unworthy to be a man.
While some college kids go on drunken debaucheries during spring break, Tim was helping out his father on a mission trip. Here was the account at the time:
"In an impoverished village outside General Santos City in the Philippines, Tebow helped circumcise impoverished children. On the Friday of a weeklong trip to the orphanage his father's ministry runs in Southeast Asia, Tebow assisted with the care of locals who had walked miles to the temporary clinic that the ministry helped organize. More than 250 people underwent medical and dental procedures, some of them from "Dr. Tebow," who has no formal surgical training."
"The first time, it was nerve-racking," he said. "Hands were shaking a little bit. I mean, I'm cutting somebody. You can't do those kinds of things in the United States. But those people really needed the surgeries. We needed to help them."
"Tebow didn't plan on operating that day in the Philippines -- his job was to preach to the hundreds of people before they had teeth pulled or cysts removed. But as the day rolled on, he grew curious about the three Filipino doctors and his friend, UF graduate and aspiring doctor Richard "R.B." Moleno, in the bus-sized vehicle that served as a mobile hospital.
"Tebow started as a helper and gofer, holding tools and running errands for the medics. By afternoon, he was asking questions and looking for more active ways to help. And by the end of an exhausting day, he was wearing gloves and a mask, wielding surgical scissors, finishing off stitches with a snip."
In my view, Tim Tebow's public service circumcision of Filipino boys is something to praise, not ridicule. But, of course, the media is the media. And Tebow is a lightening rod. I just hope as he enters the NFL, he'll remember how important it is to promote a clean-cut, foreskin-free country both here at home and in Asia, too.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
American Males: Damaged by Circumcision the Anti-Circs Say
If you're circumcised like me, then when the anti-circ foreskin lovers spout this bullshit (excuse the language) about us being damaged, you can't help but wonder what they're drinking. Check out this youtube video of a circumcised dude who left his son wtih a filthy foreskin. He's a so-called "intactivist" who marched on Washington (all ten of them) to protest "genital mutilation" of males in America. What do you think of this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fofyk2MK__M
Music Soothes Circumcision of Infants
When I was circumcised at birth in the 1980s, nobody bothered with any kind of pain relief like many docs use today. Personally, I think it's a waste of time and money, but if it helps parents feel better, go for it. My own view is that whatever pain there is, if any, it's momentary, and most of us circumcised males never remember it anyways.
Now there's another study that suggests that playing music during newborn circumcision soothes the child. Great, if it works. There's no real way to measure pain in an infant anyways, as increased heart beats and breathing would be natural with any snip, snip. Most of this "pain" talk comes from the anti-circs who want us to feel like we are murdering our own kids when we give them the life protection of a clean-cut penis. I've heard the foreskin lovers have gone so far as to dub in shrieks and wails to medical videos of newborn circumcisions. Just another form of photo-shopping.
When it comes to music, hey if it makes the parents feel better, again, be my guest. I don't think the kid cares at all about it, any more than they do about pain meds. Boys have been circumcised for thousands of years, and the old-fashioned ways still work for me. Here's a clip from the article. Please comment below.
"Music may reduce pain for babies during certain procedures, research suggests"
Posted May 28, 2009
By LiveScience Staff, LiveScience
"Music may help ease pain and provide therapeutic benefits for babies undergoing common medical procedures, including circumcision, according to new research.
"Neonatal units are increasingly using music as a way to manage pain for babies during routine practices. It is thought that playing music helps calm babies and stabilize some of their vital functions. However, past research has not been strong enough to back up these claims.
"To evaluate music's effects on infants, scientists from the University of Alberta in Canada reviewed nine previous studies published between 1989 and 2006, which included both premature and full-term babies.
"It was hard to draw an absolute conclusion from these trials because they included different study populations that were tested in different ways, and some of the trials were not set up optimally. However, the Alberta researchers found very preliminary evidence that music has a beneficial effect during certain procedures, such as blood sampling and circumcision.
"One study, which the researchers rated as high quality, looked at the effect of lullabies and nursery rhymes during circumcision. The results showed that playing music did help lower pain and prevent the babies' heart rates from increasing."
Now there's another study that suggests that playing music during newborn circumcision soothes the child. Great, if it works. There's no real way to measure pain in an infant anyways, as increased heart beats and breathing would be natural with any snip, snip. Most of this "pain" talk comes from the anti-circs who want us to feel like we are murdering our own kids when we give them the life protection of a clean-cut penis. I've heard the foreskin lovers have gone so far as to dub in shrieks and wails to medical videos of newborn circumcisions. Just another form of photo-shopping.
When it comes to music, hey if it makes the parents feel better, again, be my guest. I don't think the kid cares at all about it, any more than they do about pain meds. Boys have been circumcised for thousands of years, and the old-fashioned ways still work for me. Here's a clip from the article. Please comment below.
"Music Soothes Circumcision Pain"
"Music may reduce pain for babies during certain procedures, research suggests"
Posted May 28, 2009
By LiveScience Staff, LiveScience
"Music may help ease pain and provide therapeutic benefits for babies undergoing common medical procedures, including circumcision, according to new research.
"Neonatal units are increasingly using music as a way to manage pain for babies during routine practices. It is thought that playing music helps calm babies and stabilize some of their vital functions. However, past research has not been strong enough to back up these claims.
"To evaluate music's effects on infants, scientists from the University of Alberta in Canada reviewed nine previous studies published between 1989 and 2006, which included both premature and full-term babies.
"It was hard to draw an absolute conclusion from these trials because they included different study populations that were tested in different ways, and some of the trials were not set up optimally. However, the Alberta researchers found very preliminary evidence that music has a beneficial effect during certain procedures, such as blood sampling and circumcision.
"One study, which the researchers rated as high quality, looked at the effect of lullabies and nursery rhymes during circumcision. The results showed that playing music did help lower pain and prevent the babies' heart rates from increasing."
Friday, May 29, 2009
Is Tattooing a Child Worse than Circumcision?
The Atlanta Journal Constitution is getting dozens of comments on this posted question: "Is tattoing a child worse than piercing ears, circumcision?" It's a question that comes about because a father has been charged with child abuse for tattoing his 3-year old son. http://blogs.ajc.com/momania/2009/05/28/is-tattooing-a-child-worse-than-piercing-ears-circumcision/
Of course, there's no parallel at all between inflicting a tattoo on a child and giving him the life protection of circumcision. One has no value except to satisfy the father's weird tatt desires, while the other -- the removal of the disease-inflicting foreskin -- is recommended by the World Health Organization to protect the male and his parents. Most of the posters see the immediate difference, but it's still amusing to see the anti-circ foreskin lovers carry on.
Of course, there's no parallel at all between inflicting a tattoo on a child and giving him the life protection of circumcision. One has no value except to satisfy the father's weird tatt desires, while the other -- the removal of the disease-inflicting foreskin -- is recommended by the World Health Organization to protect the male and his parents. Most of the posters see the immediate difference, but it's still amusing to see the anti-circ foreskin lovers carry on.
Monday, May 25, 2009
TSA Full Body Scanners Can See Circumcisions
We all know the stories about uncircumcised males being embarrassed about their foreskins, at least in circumcised countries like America. Turns out the new full body imaging scanners being put in place by the TSA at airports across the country are so detailed that TSA will soon know the circumcision status of every dude who gets scanned. I haven't yet heard if the anti-circumcision groups are up-in-foreskins, oops, I mean up-in-arms about this, but it wouldn't surprise me. Keeping track of the nation's uncircumcised males is one way to know who is the most likely threat to public health, I suppose. The TSA is obviously looking for objects and devices that can blow up planes, but I dare say that more people have died from foreskins infecting a male or his partners (especially female) with HIV, HPV, STDs, and other ailments than from a bomb on board an American plane.
Anybody think the day will come when the TSA will haul aside uncircumcised dudes and send them off to a doctor? I admit, that's extreme. But you do wonder whether knowledge that a man's circumcision status will be checked every time he goes through an airport has any impact on circumcision rates in the USA.
Anybody think the day will come when the TSA will haul aside uncircumcised dudes and send them off to a doctor? I admit, that's extreme. But you do wonder whether knowledge that a man's circumcision status will be checked every time he goes through an airport has any impact on circumcision rates in the USA.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
"Foreskin on the Forehead: The Latest in Beauty"
A fellow named Buck Wolf posted that headline and the following article on Friday. Turns out the Brits have found at least one good use for the otherwise disgusting foreskin -- grind it up and use it in skin treatments. The product is called Vavelta (not to be confused with Velveeta, the cheese product that foreskins and smegma might remind you of), and it apparently really helps damaged skin. So instead of discarding those ugly little pieces of foreskin, let's recycle them to help our ladies!
"If you find the idea of taking Botox injections disgusting, why not try a little foreskin on the forehead? Scientific American is reporting that 150 patients in Britain have received injections of Vavelta, a skin treatment derived from the discarded foreskins of babies intended to rejuvenate damaged skin, including wrinkles, acne, burns and surgical incisions.
"It seems that Vavelta is brimming with fibrobrasts, a skin firming protein that becomes scarce with age. The treatment is approved in the U.K., but the F.D.A. has yet to approve the drug.
Of course, many boys have been circumcised for generations, and no one seems to ask where the foreskins end up. Some, we now now, end up on women's faces. But if you support stem cell research (and I do), how can you oppose this?"
"If you find the idea of taking Botox injections disgusting, why not try a little foreskin on the forehead? Scientific American is reporting that 150 patients in Britain have received injections of Vavelta, a skin treatment derived from the discarded foreskins of babies intended to rejuvenate damaged skin, including wrinkles, acne, burns and surgical incisions.
"It seems that Vavelta is brimming with fibrobrasts, a skin firming protein that becomes scarce with age. The treatment is approved in the U.K., but the F.D.A. has yet to approve the drug.
Of course, many boys have been circumcised for generations, and no one seems to ask where the foreskins end up. Some, we now now, end up on women's faces. But if you support stem cell research (and I do), how can you oppose this?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
