Register | Login
Login
Sign in with:
---------- OR ----------
Create Account | Login
Forgot your password?
Create account
As a Member You Can:
  • Join clubs to discuss your interests
  • Connect with people like you
  • Share information, seek advice, get support

   
parenting
India's #1 Family site
Pregnancy Topics..
India's Best Guide to Pregnancy for Indian Women
The Normal Pregnancy
Week-by-Week Fetal Development
Weight Gain, Diet & Exercise
Medical Aspects of Pregnancy
Complications during Pregnancy
Getting Ready for Delivery and Childbirth
Labour and Delivery
Once the Baby Arrives
Related Articles for Pregnancy

You are here : home > Pregnancy > Once the Baby Arrives > Circumcision > Comments

Comments:

Name: Stella
Country: United States
 censorship? My message was blocked.
Name: Shilpa
Country: India
 It really is terrible procedure. However it's not important that always this kind of step is taken because of any religious values. At times it becomes important due to many health benefits too this procedure holds in store for males. You can also download this app called Parentlane. goo.gl/987oND . They give super amazing advices & tips on parenting and baby growth!
Name: rajni.m
Country: United Kingdom
 please see http://www.allvoice s.com/contribu ted-news/46252 03-male-circum cision-in-deve loping-countries I found it was informative and unbiased. thanks for reading.
Name: rajni.m
Country: United Kingdom
 please see http://www.allvoice s.com/contribu ted-news/46252 03-male-circum cision-in-deve loping-countries I found it was informative and unbiased. thanks for reading.
Name: rajni.m
Country: United Kingdom
 http://www.allv oices.com/cont ributed-news/4 625203-male-ci rcumcision-in- developing-countries Risks Bleeding remains the commonest complication encountered during and after circumcision. Ritual circumcision is particularly popular and widespread geographically. An important aspect of sacrifice is the shedding of blood, and circumcision is a notoriously bloody operation, and even in modern surgical conditions hemorrhage can be a problem. A rate of up to 2% is reported by the hospital at Teria region, predominantly occupied by the Muslim population, sometimes requiring blood transfusion. Even there are cases of death in Nepal due to excess bleeding during circumcision. Circumcision should not be performed on infants with certain deformities of the penis that may require a portion of the foreskin for repair. The most common condition for surgery using the foreskin is hypospadias, a congenital deformity of the penis where the urinary tract opening is not at the tip of the glans. Also, infants with a large hydrocele, or hernia, may suffer complications through circumcision. Premature infants and infants with serious infections are also poor candidates to be circumcised, as are infants with hemophilia, other bleeding disorders, or whose mothers had taken anticoagulant drugs (Medicine that prevents or retards the clotting of blood). In older boys or men, circumcision is a minor procedure and can be performed on virtually anyone without a serious illness or unusual deformity. Infections are indicated by fever and signs of inflammation, and are treatable with antibiotics. Many medical practitioners regard circumcision as a relatively minor procedure and, as such, it is likely to be delegated to a junior surgeon. It has been observed that the complication rate is directly related to operator inexperience. Delegation to a junior colleague should occur only after the surgeon in training is fully instructed in the operative procedure. Heightened awareness of the scope and potential for complications will of itself result in a reduced complication rate. Newly circumcised adults usually go through some weeks of intense discomfort as the glans is constantly exposed to rubbing on clothing, until it develops a thicker keratin layer and becomes less sensitive. Circumcision is very painful; therefore doctors performing neonatal circumcision now give some form of anaesthesia; however, most of the circumcision in Muslim community is performed at home, and are carried out without anaesthesia. Morbidity and Mortality Rates Complications as a result of circumcision are usually minor if the physician is experienced and makes sure the instruments that are used are in good working order. Severe penile injuries are rare, but they are serious, and include penile amputation (partial or total), laceration, hemorrhage, and damage to the urinary tract. Other serious complications such as meningitis, penile necrosis, necrotizing faciitis, and sepsis can occur. Some of these, like meningitis and sepsis, can even cause death. According to the research, few years back Rahamadtulla, an inhabitant of Indrapur VDC lost his elder son due to complication after circumcision. Likewise, his younger son too was hospitalized due to excess bleeding after the operation was performed. The research shows that Nepali Muslims perform circumcision at home by an experienced “Hakim” (a traditional Muslim doctor with out academic degree). According to Abdullah Khan, a Muslim boy, performing circumcision at hospital is against their religion, therefore they should perform this religious rite at home. Though, Hakims are experienced but the procedure may go fatal in some cases due to lack of sterilized equipments and proper medical treatment. Similarly, hidden complications may occur. Benefits A recent study conducted by Awaaz Nepal found that circumcised men are at least 60% less likely to become infected from STDs as compared to uncircumcised men. These promising results must be confirmed in ongoing studies in Kenya and Uganda before male circumcision can be promoted as a specific HIV prevention tool. If proven effective, male circumcision may help increase available proven options for HIV prevention, but should not cause the abandonment of existing effective strategies such as correct and consistent condom use, behavioural change and voluntary testing and counselling. Male circumcision does not eliminate the risk of HIV for men and the effects of male circumcision on women’s risk of HIV are not known. It also remains to be demonstrated whether and to what degree circumcision could reduce HIV transmission in cultures where it is not currently practiced. (UNAIDS/WHO, 2005).Epidemiological data suggests that male circumcision provides some degree of protection against STD and HIV infection, especially in developing countries with predominantly heterosexual transmission of HIV . Public health programs have not promoted male circumcision as a means of risk reduction, for a number of reasons. These are worth mentioning. 1) In less-developed countries like Nepal , circumcision is often performed under in non-medical settings, under conditions conducive to sepsis. If men in societies that traditionally do not circumcise men were to opt for circumcision, this might increase the chances of health problems resulting from dangerous surgical practices by poorly trained or untrained practitioners. 2) Men--and perhaps their partners--might develop a false sense of security if they become circumcised in order to avoid HIV/AIDS. They may as a result engage in riskier behavior. 3) There is insufficient evidence that becoming circumcised as adults would protect men from STDs including HIV infection. In fact, the evidence suggests that the earlier the age of circumcision, the greater degree of protection against STDs and HIV. Now, perhaps as a measure of the desperation of circumcision's supporters to find a reason to continue, it is suggested as a preventive against STDs, HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases (on the basis, according to some US doctors, that the keratinised layer on the glans acted as a form of condom!). Evidence regarding the relationship of circumcision to sexually transmitted diseases is conflicting. Early series indicated a higher risk of gonococcal and nonspecific urethritis in uncircumcised men, whereas one recent study shows no difference in the incidence of gonorrhoea and a higher incidence of nonspecific urethritis in circumcised men. Although published reports suggest that chancroid, syphilis, human papillomavirus, and herpes simplex virus type 2 infections are more frequent in uncircumcised men, methodologic problems render these reports inconclusive. Aftercare After circumcision, the wound should be washed daily. An antibiotic ointment or petroleum jelly may be applied to the site. If there is an incision, a wound dressing will be present and should be changed each time the diaper is changed. Sometimes a plastic ring is used instead of a bandage. The ring will usually fall off in five to eight days. The penis will heal in seven to 10 days. Infants who undergo circumcision may be fussy for some hours afterward, so parents should be prepared for crying, feeding problems, and sleep problems. Generally, these go away within a day. In older boys, the penis may be painful, but this will go away gradually. A topical anesthetic ointment or spray may be used to relieve this temporary discomfort. There may also be a bruise on the penis, which typically disappears with no particular attention. Circumcision is not an operation to be undertaken lightly and it should be strictly performed at hospital or by trained medical practitioner. Because of the danger of administering general anesthesia to babies under 6 months of age, and the pain and risks of tissue damage of administering local anaesthetics to the penis, circumcisions in this age group are still mostly performed without any anaesthesia to this day. Parents are not usually told that their sons will go through this agony. There is no doubt that circumcisions are painful for the baby. Indeed, circumcision has become a model for the analysis of pain and stress responses in the newborn. Not only does the unanesthetized newborn cry vigorously, tremble, and, in some cases, become mildly cyanotic because of prolonged crying, but other stress-related physiological reactions have also been demonstrated, including dramatic changes in heart and respiratory rates and in transcutaneous oxygen and plasma cortisol levels.
Name: bash
Country: united kingdom
 obviously things in the usa have not gone forward, in the uk a local aneasthetic is usedand no pain is felt, i work in a circumcision clinic and so far i have never seen a baby scream, it is about time that the usa started to use the same procedure.
Name: indianphantom
Country: india
 the author seems to be quite prejudice on this issue which, i feel, is very unprofessional of him... such biased and exaggerated comments should not be entertained by the publishers. this site has a lot of popularity, and article like this as an 'expert advice' might give this website a 'biased' look.... think about it.... people look up to you for a professional advice.... please give them that..... thanks
Name: W
Country: usa
 "male circumcision provides a degree of protection against acquiring hiv infection, equivalent to what a vaccine of high efficacy would have achieved. male circumcision may provide an important way of reducing the spread of hiv infection in sub-saharan africa." auvert b. et al., 2005, "randomized, controlled intervention trial of male circumcision for reduction of hiv infection risk: the anrs 1265 trial." plos medicine vol. 2, no. 11.
Name: W
Country: usa
 local anesthetic is sometimes used in the u.s., although probably not as often as in britain. there is no evidence to support the assertion that circumcision has any effect on brain "patterns," structure, or function.
Name: pantulun@yahoo.com
Country: netherlands
 it is barbaric to have a child cicumsised. i have been invited ot a cermony for circumcision in eritrea and it was really inhuman do it on the innocent baby. i myself am not circumcised but dont have any problem with cleanliness. all what is required is pull the skin when u take bath or pis and clean it with water or tissue. if it is required in the later stages of life and is medical that has problem with intercourse it is good to be done on advise.
Name: Suva
Country: india
 whatever is natural is natural nad has its own reasoning. why should people try to fiddle with nature ? our experience shows whenever we tried to fiddle with nature, the result was not good! moreover, it may the question of beleive and on which one cannot comment but the fact is that the infant suffers - let the boy have his own choise! that would more praqctical and moderate.
Name: Kritika
Country: usa
 when my son was born here in the usa the doctor asked us if we wanted him circumcised. we said yes only because we were ignorant and had no idea what circumcision really does. i would advise future parents to read up on it especially if they are delivering in the usa. the doctor told us that he would only remove a little skin to expose the pee hole. when baby came back his head was completly exposed. i felt so bad. what is done is done. next baby no way.
Name: Renassault
Country: usa
 you obviously don't understand how cancer works. cancer can't happen from urine infections. it's a genetic mutations. please look stuff up before you post. circumcision may however have advantages in not contracting certain diseases, though i heard recently that such claims were refuted.
Name: jay amalthia_x@yahoo.com
Country: usa
 oh please, people don't commit as many crimes in saudi arabis because they chop off peoples hands and other parts of their bodies. who wants to go to a saudi arabian prison?
Name: skin deep
Country: brazil
 in my country they do not circumcise because it is to painfull for the baby. i think thats a good enough reason for not circumcising new born babies.
Name: Paula
Country: usa
 i was quite surprised at the one-sided and exaggerated nature of the author's comment. i previously thought that this site only supported unbiased and well-researched information. there are many claims made in the article that are blatently untrue. there are likely people reading the article and believing every exaggerated claim simply because they are not well-educated on this topic and trust the authors of this site. how unfortunate. it would have been better if the author would have either stated that his claims are his/her opinion only or simply provided unbiased factual data so people can make informed decisions based on their own judgement and values. my son is not circumcised but my decision was made based on my personal choice and facts; not scare tactics and mis-information.
Name: Editor Indiaparenting
Country: India
 the article does seem biased. thanks for your feedback. we will look into it and rectify it.
Name: os
Country: India
 very surprising article.. looks like this site is only meant for hindus :-). the way you make fun of a practice very common in more than 1/2 of worlds population (christians also do it, not just muslims and jews), its hard to believe that you are not biased. if you are trying to prove that doctors in usa are ignorant or too religios, get ur facts right. any medical practitionar in us would not act on the basis of his/her religious inclinations and this practice is opted for, only after medical facts are proven. if pain is the only reason, you should stop cutting the baby from umb-cord as well, its going to be painful, isn't it ?
Name: Sunjay
Country: usa
 i was born in the usa in the mid 60's and am circumcised. no one else in my family is just me. apparently when i was born the doctor performed the circ right in the delivery room and did not even ask my parents. i can tell you that going back to india as a child always generated a lot of discussion on the topic. my mom was constantly asked by all her family why she wanted her son to look like a muslim. i must admit growing up in the states i did not feel out of place in the locker room in school as all the boys had been circumcised. my wife is indian and was surprised to see my circumcised status. she is ok with it now. we never had any of our sons who were born in usa circd.
Name: CHABROL
Country: South Africa
 male circmcison is agros male perversion genital rape of male serves no purpose ever leave male bodies alone u group of freaks
Name: John
Country: U.S.A.
 this isn't performed on the vast majority of american males. it's about 60%, which is a slight majority. it's less in some places, such as the west coast where it's the inverse. it's not standard medical procedure either. it's elective plastic surgery that requires informed consent, consisting of at least a form listing the risks.
Name: Sundeep
Country: India
 the us is a nation of anti-male, pro-female bigots. while they genitally mutilate men with silly excuses and reasons to justify barbaric acts, they have laws to protect women. if it is ok for the us to genitally mutilate boys, it is perfectly ok for indians to beat their wives, burn women, etc and it is also ok for the people in africa and middle east to cut off female clitorises in the name of custom. the us is hated all over the world due to their double standards and their hatred for men, blacks and non-christians. if they suffer losses in war let them suffer.
Name: Shilpa
Country: India
 i am not advocating this practice but it seems to me that the author of this article is simply looking to create controversy. most of the article is written in such a manner that he is abusing other religions. the biggest problem is that none of his claims are backed up by any medical facts.
Name: Cherry
Country: India
 i dont understand how this site has allowed such foolish article to be published.. the author of this article does not know the abcd of circumcision and has just written the cow-dung he/she had in this brain.. just because this practice is followed by certain religion the author seems to be biased.. india has the highest no. of female infanticide , write something about that with correct stattistics and data..
Name: Asha
Country: India
 this absolutely wrong to do, what ever god has given should be accepted, it is not only about voilence but also going against the nature if a mother can see this happening to the son then she has tough heart i must say
Name: someone
Country: Canada
 there is something that draws a line between what we think about something and what we are obliged to do if we are following a religion. some matters are decided on the commandments and not on your will or conclusion. circumcision is one of them. jewish and muslims follow this practice not because some philosophers had discussed this issue some thousands years ago, but because this is what they are obligated to do. if someone not in favor this is welcome to continue. but one thing has become very clear i.e. indians can't restrain their hatred against muslims!
Name: 1234
Country: Italy
 khatana beutify and adorn penis. it must be done without anesthetia to remember sweet pain.
Name: naheed
Country: Pakistan
 har boy ki khatna lazmi hai khatna se penis dakhnay mai accha lagta ha aur larkay mushtzani say mahfooz rahtay hai puri khaal katna zarori hai mare jannay walay gin boys ki khatna sahih nahi hoi thi un ki mai na dubara khatna karai meri lady doctor har age kay boys ki bahtareen khatna karti hai khatna kay bad lazmi one weak nanga rakkhain
Name: Majid
Country: India
 the last part of your article (violence) is expression of your hatred towards a religion. lets analyse the pros & cons scientifically since i believe science is the ultimate yardstick today to decide anything. secondly please present scientific facts (data/ results of some study) etc instead of commenting wrong logic to prove what you want to state.
Name: Defender of the Foreskin
Country: U.S.A.
 the article is mistaken about the history of nonreligious circumcision in the english speaking world. in the 1870s and 80s, the british and american upper middle class began to circumcise their babies and boys. why? because the christian middle classes of those countries were horrified by the masturbation of boys, and believed that the foreskin was primarily responsible for masturbation pleasure. all sorts of medical and social problems were blamed on the foreskin, but i think these were pretexts. the real reason why masturbation was hated was the traditional christian belief that all sexual pleasure outside of marriage and procreation is evil, because it tempts people, men especially, to behave irresponsibly. also, between 1850 and 1900, there was a huge rise in hygiene expectations. crud and odours under the foreskin which had been accepted as facts of life were suddenly seen as evils to be stamped out. victorian mums and nannies did not like at all having to check a boy's penis, and teaching him to keep clean down there. they much preferred having the foreskin cut off so as to not have to think about that extremely personal part of human anatomy. the practice spread to australia, canada, and new zealand. by 1950, most australians, canadians, and americans born in a urban hospital were circumcised 1-2 days after birth. this was also the case for a majority of british boys born in comfortable and university educated families. but the british working class did not go along, except when mum had social aspirations... one result is that many british colonial admistrators during the dying days of the raj were circumcised, like their muslim subjects. did anyone know that at the time?? in 1950, the nhs in the uk stopped paying for routine infant circ. new zealand followed suit in 1969. in both countries, infant circ has almost totally vanished. ric has declined to about 10% of baby boys in australia and canada, where the crown won't pay for it either. 30 years ago, 90% of caucasian boys born in usa hospitals were circumcised at birth, and another 2-3% were jews cut at home when 1 week old. if you play tennis or handball with an american man, and socialise with him in the changing room, you will see that he is almost always circumcised. many americans have never seen an intact penis in the flesh during their entire lives. a major reason why all english speaking countries other than the usa are walking away from routine circumcision is that mishaps happen. also, using lidocaine did not become standard practice until the last 10-15 years. in the usa, a substantial number of infant circs are still performed without any anesthesia, on a strapped down screaming baby. this should be deemed child abuse. south korean and the philippines circumcise boys between the ages of 5 and 15. korea does it out of admiration for usa practice. in cultures where married men won't stay faithful, where condoms are expensive, unavailable, or disdained, where men do not wash their private parts daily, and where aids is transmitted heterosexually, it is quite possible that routine circumcision could blunt the aids epidemic. that said, i do not believe that the recent african clinical trials were conducted in such a way as to be conclusive. i do not know whether the preceding paragraph describes the sex lives of ordinary indian people. but i am quite confident that it does not apply to the people in the medically advanced countries. infidelity is rarer than people think, because divorce is easy. condoms are sold by every chemist. men take a daily shower. aids is transmitted homosexually and by drug use. the circumcised usa has the highest rate of hiv positivity in the oecd, by far. if not too much is taken off, i suspect that the vast majority of circumcised men urinate and copulate without difficulty. if done in infancy, they have no memory of the event. i am sceptical about claims that circumcision under anesthesia is a psychological trauma. that said, it is important to understand that the consequences of circumcision for sexual behaviour are not known. the tissues discarded by circumcision are very rich in nerve endings and are directly involved in sexual acts. i conclude that they should enjoy the benefit of the doubt as a major source of male sexual sensation. it is also quite possible that the sexual damage from circumcision only sets in gradually over decades. it is not known whether the foreskin matters for women's pleasure. i would love it if an indian woman would interview young sophisticated urban indian women, in complete confidence, and ask them to compare their sexual experiences with muslims and hindus. there are american women who post anonymously than their limited experiences with uncircumcised partners were life changing events. the foreskin is akin to a woman's inner lips. if you grant that, the foreskin is a feminizing detail of the male body, just as the clitoris is the masculine part of the feminine genitalia. a nonerect penis whose head is covered with foreskin does not look totally sexual, it is indecent but not obscene. intact looks less threatening. it is inevitable that some indian boys born in the usa to hindu and christian parents will be circumcised at birth, like many american boys. it is also inevitable that some hindu families residing in india and free of prejudice against muslims will wish to imitate american practice here. but i fear that their preferences will be driven by misconceptions and urban myths, rather than by careful reflection about hygienic and sexual reality. the penis is so embarrassing that nearly all of us know little about it.
Name: rakeshs
Country: India
 hello the girls are also circumcised
Name: rehana naz
Country: Pakistan
 khatana zarori ha kun k lmbi latki khall achi nahi lagti.
Name: faisal
Country: India
 i am muslim and not circumcised and i am happy wat i got
Name: Karelin
Country: Guam
 circumcision is the males' virginity loss. when a boy is circumcised, he is not a virgin at all. foreskin is the boys' original virginity. only narrow-minded people supports male circumcision. circumcision is very common among highly violence-laden countries, such as middle east. male circumcision is very common among very impoverished countries, like africa. in fact, 90% to 94% of boys ages from birth to above 100 years old are not circumcised, permanently and apparently, including uncircumcised muslim, american and filipino boys of all ages and almost all women in the world always favor to uncircumcised boys because of pleasure and satisfaction.
Name: rahul
Country: India
 mere khyal se sabhi ko khatna hona chahiye kyunki khatna ke baad penis apne original size me aa jata hai or medicaly bhi khatna upyogi hai so i reguested to u please be circumsied
Name: SRaj
Country: India
 circumcising an indian boy generates a lot of discussions among relatives. also in india many boys are bathed without any privacy and it gives other female relatives a chance to talk.
Name: rosa
Country: Cyprus
 correction: 20 feet altitude!
Name: Rosa
Country: Cyprus
 becareful of the way insulting muslims and jwish people. better think about dirty-filty way of living urself in india... as all over the world know that u r dirtiest popular capital in world!!! still believe in rat temple! have you seen ur babies drink milk from the same pot rats do that! have u seen in 1st page of ur newspapers u ppl fall down newborn babies from the roof of ur temples with more than 20 altitude! for the sake of braveness!!! do u think is it hygiene for baby's mental!!!!
Name: RONAK
Country: Iran
 compelling medical data much of it accumulated in the past 2 decades, have conclusively shown that a boy circumcised as a newborn has multiple lifetime health advantages compared to one with an “intact” foreskin. these include protection against serious kidney infections in infancy, sexually transmitted diseases (stds) including human immunodeficiency (hiv) infections, chlamydia infection and human papilloma virus (hpv) in young men, and invasive cancer of the penis in middle and old age. in addition, all through life uncircumcised males are more susceptible to penile infections (balanoposthitis) and a variety of skin disorders of the penis such as eczema and psoriasis, as well as more difficulty maintaining good hygiene. about 1% of boys are born with only a pinpoint opening at the tip of the foreskin (phimosis) preventing retraction, leading to painful erections, and requiring future circumcision, at a time when the procedure is more difficult, risky and costly. further, women sexual partners of uncircumcised men with hpv infection are at significantly greater risk of developing cervical cancer. how convincing is the scientific evidence of circumcision advantages? overwhelming in the cases of infant kidney infections, penile cancer and local disorders, and compelling for hiv, chlamydia, hpv and risk of female partners of uncircumcised men with hpv infections. in the mid 1980’s, dr. tom wiswell, a military pediatrician initially opposed to newborn circumcision, examined the united states (us) armed forces records of over 200,000 newborn boys and to his surprise found that uncircumcised boys were 10 to 20 times more likely to develop severe kidney infections in the first year of life. since then a dozen published reports confirm this protective effect of circumcision against infant urinary infections and explain how these infections occur. the warm, tight, moist undersurface of the infant foreskin provides an ideal home for the harmful fecal bacteria that cause kidney infections. these bacteria (“uropathic, fimbriated e. coli”) have tentacles which attach to the foreskin and then climb up the urinary tract to the kidney. the resultant infection leads to kidney scarring in almost half the cases, as well as body salt loss and hormonal changes in some instances. although there is no proven long-term evidence so far of permanent kidney damage, these renal effects are disturbing. all studies on invasive penile cancer from 1930 to the present have shown that this devastating malignancy is almost entirely limited to uncircumcised men. in 1932 it was reported from what is now the sloan kettering institute, that of 120 men with penile cancer none were circumcised; all subsequent studies have confirmed this overwhelming preponderance. in kaiser permanente northern california region (kp), a large health maintenance organization (hmo), recently published studies found that uncircumcised males are about 22 times more likely to get invasive penile cancer and 10 times more likely to get infant kidney infections as are circumcised males (schoen, pediatrics 2000). in the case of hiv, reports published in the late 1980’s in two of the world’s leading medical journals, the new england journal of medicine and lancet, found that uncircumcised men in africa had about four times the risk of acquiring the virus following sexual exposure. in the ensuing 19 years this observation on the protective effect of circumcision against hiv has been repeated in over 30 separate series, including all 8 prospective studies (looking forward from exposure, rather than backwards from diagnosis). further, the likely reasons for the role of the foreskin in the spread of hiv have been clarified. in addition to the risk of the virus entering through foreskin tears, it has been found that the foreskin is rich in special cells, langerhans cells, which trap and normally help kill invading infectious organisms. but in the case of hiv the trapped virus is not destroyed but binds to these special cells and is introduced into the body. as for hpv penile infections and cervical cancer, in 2002 a report in the new england journal of medicine reviewed over 1900 sexual partners from 7 different studies in 5 countries. it was found that uncircumcised men were 3 times more likely to develop penile hpv infection as were circumcised men and female partners of the uncircumcised men were at significantly greater risk of developing cervical cancer. using data from the same study chlamydia infections, common in young adults and teen-agers and an important cause of infertility, was found to be 3 times as likely if the man was uncircumcised. during world war ii, particularly during the north african desert campaign, the combination of sand and lack of hygienic conditions proved disastrous to uncircumcised men. the loss of these soldiers to active duty in combat areas resulted in prophylactic circumcision being performed on many recruits at training centers. a world war ii medical report from the u.s. army referred to the “enormous man-hour loss from disease peculiar to the uncircumcised man,” and stated that “hospital admission from paraphimosis, phimosis, balanitis and condyloma accuminata during 1942 – 1945 totaled 146,793. had these patients been circumcised before induction, this total would probably have been close to zero”. a similar though less well-documented loss to active duty occurred in uncircumcised servicemen in operation desert storm during the gulf war. if the evidence favoring circumcision is so strong, why is the public given contradictory and misleading information? the reasons are at least twofold. probably most important is the lack of interest and objectivity of organized medicine, particularly the american academy of pediatrics. the second source of misrepresentation is by the activist, lay anti-circumcision groups, which dominate the media and the internet and concentrate on anecdotes, testimonials and undocumented opinions. the problems with the position of the american academy of pediatrics (aap) began in 1971 when the newborn section, which would be least likely to see the preventive effects later in life, issued a single, undocumented sentence --“there are no valid medical indications for newborn circumcision”. this statement, unsupported by data or references, revealed an unawareness of the large and growing body of evidence on the protection against penile cancer, as well as the world war ii army data on the elimination of local foreskin problems. due to dissatisfaction with this 1971 statement, an aap task force was convened in 1975, which, after looking at the evidence, found that there were indeed valid reasons to perform newborn circumcision. but, rather than admit that a mistake had been made, the aap, still under the newborn section, chose to obfuscate the issue by semantics, concluding “there are no absolute indications for newborn circumcision”. since there are few absolutes in the world, the issue was only further confused. with the misleading position of the aap and the rapid growth of the lay anti-circumcision groups the newborn circumcision rate fell from 85 – 90% in the 1950’s – 1960’s to about 65% by the late 1970’s. the aap reassessed its position on circumcision following published evidence in the 1980’s of protection against infant kidney infection and the suggestion of hiv prevention. the report of this aap task force, published in 1989, confirmed the advantages of circumcision in prevention of penile cancer, foreskin diseases and hygiene promotion, and listed the disadvantages of pain and possible surgical complications. the possible advantages of avoidance of infant kidney infections (utis) were considered suggestive but not yet proven at that time. in a non-directional manner the parents and providers were advised to consider these confirmed benefits and risks in their decisions. with increasing published research showing advantages, the aap studied the evidence again in a report issued in 1999. in the ensuing years since 1989, the evidence on protection against penile cancer and infant kidney infection had become overwhelming, and prevention of hiv compelling, adding to the advantages of neonatal circumcision. at the same time, local anesthesia has become established as effective and safe, eliminating the pain disadvantage. unexplainably, in the face of this increased evidence of support for the procedure, documented in the report itself, the 1999 conclusions discouraged newborn circumcision. proven evidence was referred to as “potential benefits” and the task force said it could not recommend newborn circumcision but did not say why. anti-circumcision jargon was used – circumcision was referred to as “amputation” of the foreskin, and a known anti-circumcision pediatrician appeared before the group and refers to himself as a “consultant”. further, this anti-circumcision stance, discordant with the evidence, was accompanied by a statement that newborn circumcision is not necessary for the acute management of the newborn, a puzzling and irrelevant statement since newborn circumcision, like immunization, is a preventative health measure, not a treatment for acute illness. the misleading nature of the 1999 aap report has been challenged by pediatricians and other professionals (schoen, pediatrics 2000), and diminishes the credibility of the aap on this topic. in the period from 1999-2005 multiple compelling published studies have confirmed the previous preventive effects of circumcision and given evidence on protection against hpv, cervical cancer , and chlamydia. rather than update its position to reflect this new evidence the aap, in an irresponsible move, simply reaffirmed the 1999 report, thus ignoring all the evidence accumulated over the past 7 years. the lay activist, anti-circumcision groups, beginning in early 1970’s, have dominated the media and recently the internet, and have been successful in gaining public attention for their cause. they have grown in number, and fringe groups have become increasingly bizarre, with picturesque acronyms. among the oldest of these organizations are nocirc (national organization of circumcision information resource centers) and noharmm (national organization to halt abuse and routine mutilation of males). recently, circumcised men desiring replacement of the missing foreskin have joined into groups such as norm (national organization of restoring males), recap (recover a penis) and buff (brothers united for future foreskins). in addition to being featured in the print and broadcast media, a slick anti-circumcision magazine (“the foreskin quarterly”) was published in san francisco, which contained a large classified advertisement section with uncircumcised homosexual men seeking partners similarly endowed. how has the u.s. population reacted to the anti-circumcision groups and the confusing position of the aap? as a measure of the independence of the public in assessing information relevant to infant health, the circumcision rate of newborn from non-immigrant families has actually risen over the past 2 decades. the center for disease control (cdc) recently published statistics on newborn circumcisions from 1979-1999 and found the total rate rose from 64% to 65%, in this period. but the changes within the various parts and ethnic groups of u.s. are more significant than the totals. circumcision rates increased from 56% to 64% among blacks, in the midwest (from 74% to 81%) and the south (from 56% to 61%). the midwest and the south represent the areas of the country with the fewest immigrants. on the other hand in the west, particularly in california where the majority of newborns are now from immigrant families coming from cultures which do not circumcise, the circumcision rate fell from 64% in 1979 to 37% in 1999. in 1979 the majority of births in california were in non-immigrant whites. by 1999 non-immigrant whites constituted only 31% of california births, with 6% in blacks; 47% of newborn births were in hispanics and most of the rest were in asians. since hispanic and asian immigrants rarely have their newborn boys circumcised, even if 100% blacks and non-immigrant whites were circumcised the total circumcision rate would be under 40%, offering an explanation for the 37% western rate. interestingly, there is a suggestion that even among hispanics the attitude toward circumcisions changes as they remain in the u.s. longer. in southern california where the most recent immigrants are found, almost no hispanic infants are circumcised, while a recent survey at san francisco general hospital found that 29% of hispanic newborn boys were being circumcised. in the 3 years since the misleading 1999 aap task force circumcision report, published studies have reinforced the evidence of circumcision protective effects against hiv and hpv infections and cervical cancer, kidney damage following infant urinary infections and local skin disorders, and confirmed the effectiveness of local anesthesia on pain relief. in the face of this proof it seems likely that the rates of newborn circumcision will continue to rise in the u.s. as the public increasingly realizes the medical benefits of this preventive procedure, which is analogous to infant immunizations in the sense of promoting health and preventing future disease. for documentation see reference section, pages 124-135 from the book "ed schoen, md on circumcision timely information for parents and professionals from america's #1 expert on circumcision, rdr books, 2005."
Name: Niloufer
Country: India
 please do something about this article: its badly written incorrect and very biased. surely a website of your stature can handle a delicate issue with more sensitivelity. someone should be moderating the responses as well. the one by jamie on conducting "brain studies" is ridiculous and borders on bigotry, not to mention ignorance.
Name: sairasemi
Country: Pakistan
 khatana zarori ha is sa lulli khobsorat nazar ati ha or errection be sahi hota ha.
Name: momtobe
Country: India
 i was very surprised to see the hysterical tone of voice of the article. are you a 'hindu only' site? circumcision is one of the oldest medical practices. it has it's staunch advocates (both religious & secular) and it's very vocal dissenters. both have the right to debate the issue & put forward their views in a logical and calm manner in order to convince others, not scream & shout even if i done so using the written word. to set the record straight, in urban areas, circumcision on newborn boys is performed with a local anaesthetic in a sterile hospital setting. rural areas do not come in the purview of this debate as poverty forces many medical choices which are not religion-led (e.g. cutting off the umbilical cord with a rusty sickle, be it a poor hindu or a poor muslim woman who has just delivered in the field) i must say i was very disappointed to see this kind of hysterical article o your site (which is a medical site). to put my feelings into perspective, i would have been equally surprised & disappointed had you put up an article singing the praises of circumcision & lamblasting the views of those who disagree with the practice. no more such biased, illogical & prejudiced articles on your site please! we expect more good taste & sense of balance from your site! thanks for reading.
Name: Namita
Country: India
 in egypt and many african countries they circumcise girls in their teens and this involves cutting off the clitoris, the inner labia, and the inner sides of the outer labia. girls scream in pain when this happens. it is done by male barbers in booths in public. it is good to see women suffer, if people in the west and in the islamic world say okay to hurt and torture men via male circumcision. if men are abused, women should be abused a thousand times more.
Name: Sujatha
Country: India
 if male circumsision is justified with reasons and arguments by those who want to hurt men and mutilate them, then, wife beating, bride birning, and female circumcision can also be justified with reasons and arguments. let the millions of women suffer in this world thru rape, assault, female genital mutilation, and other barbaric acts, if it is okay to hurt men. anything can be justified.
Name: Jyotsna
Country: India
 the clitorises of women ought to be mutilated so that mothers who circumcise their sons know what barbaric acts are.
Name: Suresh
Country: India
 the proponents of male circumcision say male circumcision is okay since it promotes hygiene and health. this is just an excuse to justify wrong doing. hygiene can be maintained via routine cleanliness and routine mutilations. women's vaginas get dirty and stinky lot more and lot worse than men's penises. they are expected to keep their vaginas clean. likewise, common sense dictates that men keep their penises clean as well. mutilation is not the answer to hygiene.
Name: Asha and Ravi
Country: India
 the justification in the jewish, western and islamic world that male circumcision is okay but female circumcision is bad is nothing more than a double standard. the two are not different. they are the same because both mutilations reduce sensitivity, are painful, barbaric, and unnecessary. how could anyone say female genital mutilation is wrong and male genital mutilation is okay ? the people in the feminist western nations are bigots, biased and mentally sick.
Name: Sonali Rao
Country: India
 the men are mentally sick in the islamic world and the western world. they say male genital mutilation is good but female mutilation is bad. if they are so stupid, let them suffer. circumcision was not started by women. the stupid men started it and are hurting themselves. women could have also used circumcision of females as a ritual or a method of hygiene. they chose not to do so because they were smarter. however, some women in africa and the middle east are as stupid as men in the west. they circumcise girls. let them suffer as well. there is a price to pay for foolishness and stupidity. a circumcised male from the us is a fool and a circumcised woman from egypt or africa is equally stupid. hyiene can be maintained with routine cleanliness, not routine mutilations.
Name: Sandeep
Country: India
 the women of the national council for women who are anti-man, pro-woman terrorists should all be dragged out of their homes and their clitorises cut off in public. this will make them realize how much of pain and suffering men go thru via routine circumcisions.
Name: Amir
Country: India
 india should ban male circumcision since it reduces a mans sensitivity, is barbaric, is humiliating and more than anything else, a mothers choice, not a babies choice. if wife beating is banned, male circumcision which is child abuse by mothers ought to be banned as well.
Please login to post your comment








Subscribe


 
Follow us on:



Featured Articles - Infertility | Baby Development | Health and Fitness | How to Get Pregnant | Parenting Advice | Weight Loss | Pregnancy Advice | Name Numerology
Baby - Baby Photo Contest | Lucky Names | Lucky Birthdates | Horoscopes | Chinese Calendar | Compatibility Test | Fun Zone
Parenting - Message Boards | Planning a Baby | Pregnancy | Parents of Babies | Baby Names | Baby Name Poll | Birth Announcements | Parenting Quiz
Family - Cooking Club | Love & Relationships | Beauty Tips | Kids Weight Calculator | Recipe Maker
General - Calorie Counter | Personality Quiz | Love Signs | Compatibility Quiz