A discussion of recent posts telling how the misinterpretation of the trials in Africa will result in an increase of HIV infections in Africa. A Practical Ethics article titled When bad science kills, or how to spread AIDS describes how poorly designed and promoted studies mislead others. Andrew Sullivan of The Dish added his support to the Practical Ethics article. Georganne Chapin adds her voice to the call for ethical studies that are not promoted with misleading statistics to further an agenda, like the unnecessary circumcision of African men.
A report of a Dublin plastic surgeon who says circumcision is a form of genital mutilation that exposes patients to a number of health risks. The doctor said: “There is no rationale for carrying out this extremely painful, traumatic and potentially dangerous procedure on male infants.”
The studies that brag about a 60% decrease in the HIV rate for circumcised men is actually a relative value. The absolute decrease in HIV infection was only 1.31%, which is not statistically significant.
The Ministry of Public Health in Kenya plans to launch a male circumcision campaign for children under 15. It seems that adult men do not want to be circumcised. Maybe they know the value of having a whole penis. So the Kenyan government wants to circumcised children before they know better.
Kenya is moving forward with the male circumcision campaign for baby boys despite not having sufficient capability to provide the circumcision surgeries under proper medical conditions. They cite the reduced cost for circumcising baby boys. In reality, it may be that the men are not lining up to be circumcised, so they are going after the baby boys, who cannot complain or refuse the operation.
A baby boy circumcised by a doctor in a hospital suffered a botched circumcision. The doctor cut off the boy’s glans. Two attempts at reattaching the glans failed. Now, four years later, the boy still suffers pain when he urinates. Sadly, people do not think about botched circumcisions until it is too late.
A critique of a Huff Post article by Mitchell Warren. The article promotes male circumcision and its use against HIV. The article’s author uses words loosely and avoids any discussion of the ethics of male circumcision. Tony, the blogger for Choose Intact, addresses many of the statements in the article and points out how they are wrong or fail to address the ethical issues of male circumcision.
A man talks about the circumcision decision and how it should not be up to the parents to decide if a baby boy gets to keep his whole sex organ intact. He believed that in college when a professor asked the question in class. He believes it now, with more world experience to back him up. He says,
The prevalence of circumcision of newborns, in this country, seems largely to be an exercise of thoughtless conformity, as well just another thing that medical professionals can charge for.
Commentary comparing society’s refusal to condone prescribing pain medications when there is no medical necessity to society’s approval, and even encouragement, of male infant circumcision, which is an elective, non-therapeutic surgery with no medical justification for the surgery at that time.
A news report about an upcoming decision from the Australian state of Tasmania regarding using government funds to pay for male infant circumcision. Normally, Medicare does not pay for elective procedures. For some reason, male infant circumcision is still covered, even though it is an elective surgery.
A father writes about mothers. His kids have a book that is titled “All Mommies Love Their Babies.” Along with that love is a mother’s desire to protect her children. Unfortunately, some mothers wrongly believe that having their sons circumcised protects them. That is not true. Circumcision is harmful, during the circumcision surgery, after the surgery as the wound sits in a dirty diaper, and later, as a man and his wife live and love with an incomplete sex organ. Sure, it still works, sort of. But not as well as it would with the original equipment still installed. Foreskin restoration helps, but a restored foreskin is not the same as the original equipment.
An intact man tells how he escaped being circumcised when he was born. He compares the foreskin to eyelids: skin on the outside, mucous membrane on the inside. The foreskin serves a purpose. Everyone should have one. He is one lucky guy. I am jealous because I have to restore my foreskin to get just some of what he has had all his life. *sigh*
A NSFW photo comparison of the glans from an intact penis and a circumcised penis. The intact glans is smooth and glossy. The circumcised penis, although pink, is rough and course. The intact glans has the appearance of mucous membrane, which is what it is.
A unique look at how economic principles support leaving a child whole and intact, that is, economic rules argue against male infant circumcision. For example, TANSTAAFL tells us that there are risks and complications that offset the benefits advocates cite.