Talk:Circumcision/Archive 21

1643:

more than his point of view and is clearly an inconsiderate comment. I do read the literature and policies about circumcision frequently and I have been doing so for quite a while and so far I have not seen any american medical organization stating that there is no NET benefit to the procedure (if there is one, I would think that this is an isolated case). Quite contrary, most reliable medical organizations say that there are risks AND benefits and that, at this point, it is rather difficult to decide if the risk/benefit ratio is biased to any side. Therefore performing circumcision is right now a matter of informed parental choice rather than a recommended procedure. That is the only conclusion allowed by the literature and all the policies about it.

1128:"The multiple benefits of newborn circumcision are additive over a lifetime and include prevention of cancer of the penis, of balanoposthitis, and protection against the effects of phimosis and poor hygiene as well as prevention of UTI and STD, particularly of HIV. Protection against these diseases constitutes a substantial public health advantage and provides a strong argument in favour of instituting universal newborn circumcision in Europe." ...Use of "prevention" is gross exageration and dishonest. 2613:

matter whether you borrow it from Bob (who only has books on how fishing is ruining the environment) or Big Library (who have thousands of books on all subjects)? I would say no: it's the same book. Now suppose that Bob has underlined passages particularly hostile to fishing in the book (that, overall, is fairly neutral) and has added sticky notes attacking the author in places where Bob disagrees. That's a little different, because now it's no longer the same resource.

1602:... that says no net benefit and forms "the basis of policy." The Associations all discuss the alleged benefits because they are following the literature and convention. Schoen...Adler... Repeating penile cancer like it's a relevant risk ect., UTI's like they are a relevant risk (as long as antibiotics and behaviors ...feeding and contact ... work), HIV as though there's anything that works other than safe sex and good hygiene... Our readers suffer. 504:"An epidemiological study of UTI during the first year of life involving 169 children born in Israel found that 48% (27/56) of the male infants presented with UTI within 12 days after ritual circumcision.51 The incidence of UTI among male infants was significantly higher just after circumcision (from 9 to 20 days of life) than during the rest of the first month of life and significantly higher in the first month of life than during the rest of the year. 31: 2081:

to quote the AAP's Task Force: "The Task Force found the evidence of low incidence, high-morbidity problems not sufficiently compelling to recommend circumcision as a routine procedure for all newborn males. However, the Task Force did recommend making all parents aware of the potential benefits and risks of circumcision and leaving it to the family to decide whether circumcision is in the best interests of their child."

2531:

still, the point of maximum sexual sensation is on the inner surface of the prepuce close to the frenum, and this point is bound to be removed. That the intensity if sexual sensation is impaired by circumcision is vouched for by men who have undergone the operation in adult life. This is surely an aesthetic tragedy that requires some justification, even if what you've never had you never miss.

1894:"Yes, physicians are often called specialists, specialist physicians and consultant physicians and are also known as internists in the USA, but all these terms mean the same thing and in Australia and New Zealand we call them physicians. ... In Australia and New Zealand a physician completes over eight years more education and training to specialise in a particular area of medicine." 157:. The RR is 0.38, which is protective, but less so than the 0.13 that Singh-Grewal's meta-analysis reported. That meta-analysis also commented that "Both socioeconomic status and ethnicity were associated with circumcision status in several studies but there was no evidence of an association between these factors and UTI outcome between the circumcised and uncircumcised groups." 2526:

recently. His views are very modern, indeed if footnotes were added citing the appropriate modern studies, you would be able to convince me that it had been published in the 21st century. I wasn't sure how to work this into the history section, plus I don't have the time at the moment, so decided to post this here and invite another editor to help. Here are some quotes:

1882:"The RACP is a varied and energetic organisation responsible for training, educating and representing over 9,000 physicians and paediatricians in Australia and New Zealand. ... The RACP believes it has a duty to better the health of all Australians and New Zealanders through development of health and social policy and advocating for its implementation." 2346:

benefits (and the short shift on harms) because it misleads the reader into thinking the "benefits" are relevant. The very short text devoted to harms is much more telling...remember, harms roughtly equal benefits (according to cost'benefit studies); so they should be given equal representation...you can assume the pro-circ dominate this Topic!

1076:, but we currently miss Review of the literature in relation to risks and benefits shows there is no evidence of benefit outweighing harm for circumcision as a routine procedure in the neonate. That last paragraph says something very different and very important (weighing benefit and harm) for the reader ... that you force them to miss. Why? 687:

historical events or politically-charged issues." And that "Widely acknowledged extremist or even terrorist organizations or individuals, whether of a political, religious, racist, or other character, should never be used as sources for Knowledge (XXG)." And "Cite peer-reviewed scientific publications and check community consensus"

1912:"Physicians or Paediatricians who are not Fellows or members of the College but are registered as specialists by the Australian Health Insurance Commission or are on the vocational register of the Medical Council of New Zealand on the basis of overseas qualifications ... Australian/Overseas Residents ... New Zealand Residents" 1288:) which describes the formation of some of these organisations, explicitly refers to mutilation and FGC, and fully supports the stated claim. The primary author is Marilyn Milos, founder of NOCIRC, and the article is by no means neutral, but that's not a problem - we're describing strong views, after all. 2665:

I have edited this section to make it easier to read, by using shorter sentences. Two other changes should be noted. I have removed the word 'controversial' from the beginning of the section. This value judgment is not appropriate under the NPOV rule. The whole section gives a fair description of the

2647:

Specifically, CIRCS is pro-circ because it lists 26 articles on UTI's and 3 (two from Wiswell!) on complications. The sexual function section contains research finding primarily neutral or positive (beneficial) effects to circ's. The anatomy section does not contain relevant information about nerve

2612:

Firstly, it changes the emphasis from highlighting of passages (or worse: insertion of editorial) to the selection of articles. I don't think that this is appropriate, because we're only linking to specific articles, not the entire site. Consider this: if I suggest you read a book on fishing, does it

2244:

Thirdly, the emphasis is different from the rest of the article because in this particular part we are summarising the arguments of certain people (eg Schoen) in the ongoing debate. Just as we summarise the arguments of anti-circumcision groups ("condemns infant circumcision as a form of male genital

1366:

That's not a quote from the study authors, Tip, that's the journalist writing the article. The quote from the study authors follows shortly afterwards and is: "The public health issues raised by these findings clearly involve weighing the longer-term benefits of routine neonatal circumcision in terms

1233:

The baby born in a typical hospital labor setting who is then removed to the nursery is at much greater risk for UTIs from stray bacteria than the infant born at home. Circumcision is no guarantee of health; contact with the mother and her breastmilk are an infant's first and foremost protection from

1225:

During delivery in a natural setting, the infant acquires aerobic and anaerobic intestinal flora from the mother, together with the necessary immunoglobins to resist infections from these agents through the placenta and breastmilk. When an infant is born in a sterile hospital setting, he is carefully

754:

The current version is biased and dishonest because it excludes the phrase "there is no evidence of benefit outweighing harm," excludes the phrase "routine circumcision may contravene human rights has been raised because circumcision is performed on a minor and is without proven medical benefit," and

581:

The genital integrity movement condemns infant circumcision as a form of male genital mutilation that they consider comparable to female circumcision, and does not differentiate between religio-ritualistic versus purely elective circumcision of minors. When discussing non-religio-ritualistic neonatal

411:

In the second paragraph of the Topic find this sentence: The genital integrity movement condemns infant circumcision as a form of male genital mutilation that they consider comparable to female circumcision, and does not differentiate between religio-ritualistic versus purely elective circumcision of

2634:

I find it quite surprising that you would describe yourself as not pro-circumcision, Jake. The comment that I revised - and which you restored to the article - was a straight-out attack on CIRP and only mentioned the fact that it highlighted articles in a particular way. In fact, both CIRP and CIRCS

2483:

The Paediatrics and Child Health Division, The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) has prepared this statement on routine circumcision of infants and boys to assist parents who are considering having this procedure undertaken on their male children and for doctors who are asked to advise

2379:

1731:

medical associations" and the purpose is to educate not confuse the reader. RACP is not a single nation association, and the heading for it's policy should reflect it's makeup ... not be AUSTRALASIAN, implying one nation that includes asia? From another discussion ... RACP does say "shows there is

1552:

There is a spectrum of views within the BMA’s membership about whether non-therapeutic male circumcision is a beneficial, neutral or harmful procedure or whether it is superfluous, and whether it should ever be done on a child who is not capable of deciding for himself. The medical harms or benefits

988:

825:

771:

178:

I was going off a September 1, 2006 New York Times article: On the Job, Nursing Mothers Find a 2-Class System, plus that article I submitted to discussion on breast feeding, mother/neonate contact, and the incidence of UTI's ... I tried to go back in the archive but it's been stored in a way I can't

2618:

Secondly, I find it surprising that CIRCS should have a pro-circumcision point of view. As the site owner, I can tell you that a deliberate choice was made to express no point of view, which is why the library contains only indexes, rather than summaries. And if there is any point of view, it ought

2080:

As Fan-1967 remarked above, they chose very specific wording. For whatever reasons, they did not discuss benefit and harm in general, but discussed it in the specific context of "as a routine procedure in the neonate". I'm not going to speculate about why they added that qualifier, but I would like

1642:

DanBlackham said that "there is a very broad consensus in the international medical community that there is no NET medical benefit to cutting off a boy's healthy foreskin". Being a MD myself and being a member of the international medical community I would like to say that this statement is nothing

1356:

I hadn't actually read that link, sorry. You're still left to weigh the harms against benefits; note that the study author is probably making that consideration when he concludes: "evidence is insufficient to support routine neonatal circumcision." And I don't see anyone weighting sexual harms at

1221:

The best protection from UTIs comes not from cutting off a small piece of the baby's skin, but from the mother herself. Jan Winberg et al (the Lancet, March 1989) concludes that the number of UTIs in newborn males could be reduced by strict rooming in of mother and baby or by active colonization of

1865:

Avi's speculation that the RACP represents other countries besides Australia and New Zealand not supported by many quotes on the RACP web site. Every time the RACP web site mentions a country it says "Australia and New Zealand". No where on the RACP web site is there any indication that the RACP

1229:

During the first few days of the infant's life, he should be handled by the mother and other members of his immediate family as exclusively as possible, whether circumcised or intact. The mother's resistance to the pathogenic effects of her own gut flora and that of the other family members should

605:

links. One which details harms and benefits and finds to not recommend, the second to a pro-circ article with serious factual (gross exageration ... my own bold where it's extreme) problems. Look at his conclusion: "The multiple benefits of newborn circumcision are additive over a lifetime and

591:

that has to do with legal issues, not the topic (as stated) of genital mutilation. You have to read through fairly thick legalese to find discussion of specific harm, which is the focus of the genital integrity movement. Again, the paragraph is about the increased discussion of elective neonate

114:

For example, the risk of UTI for infant girls is much higher than the risk of UTI for uncircumcised boys. The absolute risk of UTI's in infants is strongly (off the charts more than circ benefits) correlated with breast milk feeding and close mother/child contact at birth. In the US, breast milk

2576:

One note at the beginning of the references read like an attack on CIRP for 'bias'. I felt this was unbalanced. First, references are often linked to CIRCS, which is pro-circumcision and often highlights articles and opinions that support this point of view. However, this was not mentioned. It is

1959:

Dan, the statement of the RACP has always been in the article. What are referencing when you discuss pro advocacy? Everything in the article cites reliable sources, at least the hundred or so I have checked. Please elucidate the logical connection between the antecedent and the consequant in your

1925:

The words of the RACP from its own official web sited should carry more weight than original research based on one word in the name of the organization that is not supported by any other evidence. Avi and Jake, if you have any evidence that the RACP represents countries besides Australia and New

1605:

The controversy so much with respect to the science, but it's application. The science says "not recommend," but parents ask for the procedure based on misconceptions about hygiene (hygiene = a look). Doctors look the other way, figuring no great harm anyway. But then there's that ~30% rate of

1468:

252:

be offset by the tidal cycles of the moon and barometric pressure in the Gulf states as well. And the infection rate of rhinovirus may increase as well. In other words, this completely unproven logical chain may not be valid and is completely irrelevant unless you can bring a reliable source that

2680:

I noticed that someone removed the emphasis from the quotation of the RACP policy. This policy has been criticised but that is beside the point. A quotation must be as accurate as possible. Certain words in that quotation were bolded in the original; therefore they should be bolded when they are

2345:

Jakew would like to think circumcision is a medical topic, but factually it's a religious, then a ritual or cultural act (the decision to circ) according to all medical associations. Benefits exist, but are minor and have failed to justify the risks. Many editors love the emphasis on potential

718:

I would certainly agree that a better source should be found, but I should point out that the boystoo link didn't even mention female circumcision, nor did it mention mutilation. This means that even in the (frankly unlikely) event that it were published in a reliable source, it would still be a

686:

reminds us, "Anyone can post anything on the web." We usually rely instead upon published sources in peer-reviewed journals, books from non-vanity publishers, etc. It also tells us that "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to

2530:

The terminal part of the organ is covered by a delicate membrane and is highly sensitive. The function of the foreskin is to preserve and protect the sensitiveness. Circumcision does away with this protection, the covering membrane becomes coarsened from exposure and sensation is impared. Worse

2525:

I recently read the book "Behind the mask of medicine" which was published in 1941. While I was reading Atkinson's cahpter entitled 'Excesses in Surgery' I was constantly comparing the color of the pages to the color of the copyright page, to be certain that someone had not slipped the pages in

2250:

Lastly, such a summary of the argument must be honest and representative. If Schoen balances risks and harms, then we can certainly summarise his conclusion. But we cannot misrepresent him as saying something other than what he actually says, nor can we make original criticism of his arguments.

2536:

On the psychological side, it does not seem probable that the procedure can have any beneficial effect, while it may bery easily have a harmful one. That most children recover from it is no argument in its favour. Aesthetically, it is undoubtedly bad - at best a mutilation, at worst a trajedy.

1557:

Indeed, it would be difficult to formulate a policy in the absence of unambiguously clear and consistent medical data on the implications of the intervention. As a general rule, however, the BMA believes that parents should be entitled to make choices about how best to promote their children’s

290:"Several studies have found more high-risk behavior among circumcised men than among uncircumcised men, suggesting that confounding by sexual behavior may actually underestimate the protective effect of circumcision."...and I don't find any (other than they rarely use them)reference to condoms. 1274:

Neither seem to support the claim in the article (as an aside, both are letters, which are rarely peer-reviewed. Most tend to receive editor review instead, with less scrutiny in the case of e-letters. That doesn't make them unreliable, I'm just pointing it out for the sake of correctness).

1616:

The wording on all these statements was very, very carefully chosen. They should be interpreted for exactly what they say and don't say: "not recommend" is not the same as "recommend not". If they had meant "we recommend you do not" they would have said so. They said "we do not recommend".

1490:

Scientific studies show some medical benefits of circumcision. However, these benefits are not sufficient for the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) to recommend that all infant boys be circumcised. Parents may want their sons circumcised for religious, social and cultural reasons. Since

1332:

to cutting off a boy's healthy foreskin. Circumcision of healthy boys is nothing more than a form of permanent body modification motivated by culture or religion. Trying to present non-therapeutic circumcision of healthy boys in the article as anything other than a medically unnecessary

918:

There's also the subject of Parental Responsibility to consider. If, after a review of all the available, modern, unbiased literature, the parents decide to circumcise, I doubt they could be charged with Human Rights abuses (IANAL), as they believed they wer acting in the childs best

2066:

Sorry, my connection is slow and my writing ... I often don't know there's been a reply. Likewise, please wait awhile before reverting my edits to the Topic ... you might as well do it all at once later and I often crash into the reverted. You can't deny the bias in omitting the

1085:

For weeks this section was very long (complete). Then BOOM it's distorted and short. Who's to judge length, especially when all those medical "benefits" and detailed at least three times? Harms (judged to be equal or worse by med assoc's) currently get the extreme short

2666:

law and those who have objected to it. A second change is to replace the word 'noted' with 'stated'. 'Noted' implies that the comparison with the Nazis is true; 'stated' is a non-judgmental way of stating that this was said without implying anything about its accuracy.

997:

The possibility that routine circumcision may contravene human rights has been raised because circumcision is performed on a minor and is without proven medical benefit. Whether these legal concerns are valid will be known only if the matter is determined in a court of

2501:

In all cases where parents request a circumcision for their child the medical attendant is obliged to provide accurate information on the risks and benefits of the procedure. Up-to-date, unbiased written material summarising the evidence should be widely available to

1004:

835:

791:

1397:

In light of the new study and concern over this issue, it's time to reconsider the evidence, says Jay Berkelhamer, president of the pediatrics academy. "People feel very passionate on both sides, but I'm going to recommend that we take another careful look at

1049:

Hmm. Now let's remember that we're trying to summarise and condense this information. This is similar to writing a lead section for an article: we want to keep it short, summarise the key facts, while leaving the complex and inconclusive for discussion later

204:

With the exception of Fleiss and Hodges BMJ letter (for which they were criticised for misrepresenting their references), I'm not aware of any journal article that found no correlation with circumcision. Every study that I've seen has found an association.

1558:

interests, and it is for society to decide what limits should be imposed on parental choices. What those limits currently are is discussed below, together with the legal and ethical considerations for doctors asked to perform non-therapeutic circumcision.

115:

feeding is strongly correlated with incomes, and incomes are strongly correlated with circ rates. The relative lower incidence of breast feeding among the uncircumcised (in the USA) easily "explains" the difference in UTI's (between circ'd and intact).

2556:

Not sure why you'd think these views modern. I'd have thought that such claims might be common prior to 1966 (Masters and Johnson), but after that date would indicate a lack of familiarity with the evidence. :) But I guess it might belong somewhere in

266:, of the four studies to investigate the risk for women, three have shown decreased risk among women with circumcised partners. And of four studies to investigate condom use and circumcision, three found that circ'd men were more likely to use condoms, 1717:

Dan, the quote above doesn't support your claim that it is not for physicians in other countries. Logically, "in X and Y" does not imply "not in Z". I agree with Avi - we should in general adopt the title that the organisation chose for themselves.

2273:

The intro paragraphs set the topic outline and introduces points. For example, the second paragraph is about discussion and introduces the idea of "perceived medical benefits of the procedure." That phrase serves to summarize the arguments in

2208:"(i.e. reduced incidence of urinary tract infection in infant males, decreased incidence of penile cancer in adult males, and possibly decreased susceptibility to certain sexually transmissible diseases, including human immunodeficiency virus)" 865:

Tip, this is simply POV pushing on your part, by cherry-picking the parts that are most anti-circ from the statement, rather than those that summarise it well. For crying out loud, the sentence referring to the alleged human rights violation is

634:, Tip. By all means find a better source that represents the views of the GI movement, but a webpage from "boystoo.com" does not meet the necessary standards. As for the ADC article, it's a published article in a peer-reviewed journal. It meets 1525:

says: "The overall evidence of the benefits and harms of circumcision is so evenly balanced that it does not support recommending." Those all say no net benefit. Why is so much text in this Topic devoted to "benefits," and so very little to

1708:, not in other countries. If you can find any evidence, other than the name of the organization, that indicates countries besides Australia and New Zealand are included in the organization I will agree the title should be "Australasian". -- 1500:

With careful reading of the policies from the AAP (and, as Dan quotes, the RACP), we can see that both are opposed to routine circumcision (ie. of all newborn boys) but that doesn't mean that they're opposed to parents choosing it for their

1298:

Last night I realized saying peer reviewed was exagerating; sorry. Your source/article is better than the ones I found, and much better than what's in the Topic. Could you please put it in (I haven't learned to use the detailed format)the

1579:

to my argument previously. Furthermore, with the exception of the BMA (who do not review the medical evidence) the medical organisations all discuss the benefits at considerable length, so it is perfectly reasonable for us to do the same.

2335:

It's a medical topic, so some discussion needs to be included. However, I'd certainly agree that the discussion is too long and does need to be condensed. Unfortunately that's very hard to do in a manner that all editors find acceptable.

1226:

protected from the possible contamination caused by his mother's body fluids, and then isolated in a nursery. His first contact with the E. coli strain is from the hospital environment itself, against which the infant has no resistance.

1844:. If you can find someone who specifically interprets the RACP in that manner in a published reliable source, fine. Otherwise, we can do no more than an accurate (either all or main points, NOT cherry picking) quote of the RACP . -- 1389:

No, we have the associations' stance based on reviews of the literature as of the date of their statement. To my knowledge, none have issued a statement since this study came out (unsurprisingly, since was only published a few days

2648:

systems that are generally considered erogenous. OMG you've got Wiswell in the anti-circ section!! Adler and his stupid multiple choice questionare (why didn't he include UTI's and HIV instead of only 'hygiene'?) Give us a break.

704:

By the nature of the sentence, we are looking for a representative position statement from the genital intregity movement. The current link certainly fails horribly, boystoo is better. I'll keep looking for a more representative

1222:

the baby with his mother's anaerobic gut flora. In this research, UTIs in newborn males were caused by Escherichia coli, bacteria not of maternal origin; therefore, infants had no passive resistance to these pathogens.

1121:"Moreover, about 70 million circumcised US males currently attest to the lack of effect of circumcision on either emotional health or sexual performance, and no objective studies indicate otherwise." ...not honest and 1997:

Again, we are trying to give the reader "national policy" ... not another review of the "benefits". But I don't mind showing the whole statment properly. It would be better to just include policy ... leaving out the

1238:

If I'm not mistaken, this seems to be merely the opinion of the author. An opinion piece is very weak evidence. However, Haught cites Winberg, which may be a appropriate for the article, if it refers to circumcision.

1987:

contains ten paragraphs, Tip. Are you seriously suggesting that we're being "dishonest" if we omit any one of those ten? Or is it only dishonest when you'd like to quote a particular sentence to advance your POV?

951:

If you insist on its inclusion, then yes, the qualifier must be present. It should also be last in the quotation (as per the source). The paragraph beginning "If the operation is to be performed" should also be

2324:

which is already linked from this article. This article is already enormous, shouldn't most of the material on the medical aspects be removed from this article, with just a brief summary and link remaining?

236:

Finally, the HIV benefit may easily be offset by decreased use of condoms, and we have only measured the infection rate in men. The infection rate in women may go up. Circ'd are less likely to use condoms.

2144:

Sorry, but the point stands that the CPS "summary" is much more detailed than the RACP summary ... which fits your purpose of misleading the reader with tons of medical benefits. You force the omission of

2545:

It would seem that doctors in the forties were not all completely clueless. Especially considering how much riskier circumcision is when antibiotics are not available and doctors didn't wash their hands.

148:

study reporting on UTI rates gave 2.2% for boys and 2.1% for girls below 2 years of age (I'm quoting from memory, as the AAP's site is not working at present). UTIs become more common in girls than boys

2537:

Physically, it can be justified on one ground and one ground only, the existance of and exreme degree of phimosis, a state of affairs which is quite uncommon. Very few babies, therefore, actually

676: 2099:

Actually, to avoid violating their copyright, we must ensure that we delete (ie, edit out) most of the summary from the quote. What we select to include should be most representative of

1521:

says: "Review of the literature in relation to risks and benefits shows there is no evidence of benefit outweighing harm for circumcision as a routine procedure in the neonate," and the

2264:

First, I try to make individual changes so other editors can revert that specific change. Why do you do blanket reverts? In doing so, you take responsibitity for that specific revert.

2498:

If the operation is to be performed, the medical attendant should ensure this is done by a competent operator, using appropriate anaesthesia and in a safe child-friendly environment.

1001:

If the operation is to be performed, the medical attendant should ensure this is done by a competent operator, using appropriate anaesthesia and in a safe child-friendly environment.

839:

If the operation is to be performed, the medical attendant should ensure this is done by a competent operator, using appropriate anaesthesia and in a safe child-friendly environment.

788:

If the operation is to be performed, the medical attendant should ensure this is done by a competent operator, using appropriate anaesthesia and in a safe child-friendly environment.

598:

is representative of the "genital integrity movement," and facilitates the reader understanding of potential for mutilation. It is a fact based website, with little "shock" value.

478:

Funny AVI, it seems like you would understand the idea of perspective since reading (in the CPS review) of that large study finding a ~50% UTI rate among ritual circ'd in Israel!

1630:

I'm thinking ... what did that editor mean to say? Their (the Assoc's) wording is not changed or biased. It's just been omitted (the RACP closing paragraph) by pro-circ folks.

1376:

You're right about that sentence from the article's author, but from the research study author ..."involve weighing...benefits...against the perceived costs of the procedure."

1325:

Waisberg wrote, "The intro needs more balance. It tends to be anti-circumcision. It only cites data against it and does not talk anything about any of the potential benefits."

1456:

The point of view of pro-circumcision advocates should not be given the same weight in the article as the official policy statements of professional medical organizations. --

1162:

May you be known for you affection for Adler and Schoen; giving the reader poor then misrepresented science, and exagerations and false statements from a doctor, respectively.

2283:

Third, as you note, all those potential benefits are in the Schoen link provided right after "perceived medical benefits of the procedure." Remember, the benefits are minor.

1876:"The RACP is a diverse and vibrant organisation responsible for training, educating and representing over 9,000 physicians and paediatricians in Australia and New Zealand." 1661:"The RACP is a diverse and vibrant organisation responsible for training, educating and representing over 9,000 physicians and paediatricians in Australia and New Zealand." 442:

I think the major requirement for a shock site is that the site has to be shocking. IMO that page is not shocking. I agree with you however, the link should not be changed.

2230:

Firstly, check the page history. This information was inserted by another user, removed by yourself along with several other dubious changes, and then reverted by myself.

934:

I took "for circumcision as a routine procedure in the neonate." out for AVI (since it's in the prior quote linked by the ...). I don't mind saying it again if you want.

1517:

says "The medical harms or benefits have not been unequivocally proven except to the extent that there are clear risks of harm if the procedure is done inexpertly," the

1008:

Review of the literature in relation to risks and benefits shows there is no evidence of benefit outweighing harm for circumcision as a routine procedure in the neonate.

344:

Yes, Tip. Now scroll down a little to the link I gave, and you'll find that of four studies, this was the only one to do so. The other three showed the opposite result.

1804: 1190:

policy. I would like you to show me where that policy states this requirement, because I've read that policy many times and I've never seen it. Furthermore, given that

2125:

Which is why you insist on violating the CPS copyright by including their complete 1996 statement ... so you can list all those medical benefits again. What a joke.

2090:

It's not for us to edit out critical content. Point stands that when you summarise a statement, you don't leave out all of the content from the closing paragraph!

1777: 1230:

protect the infant from early UTIs. Once the infant has established his own gut bacteria colony, this will help protect him from colonization by stray pathogens.

896:"there is no evidence of benefit outweighing harm" also lacks the qualifier in the end of that sentence: "for circumcision as a routine procedure in the neonate." 269: 1732:

no evidence of benefit outweighing harm" which sounds to me like no net benefit, pointing to harm ... no wonder some editors refuse to permit it's inclusion.

1970:

AVI, your current version of the RACP statement is dishonest, because it omits "Review of the literature in relation to risks and benefits shows there is

1598:

I'm not cherry picking. Find a sentence from the BMA, CPS, or RACP (as a group) that says other than no net benefit. Remember all that discussion about

1504:

Certainly, there is no consensus that there's no net benefit: both the AMA and BMA explicitly say that there's considerable disagreement on that matter.

1243: 729:

PS ... you point to Google groups, but you should point to Schoen ... both demonstrate exagerated claims. Schoen does it with the badge of a DR. Scary.

2451: 2635:

do this. While I have noted your other comments, I feel that the present wording is preferable to the previous wording for the reasons I have stated.

1423:

The official policy statement of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians says, "After extensive review of the literature the RACP reaffirms that

561:

Jakew, I'll settle for this perspective to the reader ... UTI's in intact boys during the first two years of life approximates that for infant girls.

2711: 2512: 2442: 2372: 1018: 981: 849: 818: 802: 764: 739:

I'm sorry, I only mentioned my post to GG as an aside because you expressed an interest in the errors in that particular webpage. Please forget it.

1118:"In the US, the great majority of newborn boys (about 1.4 million annually) are circumcised." ...a "slight" or 5% majority (55%) would be honest. 715:

If you do not grasp why it is inappropriate by nature, then I can only assume that you have read neither the policy itself, nor the quotes I gave.

2624:

Given my personal involvement in one of the sites concerned, I will avoid editing the notice, but I would ask you to address the above issues.

2188:

The most important conditions where some benefit may result from circumcision are urinary tract infections, HIV and later cancer of the penis."

2057:

Incidentally, please stop editing your comments after others have replied. It makes it very hard for readers to understand the conversation.

263: 956:

the one beginning "In all cases", as per the source. You can't just rearrange paragraphs - it's not an honest representation of the source.

334: 2158:

1. "The possibility that routine circumcision may contravene human rights has been raised because circumcision is performed on a minor and

1539:

to mean "there is no net benefit"? It is one thing to say net benefit is not proven. It is a totally different thing to say there is none.

1491:

circumcision is not essential to a child's health, parents should choose what is best for their child by looking at the benefits and risks.

1667:

The heading should be "Australia and New Zealand", not "Australasian", because those are the two countries represented by the RACP. --

662:? Can you find any information that is false or exagerated (as I've demonstrated above in your schoen quote included in the Topic)? 1866:

includes countries besides Australia and New Zealand. The following references from the RACP web site should resolve this issue:

2321: 1553:

have not been unequivocally proven except to the extent that there are clear risks of harm if the procedure is done inexpertly.

1171:

I doubt that anyone agrees with the content of every source cited in this article, Tip. Fortunately, we don't have to, because

675:

of a source rather than the veracity of its claims, Tip (though if you're interested in the false and exaggerated claims, see

1380:

this researchers net conclusion, but we do know the Assoc stance (not recommend) based on reviews of this and other research.

1548:

Indeed. It's even more bizarre to claim that this means "there is no net benefit" when one considers the paragraph in full:

638:, is represented fairly and neutrally, and is therefore fully acceptable. Knowledge (XXG) does not have any requirement for 1658:

The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) is the professional medical organization in Australia and New Zealand.

2011:

I hope you got their permission to release the summary under the GFDL first. If not, you've now caused Knowledge (XXG) to

122: 2320:

I don't want to be bold in such a controversial article, but I noticed there's already a fairly extensive article on the

2558: 1888:"The College advocates for health and social policies to improve the healthcare of all Australians and New Zealanders." 870:

followed by: "Whether these legal concerns are valid will be known only if the matter is determined in a court of law."

546:

I'm still looking for that article placing the focus (UTI prevention) on breast feeding and early mother/infant contact.

97: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 610:

of cancer of the penis, of balanoposthitis, and protection against the effects of phimosis and poor hygiene as well as

2463: 2245:

mutilation that they consider comparable to female circumcision"), we also summarise the arguments of those in favour.

1040: 220:. The incidence of penile cancer is zero where they eat whole plant foods and don't smoke ... though they are intact. 189:

As another example, penile cancer is very strongly correlated with diet, and with cigarette smoking…not circumcision.

271: 2301:

So, taken to the logical extent, you'd prefer that the article consists of links only, since it's all in the links?

1944:

cover islands other than Aus and NZ. Therefore, I have no reason to believe that their choice of name is incorrect.

1906:"... as the MOPS program has been registered under the appropriate legislation in both Australia and New Zealand." 1830:, which seemed to be what you were arguing about. Personally, the sentence structure smacks of a hint of net harm. 38: 1486:

circumcision. Most, if not all, organisations seem to be against the former but not the latter. To quote the AAP:

1430:

The RACP policy statement is supported by a broad consensus in medical communities in Australia and New Zealand.

333:

I used your first link jakew, and immediately find a study finding higher HIV risk to women if the man is circ'd

429:

I disagree. One is a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal. The other is seems more like a shock site. --

2135:

Tip, we don't include their complete 1996 statement. It's very tiresome that you keep misrepresenting things.

1258: 368: 288: 267: 274: 1028: 830:...there is no evidence of benefit outweighing harm for circumcision as a routine procedure in the neonate. 278:

Original research is bad enough. OR based upon ideas contradicted by the available evidence is even worse.

2162:. Whether these legal concerns are valid will be known only if the matter is determined in a court of law. 2577:

more appropriate to refer to both websites, pointing out their point of view in non-judgmental language.

1826:

That's not something the average reader knows, why confuse them? Again, the statements generally say

2401:

male circumcision. The most important conditions where some benefit may result from circumcision are

1400: 1367:

of reducing risks of infection within the population, against the perceived costs of the procedure."

1262:

Peer reviewed, published, and both more to the point (of the sentence) than the current version link.

582:

circumcision, some explain their views in terms of the perceived medical benefits of the procedure.

372: 1644: 145: 1840:“smacks of a hint of net harm” is your interpretation, which regardless of how accurate it is, is 153:

infancy. The only study on breastfeeding and UTI with a reported relative risk that I can find is

2682: 2667: 2636: 2598: 2578: 1853:

See all the policy paragraphs included. I don't mind the whole thing, but just policy the point.

1576: 2431:

no evidence of benefit outweighing harm for circumcision as a routine procedure in the neonate.

2726: 2547: 2363:

Here's what I see as important points (in bold) in the statement (already condensed below)...

2040:

Looks like we've got to remove all the long quotes in Wiki. See the version with just policy.

443: 47: 17: 2019:

2012: 1936:

I can't speak for Avi, but I don't intend to look for evidence, let alone post any. The RACP

1191: 1180: 2597:

I have restored the even-handed wording. If anyone has a problem with this, please discuss.

1927: 1783: 1709: 1668: 1457: 1334: 701:

You did not define why boystoo is improper for wiki, either by nature or presented facts.

2703: 1984: 1195: 1172: 195:

Funny, the peer reviewed journals cited seem to disagree, both with you and each other. --

2739: 2459: 1493: 1036: 459:

I agree, that is not appropriate. However, the initial source does not support the claim.

1841: 1754: 1187: 1142: 1113: 683: 659: 635: 631: 132: 128: 2550: 2471:

It's fine as it currently is, TipPt, leave well enough alone and stop editing for POV.

381:

I've added a short NWS warning to the video, for anyone silly enough to click on it and

215: 154: 2326: 1437:

Paediatrics & Child Health Division of The Royal Australasian College of Physicians

396:

An activist's video at Google Video? I don't think it's a terribly encyclopaedic link.

1328:

Waisberg, there is a very broad consensus in the international medical community that

1176: 2619:

logically to be my own, which is pro-parental choice, as opposed to pro-circumcision.

2484:

on or undertake it. After extensive review of the literature the RACP reaffirms that

2380:

on or undertake it. After extensive review of the literature the RACP reaffirms that

1747: 1618: 1540: 1348: 1344: 1198:

prevents us from determining a statement to be false ourselves, I can't see how it's

989:

on or undertake it. After extensive review of the literature the RACP reaffirms that

826:

on or undertake it. After extensive review of the literature the RACP reaffirms that

772:

on or undertake it. After extensive review of the literature the RACP reaffirms that

1745:

Australasia: Australia, New Zealand, and neighboring islands in the S Pacific Ocean.

111:

I've been concerned that the reader lacks perspective judging potential benefits.

2685: 2670: 2652: 2639: 2628: 2601: 2591: 2588: 2581: 2565: 2475: 2350: 2340: 2329: 2305: 2296: 2255: 2224: 2211:

1. That info is properly delivered ... at least 3 times in the body of the Topic.

2192: 2139: 2129: 2111: 2094: 2085: 2075: 2061: 2044: 2028: 2006: 1992: 1978: 1964: 1961: 1948: 1930: 1857: 1848: 1845: 1834: 1810: 1736: 1722: 1712: 1691: 1688: 1671: 1647: 1634: 1621: 1610: 1584: 1575:

You're cherry-picking again, Tip. You know that controversy exists, because you've

1568: 1543: 1530: 1508: 1473: 1470: 1460: 1409: 1384: 1371: 1361: 1351: 1337: 1312: 1303: 1292: 1286: 1279: 1268: 1216: 1206: 1166: 1153: 1135: 1099: 1063: 960: 938: 923: 909: 887: 874: 859: 743: 733: 723: 709: 691: 666: 646: 624: 565: 550: 533: 508: 492: 482: 463: 446: 433: 430: 423: 400: 389: 375: 348: 339: 321: 303: 294: 282: 257: 254: 240: 224: 209: 199: 196: 161: 139: 136: 1700:

According to the RACP web site it is a professional organization for physician in

2472: 2292:

Leave Schoen (as is) to the link. I think he's an embarassment to the pro-camp.

2239:

to summarise the rest of the article, and yes, that means repeating some points.

920: 386: 299:

You may have missed "Fewer uncircumcised men reported a history of condom use."

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

1913: 1907: 656: 596: 418: 2649: 2625: 2562: 2455: 2347: 2337: 2302: 2293: 2252: 2221: 2189: 2136: 2126: 2108: 2091: 2082: 2072: 2058: 2041: 2025: 2003: 1989: 1975: 1945: 1919: 1854: 1831: 1807: 1733: 1719: 1631: 1607: 1581: 1565: 1527: 1505: 1406: 1381: 1368: 1358: 1309: 1300: 1289: 1276: 1265: 1263: 1240: 1203: 1163: 1150: 1146: 1132: 1096: 1060: 1056:

Last paragraph: doesn't give much more information than the first. Cut it out.

1032: 957: 935: 906: 884: 871: 856: 740: 730: 720: 706: 688: 663: 643: 639: 621: 589: 562: 547: 530: 505: 489: 479: 460: 420: 413: 397: 345: 336: 318: 300: 291: 279: 237: 221: 206: 158: 1250:

A couple links for the second paragraph genital intergity/mutilation citation

218: 1955:

From discussion above...the Australia and New Zealand RACP misrepresentation

1901: 1254: 1217:

Here's the UTI ... perspective ... article. I'll look up the Lancet study.

2429:

Review of the literature in relation to risks and benefits shows there is

1900:"Becoming a Fellow - Registered practitioner in Australia or New Zealand" 1889: 1883: 1877: 1704:, not in other countries. (see the quote above) The RACP has offices in 1662: 618: 2607:

I have to say that I find it surprising and somewhat misleading, Michael.

1895: 1186:

In the start of this section, you claimed that false statements violates

262:

And again, this is factually inaccurate. As I pointed out in a letter to

253:

says this. Otherwise, another example of original research. Thanks. --

883:

I pulled that from something Dan wrote, see I've taken that quote out.

371:

of a circumcision in the external links; i hope nobody will disagree.

2171:

2. "Review of the literature in relation to risks and benefits shows

2395:

The best recognised medical indication for circumcision is phimosis.

2186:

evidence of possible health benefits from routine male circumcision.

1433:"The policy represents an agreed position adopted by the following: 2511:

ROUTINE CIRCUMCISION OF MALE INFANTS AND BOYS - SUMMARY STATEMENT,

2441:

ROUTINE CIRCUMCISION OF MALE INFANTS AND BOYS - SUMMARY STATEMENT,

1751:(off-topic) Benefit not greater than harm does not imply net harm. 1537:""The medical harms or benefits have not been unequivocally proven" 1017:

ROUTINE CIRCUMCISION OF MALE INFANTS AND BOYS - SUMMARY STATEMENT,

848:

ROUTINE CIRCUMCISION OF MALE INFANTS AND BOYS - SUMMARY STATEMENT,

801:

ROUTINE CIRCUMCISION OF MALE INFANTS AND BOYS - SUMMARY STATEMENT,

217:

online, but look into the China Study nutrition and smoking data...

2391:

remains an important ritual in some religious and cultural groups.

2217:

3. That info is covered in the links at the end of the sentence.

2419:

has been raised because circumcision is performed on a minor and

2486: