Risk and Complications of Circumcision
To balance these multiple health advantages of circumcision there are the chances, found in any surgery, of complications of the procedure itself. When properly performed by a trained operator using local anesthesia (including newborn infants) circumcision is quick, safe and virtually painless. Newborns are metabolically best suited for the operation, they heal very quickly, and the surgery is most easily done at this age, with the lowest complication rate. Complications in infants are generally slight with an incidence of about 0.2-0.4 %. At older ages the procedure takes longer, healing is slower and the complication rate, with generally mild problems, is about 10 times higher at 2-4%.
To summarize, circumcision is an important preventive health procedure with multiple health advantages throughout life, varying from life-saving in the case of HIV and genital cancers, to avoidance of local problems. The benefit to risk ratio varies from 6:1 to 12:1 depending upon how one lumps or splits the individual benefits. Circumcision deniers have used anecdotes, testimonials, myths, and media and Internet sound bites in attempting to deny, disparage or ignore the rapidly accumulating scientific evidence published in peer review medical journals. As the data showing proof of circumcision advantages have become overwhelming and undeniable, the actions of the anti-circumcision groups have become less credible and more desperate.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
> As the data showing proof of circumcision advantages have become overwhelming and undeniable, the actions of the anti-circumcision groups have become less credible and more desperate.
How come "no circ" has been alerted to "opposing views" and no pro circ groups are brought in?
Once the members of the anti group show up they sure act like they are the only side to have anything to say. Many of the members of such groups are neonatal circed and have been brainwashed into thinking they have been "harmed".
All scientific studies imply that there is virtually no difference in sexual pleasure that is tied to circumcision status. This is partly due to the fact that there are gains in sexual pleasure following circumcision that tend to negate "the proclaimed loss of thousands of sensors" which are short time acting sensors like in the fingertips for location sensing". They may register a tickle, but the triggering of an orgasm is by sensors that are not affected by foreskin removal but rather are better exposed to stimuli.
Hal 84
In stating that all scientific studies imply that there is virtually no difference in sexual pleasure that is tied to circumcision status, Hal84 has overstated the position. Several studies have made this claim. The most recent one is that by Sorells et al, an abstract of which can be found at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118508429/abstract
Of course this study has attracted controversy. Nevertheless, it should be noted. The situation is not so cut and dried as Hal84 has stated.
M. Glass
>In stating that all scientific studies imply that there is virtually no difference in sexual pleasure that is tied to circumcision status, Hal84 has overstated the position. Several studies have made this claim. The most recent one is that by Sorells et al, an abstract of which can be found at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118508429/abstract
Thanks for the link. I have no quarrel with the study or its conclusion.
When I was about 6 one time I was taking a bath and my parents entered and proceeded to push back my foreskin and wash under it. The glans was extremely sensitive. There was a bit of white stuff that was washed away. It hurt when the glans was exposed and washed. I was not told that I should do this and really don't recall seeing much of the glans until I started getting sexual urges. I then developed the definition that uncovered was sexy, covered was un-sexy. Undeniably true. In fact when the olympics were being done in the nude those with an exposed glans (circumcised) were prohibited.
My first shower in HS gym class revealed that I was in a minority being non circumcised. When I read of the possibility of keeping the foreskin permanently retracted I did so and it served me well.
I opted for a circumcision at age 42 to get away from the occassional roll forward of the foreskin and to discourage some occassional itching in the bunched foreskin, and to always have the sexier look.
In regard to the sensitivity study it is highly likely that the proclaimed result is to be expected. In fact there are forums that deal with questions from young men just coming into sexuality that have a lot of queries from young intact guys asking "what can be done to reduce my sensitivity". This is mainly the hypersensitivity that is experienced with the first exposure of the glans. The solution recommended is always the same: "increase the exposure to air!"
In regard to the findings of slightly lower pressure required to get the fine touch sensors to respond this is about a non-factor in real practical life. If sex takes place with a condom that will equalize the fine touch response. If without a condom, the intact will either experience the "gliding action" which makes coitus like masturbation in that it is the rolling of the foreskin back and forth over the coronal edge the main trigger for orgasm- or if the foreskin stays bunched behind the glans it insulates the corona from direct contact. In the circumcised male the corona gets much better stimulation and the area just behind it has direct exposure of the remaining "inner skin" properly evoluted for excellent stimulation and the scar tissue area has added sensitivity. Some of the recent work of Dr Taylor suggests this area to be very much involved in creating the "inevitability" of orgasm!
Actually these discussions are leaving out the fact that the skin of the scrotum is sensitive and may provide better input to the sex process if the amount of foreskin is reduced, thus increasing stimulus potential.
My position is that both ways work- there is always plenty of "incentive" for an ejaculation to be easy to come by- so that the species will be perpetuated.
Hal 84
Patel, who followed through with examinations of the child and interviews with the parents after the boy had returned home, found the complication rate was 55%, mostly due to excessive bleeding. Infants do not have a lot of blood and loss of only 50ml (3 Tbs) is deadly. Such loss is easily concealed in today's super-absorbent diapers.
Over 100 babies die each year as a result of being circumcised, many times more than boys who die in schoolyard shootings, and circumcision-related deaths are much easier to prevent than schoolyard deaths.
"... circumcision-related deaths are much easier to prevent than schoolyard deaths."
Are you sure? There are so many more mutilators, they have social approval, and virtually no law enforcement effort is made to stop them. Look at all the money and effort spent to stop the few school shooters.
But in principle you are right. Unlike the school shooters, we know in advance who the mutilators are. We know when and where they will strike. It SHOULD be a lot easier to stop them. All we have to do is pass the MGM bill and it's over, for the most part. http://mgmbill.org How easy is that going to be? Very, when the time comes. Getting there is what takes work.
Stopping either group isn't easy, but stopping both is important. Stopping the mutilators should help reduce the number of school shooters, too. There may be a connection, through iatrogenic post-traumatic genital mutilation stress disorder. Is anyone keeping track of the genital integrity/mutilation status of the school shooters?
Dr. Schoen maintains that male neonatal circumcision is a safe operation with minimal complications.
Perhaps Dr. Schoen should visit this page before making further comments of this sort:
http://www.cirp.org/library/complications /
The statistics are improper. Maybe the decimal point was off in the discussion point. 1) According to the medical school textbook by Schwartz, Cheny, et al., "Pediatric Primary Care: A Problem-solving Approach," the cited hospital complication rate for circumcision is 4%, not 0.2-0.4% for infants as the pro-circumcision position stated. This statistic only includes those reportable incidences at the hospital and not any complication care and treatment taken elsewhere as at the physician's office or other health care facility. This 4% represents at a very minimum one in twenty-five circumcisions have a reportable occurance at site and time of surgical origin. That statistic alone would make suspect any 'routine' procedure. 2) In another study according to Dr. Carlos Angel Associate Professor of Surgery and Pediatrics, University of Texas, post surgical and hospital discharge meatel stenosis affects 9%-10% those circumcised.