View Full Version : 2011-04-20 Vancouver Sun - Circumcision rates are steeply falling, and rightly so

April 22nd, 2011, 20:50
Circumcision rates are steeply falling, and rightly so


{a guest editorial in response to an earlier pro-circ editorial}

Re: The skinny on circumcision, Opinion, April 12

The infomercial for infant circumcision by circumcision providers Edgar Schoen and Neil Pollock dangled hoary old saws about the benefits but failed to disclose the following:

Infants are permanently affected by painful procedures, and have difficulties with anesthesia uptake when adults. Notions "he'll heal quickly" or circumcision can be made "painless" are simply convenient myths.

Claiming intact (not circumcised) boys endure 10 times as many UTI's (urinary tract infections) as their circumcised brethren is dishonest.

Even the alleged rate of UTI in male infants, one case in 100 boys, is easily treated by antibiotics. And the claimed one per cent figure is itself hotly contested.

Pollock is quoted in the Canadian national press as fearing the child, presented with the evidence, would not choose to be circumcised. Precisely.

Thankfully, more humane instincts have prevailed in B.C. and elsewhere in Canada, and this "procedure" is not covered in provincial health schemes, recognizing the natural body and non-circumcision is the healthier alternative.

Like female circumcision, the male version is increasingly seen as merely historical, a waste of scarce medical resources, and in steep decline in the English-speaking countries where it began in the 19th century - before germ theory.

George C. Denniston

Mark D. Reiss

Morris R. Sorrells

John V. Geisheker

George Hill

Doctors Opposing Circumcision

Dr. Ron
April 23rd, 2011, 00:41
How can it be that doctors prescribe amputative surgery for infants who do not display any symptoms of disease, while these same doctors treat adults who present themselves with symptoms of disease by prescribing antibiotics or recommending condom use?

April 23rd, 2011, 00:52
How active are Doctors Opposing Circumcision these days?

Their website hasn't been updated since 2008 and some of their publications are beginning to look a little dated (e.g. not citing the most recent circumcision policy positions of medical associations).

April 23rd, 2011, 09:21
Let's take the money quote from the article:

"Claiming intact (not circumcised) boys endure 10 times as many UTI's (urinary tract infections) as their circumcised brethren is dishonest."

To boil the whole issue down to one simple fact, the doctors who are recommending routine infant circumcision are dishonest.

April 23rd, 2011, 14:29
These few doctors that so heavily promote circumcision are nothing more than old perverts. Even a fool can see through their smoke screen. These men are true pedophiles and I don't use that word lightly, or carelessly. They are clearly motivated by the pleasure they receive by cutting on the genitalia of young boys. I have absolutely no doubt that circumcision brings them sexual gratification. These perverts are difficult to stop because there are other predators involved as well and by implementing fear tactics and taking advantage of the ignorant they all feed off each other's desires; fetish, financial gain, etc. They disgust me.
One day they will be seen for what they truly are and I do hope these monsters will be held fully accountable.


April 28th, 2011, 18:24
Are falling rates really due in part to intactivism? Here in Missouri the rate is about 80%. California around 33%. California has a more diverse population though. Caucasian circumcision rates are more telling of any impact we have.

September 25th, 2011, 23:06
Wait a minute, how do those two (Dr. Schoen and Dr. Pollock) know each other? What prompted one to write an endorsement for the other in an advertisement-editorial in a paper?

October 2nd, 2011, 23:43
The post by Doctors Opposing Circumcision was written in response to this piece of propaganda by Ed. Schoen and a Vancouver circumciser, Neil Pollock.
The skinny on circumcision
Newborns are very resilient and circumcision performed at that time results in fewer complications
Dr. Ed Schoen And Dr. Neil Pollock, Vancouver Sun
Published: Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Some argue that an uncircumcised male infant may have a lifetime health disadvantage.
[I think this is a direct quote from circinfo.net --bbq]
Other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are also more likely in uncircumcised men. These include human papillomavirus (HPV), genital herpes, trichomonas and bacterial vaginosis. HPV causes both penile and cervical cancer. Penile cancer is found almost exclusively in uncircumcised men and cervical cancer is twice as common in women with uncircumcised partners. Sexual pleasure and power are not significantly affected by circumcision.
We disagree with the suggestion, made by Dr. Noni Macdonald in Kirkey's article, to wait until prepubescence to circumcise boys. This is because the advantages of circumcision begin in infancy. In the first year of life, uncircumcised boys are 10 times as likely to get serious urinary tract infections (UTIs), with possible future kidney damage. Dr. Tom Wiswell provided the original evidence in the 1980s after studying over 200,000 deliveries from the Armed Forces files
[200,000? Boy, that's a big number. It must be a valid study. A valid study by a circumcision promoter whose results, even the 1989 AAP report was shaky about accepting due to "methodological problems" -bbq]
The newborn period is the "window of opportunity" for circumcision. Newborns are very resilient, have high levels of endorphins, heal faster, and their thin foreskin rarely requires suturing. Notwithstanding this, local anesthesia should always be used in newborn circumcision, because when administered properly, it prevents pain for the baby. The complication rate is under 0.5 per cent, 10 times less than if the procedure is done later when the foreskin is thicker, bleeds more and needs stitches. The serious risks and costs to the patient are higher later in life, because general anesthesia and hospitalization is generally considered to be required.
Parents considering newborn circumcision should seek a knowledgeable medical professional who is able to provide an unbiased summary of both the benefits and risks so that parents can make an informed, independent decision.
[Like Dr. Schoen? -bbq]

October 2nd, 2011, 23:46
Dr. Schoen's reply in turn was a reply to this article:

Circumcision best left for prepubescence, disease expert says
Sharon Kirkey, Postmedia News
Published: Monday, April 04, 2011

A leading Canadian infectious disease expert says it is time to consider circumcising prepubescent boys, and not newborns.
"There's been a lot written about how important circumcision is now that we know about the African data," MacDonald said. The data also show a decrease in the risk of contracting human papillomavirus, or HPV, a virus that can cause genital warts, as well as penile cancer.

"The (infant) isn't at risk of HIV and sexually transmitted diseases, because they're not sexually active, so why are we rushing to do it at that time?" MacDonald said.
Men -and women -may squirm at the idea of offering circumcision to older boys, worried it would be too painful, she said. But babies feel the same pain: "Why are we fine with doing it to a baby but not a young man?"

"It's curious that a painful elective procedure of no major benefit to the infant until years later would ever be deemed more acceptable than the same procedure for a peripubertal boy," MacDonald writes in the CMAJ.

What's more, unlike infant boys, older boys can give consent.