General Zod wrote:
Several infants each year die from botched circumcisions. How many people die from bad appendectomys?
Obviously that's a flawed question as asked, at least if you want a useful answer. The question is the number of deaths versus the number of procedures.
Here's one study which appears to have revelevant data on the subject.
Our database contained information about 46,101 patients who underwent LA or OA. After excluding patients with diagnosis of appendicolithiasis and appendicopathia oxyurica (N = 858) and patients who underwent incidental appendectomies (N = 1486), 43,757 patients remained in our analyses. 7618 patients (17.4%) underwent LA and 36,139 patients (82.6%) underwent OA...
The distribution of length of stay for LA and OA is displayed in Figure 1. Sixty-seven percent (72/107) of patients who died had a hospital stay shorter than 14 days, whereas 33% (35/107) had a hospital stay equal to or longer than 14 days.
If you have that kind of fatal complication rate from circumcisions, which obviously is a much more oftenly performed procedure, we'd be talking about a staggering number in the US each year. Now the data is complicated by the that the people in question were presumably generally already having problems with their appendix, but the data still very strongly shows a much higher risk from an appendectomy by any reasonable measure. This is especially true since circumcized babies very rarely stay in a hospital for for monitering of their recovery after such a procedure.
Cairber wrote:[8. 100% chance of loss of a lot of sensation
I'd actually be interested in seeing this study. When confronting my own mother on the fact that I was snipped without permission, she said that she knew people who said they actually got more sensation after their clipping.
General Zod wrote:
You don't seem willing to answer my points either. Who gives a shit about other people on the internet?
Obviously I am willing, it just may not be instantly for me to give you relevant answers to the pertinent questions you bother to ask. I also shockingly enough will generally respond to posters in order with the person who posted first getting a quicker response.
You keep talking about this risk v benefit analysis. But how exactly do you qualify the amount of "benefit" in sexual pleasure? masturbation ease? causing less friction to your partner? less pain for your partner?
How can any risk v benefit analysis be done? Only the owner of the penis can make that call.
Say NO to circumcisionIT'S A BOY! This is a great link to show expecting parents.
Cairber wrote:[8. 100% chance of loss of a lot of sensation
I'd actually be interested in seeing this study. When confronting my own mother on the fact that I was snipped without permission, she said that she knew people who said they actually got more sensation after their clipping.
Cairber wrote:You keep talking about this risk v benefit analysis. But how exactly do you qualify the amount of "benefit" in sexual pleasure? masturbation ease? causing less friction to your partner? less pain for your partner?
How can any risk v benefit analysis be done? Only the owner of the penis can make that call.
On the other hand you can argue you're likely to last longer if circumcized which can obviously be an advantage as far as your partner is concerned.
Cairber wrote:You keep talking about this risk v benefit analysis. But how exactly do you qualify the amount of "benefit" in sexual pleasure? masturbation ease? causing less friction to your partner? less pain for your partner?
How can any risk v benefit analysis be done? Only the owner of the penis can make that call.
On the other hand you can argue you're likely to last longer if circumcized which can obviously be an advantage as far as your partner is concerned.
Not true.
Recent study concerning ejaculation time:
Analysis of the results showed that there were no significant differences in sexual drive, erection, ejaculation and ejaculatory latency time between circumcised and uncircumcised men. Masturbatory pleasure decreased after circumcision in 48% of the respondents, while 8% reported increased pleasure. Masturbatory difficulty increased after circumcision in 63% of the respondents but it was easier in 37%. About 6% answered that their sex lives improved, while 20% reported a worse sex life after circumcision.
[/quote]
Say NO to circumcisionIT'S A BOY! This is a great link to show expecting parents.
Note that in the one that was a survery, the men going for circumcision had foreskin tightness that was not treated with steriods, which meant they went into the survery having painful sex before circumcision. So that screws the results a little!
The first link is the best because it's not a survey, as well as the one on anatomy.
Say NO to circumcisionIT'S A BOY! This is a great link to show expecting parents.
Omega18 wrote:On the other hand you can argue you're likely to last longer if circumcized which can obviously be an advantage as far as your partner is concerned.
Yes you could, if you're a fucking moron.
On the other hand, you could look at the obvious: Millions of years of evolution have gifted humans with a literal 'sleeve' that fits over the head of the penis. There is no skin as elastic or as flexible as that in the entire human body.
It's specially designed to *reduce* friction during sex, which also vastly reduces vaginal-dryness and itching, reduces the risk of infection that would come from skin being rubbed raw during intercourse, and in general makes things far more pleasurable for both people.
So please, take your non-argument for genital-mutilation and shove it up your ass.
Gaian Paradigm: Because not all fantasy has to be childish crap. Ephemeral Pie: Because not all role-playing has to be shallow. My art: Because not all DA users are talentless emo twits. "Phant, quit abusing the He-Wench before he turns you into a caged bitch at a Ren Fair and lets the tourists toss half munched turkey legs at your backside." -Mr. Coffee
Cairber wrote:Sorry to double post, you can read about what i am talking about concerning the UTI studies here: link
There certainly appear to be some very recent studies that still came to the same conclusions, even though they certainly should have been aware of most of the issues brought up in that article.
Data sources: Randomised controlled trials and observational studies comparing the frequency of UTI in circumcised and uncircumcised boys were identified from the Cochrane controlled trials register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, reference lists of retrieved articles, and contact with known investigators.
Methods: Two of the authors independently assessed study quality using the guidelines provided by the MOOSE statement for quality of observational studies. A random effects model was used to estimate a summary odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
Results: Data on 402 908 children were identified from 12 studies (one randomised controlled trial, four cohort studies, and seven case–control studies). Circumcision was associated with a significantly reduced risk of UTI (OR = 0.13; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.20; p<0.001) with the same odds ratio (0.13) for all three types of study design.
Conclusions: Circumcision reduces the risk of UTI. Given a risk in normal boys of about 1%, the number-needed-to-treat to prevent one UTI is 111. In boys with recurrent UTI or high grade vesicoureteric reflux, the risk of UTI recurrence is 10% and 30% and the numbers-needed-to-treat are 11 and 4, respectively. Haemorrhage and infection are the commonest complications of circumcision, occurring at rate of about 2%. Assuming equal utility of benefits and harms, net clinical benefit is likely only in boys at high risk of UTI.
Omega18 wrote:
If you have that kind of fatal complication rate from circumcisions, which obviously is a much more oftenly performed procedure, we'd be talking about a staggering number in the US each year. Now the data is complicated by the that the people in question were presumably generally already having problems with their appendix, but the data still very strongly shows a much higher risk from an appendectomy by any reasonable measure. This is especially true since circumcized babies very rarely stay in a hospital for for monitering of their recovery after such a procedure.
4 Death rate estimated at between 1 in 24,000 and 1 in 500,000. Source: Thompson, Robert S. Routine Circumcision in the Newborn: An Opposing View. Journal of Family Practice, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 189-196, 1990. At the present rate of over 1.25 million infant circumcisions annually, the estimated death rate of 1 in 24,000 translates to one infant death per week (52 deaths annually). An estimated death rate of 1 in 500,000 translates to one infant death every 152 days (between 2 and 3 deaths annually).
52 dead children per year for a purely cosmetic procedure seems an awfully high risk. Considering that people have been doing this bullshit for centuries, well before studies like this had been conducted, anything coming out to favor circumcision seems like cheap apologetics.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
Oni Koneko Damien wrote:
It's specially designed to *reduce* friction during sex, which also vastly reduces vaginal-dryness and itching, reduces the risk of infection that would come from skin being rubbed raw during intercourse, and in general makes things far more pleasurable for both people.
So please, take your non-argument for genital-mutilation and shove it up your ass.
I try so hard to tell women this! Some of them only know painful sex. And, while I understand not all cases are due entirely to circumcision, many of them here ARE. And many of these women don't know; they think sex is suppose hurt like that. I read a good book on this: Sex as Nature Intended It. Sometimes this argument can help sway reluctant moms.
Say NO to circumcisionIT'S A BOY! This is a great link to show expecting parents.
General Zod wrote:
52 dead children per year for a purely cosmetic procedure seems an awfully high risk. Considering that people have been doing this bullshit for centuries, well before studies like this had been conducted, anything coming out to favor circumcision seems like cheap apologetics.
So in other words we've established that the risk of death from the two procedures isn't even on the same planet as far as the risks are concerned. Concession on that point accepted.
Given the number of procedures per year, that's a very low fatal complication rate.
The reality is even historically the lower risk of UTI infection was probably noticed to some degree and had allot to do with the procedure gaining popularity in some areas in the first place. We certainly can go ahead and examine the tradeoffs, with relevant medical issues being a key issue to be aware of.
Cairber wrote:
The first link is the best because it's not a survey, as well as the one on anatomy.
Indeed. It's also the most recent. Upon a relatively casual viewing (admittedly I read deeper into the first article) the first one seems the strongest.
General Zod wrote:
52 dead children per year for a purely cosmetic procedure seems an awfully high risk. Considering that people have been doing this bullshit for centuries, well before studies like this had been conducted, anything coming out to favor circumcision seems like cheap apologetics.
So in other words we've established that the risk of death from the two procedures isn't even on the same planet as far as the risks are concerned. Concession on that point accepted.
Given the number of procedures per year, that's a very low fatal complication rate.
The reality is even historically the lower risk of UTI infection was probably noticed to some degree and had allot to do with the procedure gaining popularity in some areas in the first place. We certainly can go ahead and examine the tradeoffs, with relevant medical issues being a key issue to be aware of.
So why the fuck should it be mandatory again? Appendectomys are at least generally only done when there's serious complications involved. I see absolutely zero reason why it should be mandatory for an infant when they won't even start being sexually active for at least 15 more years.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
General Zod wrote:
52 dead children per year for a purely cosmetic procedure seems an awfully high risk. Considering that people have been doing this bullshit for centuries, well before studies like this had been conducted, anything coming out to favor circumcision seems like cheap apologetics.
So in other words we've established that the risk of death from the two procedures isn't even on the same planet as far as the risks are concerned. Concession on that point accepted.
Given the number of procedures per year, that's a very low fatal complication rate.
The reality is even historically the lower risk of UTI infection was probably noticed to some degree and had allot to do with the procedure gaining popularity in some areas in the first place. We certainly can go ahead and examine the tradeoffs, with relevant medical issues being a key issue to be aware of.
Furthermore its readily apparent that at best the 52 death estimate is obviously not even close to established. When the same document aknowledges that we may be only talking about 2 or 3 deaths per year, some really screwy is going on here. (It should not be that difficult to establish which one is closer to being accurate.)
Cairber wrote:
The first link is the best because it's not a survey, as well as the one on anatomy.
Indeed. It's also the most recent. Upon a relatively casual viewing (admittedly I read deeper into the first article) the first one seems the strongest.
Yeah, the first one has gotten a lot of press! Very excited about it. If you go to google news and search circumcision, you might find a few articles that talk about it.
Say NO to circumcisionIT'S A BOY! This is a great link to show expecting parents.
Omega18 wrote:Furthermore its readily apparent that at best the 52 death estimate is obviously not even close to established. When the same document aknowledges that we may be only talking about 2 or 3 deaths per year, some really screwy is going on here. (It should not be that difficult to establish which one is closer to being accurate.)
Well, when an infant boy dies from an MRSA outbreak having gotten the infection through his penile wound, he isn't recorded as having been kiled by circumcision. Of course, had that unnecessary, nontheraputic surgery not been performed on an unconsenting infant...
Say NO to circumcisionIT'S A BOY! This is a great link to show expecting parents.
Cairber wrote:
Well, when an infant boy dies from an MRSA outbreak having gotten the infection through his penile wound, he isn't recorded as having been kiled by circumcision. Of course, had that unnecessary, nontheraputic surgery not been performed on an unconsenting infant...
When you can't confirm where complications from fatalities are at one level or over 1700% higher, you've got a creditibility problem in my mind. This is data you need before advocating a policy change on this issue. It should be possilbe to perform studies and get this research done.
Given the number of procedures per year, that's a very low fatal complication rate.
Why the fuck should ANY children die on the altar of habitual infant circumcision?
If some poor kid is getting UTIs six times a year and the doctor thinks circumcision would improve the quality of his life, ask the kid if he wants the procedure. THEN do it!
"I spit on metaphysics, sir."
"I pity the woman you marry." -Liberty
This is the guy they want to use to win over "young people?" Are they completely daft? I'd rather vote for a pile of shit than a Jesus freak social regressive.
Here's hoping that his political career goes down in flames and, hopefully, a hilarious gay sex scandal. -Tanasinn
You can't expect sodomy to ruin every conservative politician in this country. -Battlehymn Republic
