To circumcise or not to circumcise?

[GrandizerII]

Studies that are peer reviewed. And done outside of America.

Still, even from your own link to the AAP earlier they say there's not enough benefit to do this routinely.

To be fair, studies done outside of America and on non-Americans are not considered to be generalizable to this population.   I had not seen this AAP link before, and I don't think it's right to dismiss it just because we don't like what it says.  If we, as skeptics, are not going to consider scientific research from a reputable, national medical organization, then we are no better than the crazy Christians who deny evolution research because the source has an "agenda."  

Being normally a reputable national organization does not automatically mean that every study or review they conduct will not suffer major flaws.

As a skeptic, you shouldn't trust blindly what any one organization or scientist tells you. The best thing you can trust is the scientific method itself when done properly and replicated multiple times to the point that you can't but be confident of the findings.

Evolution is a theory, and a really good one at that. It's been tested so many times, and despite everything, still is the theory that we can trust to explain the variation of life on this planet.

[LadyForCamus]

To be fair, studies done outside of America and on non-Americans are not considered to be generalizable to this population.   I had not seen this AAP link before, and I don't think it's right to dismiss it just because we don't like what it says.  If we, as skeptics, are not going to consider scientific research from a reputable, national medical organization, then we are no better than the crazy Christians who deny evolution research because the source has an "agenda."  

Being normally a reputable national organization does not automatically mean that every study or review they conduct will not suffer major flaws.

As a skeptic, you shouldn't trust blindly what any one organization or scientist tells you.

Where did I say we should do such a thing? My implication was that we perform our due diligence in evaluating all of the evidence no matter where it comes from. I haven't even looked at these meta analysis from the AAP yet.

[robvalue]

Sure, yeah. But if they can't give any kind of decent justification, I'm not going to be impressed. I will assume they are projecting themselves onto the child and then rationalising after the fact. I don't consider "I like how my dick looks" to be adequate justification for surgically altering someone else's dick without their consent.

Not that they are accountable to me personally of course. I'm just saying how I would evaluate a parenting decision.

Rob, what you have to understand is that  a circumcised penis is the norm in America. You don't want your child to be the kid with the weird dick in the locker room or cause any type of awkward sexual situations for them down the road. So for parents in America its not as easy as saying well he can do it when he's an adult, there are things parents are considering beyond religion or medical reasons.

From what people have said, it's no longer the norm and is on the decline.

But even if it were, I don't agree that performing this surgery is adequately justified by trying to prevent a bit of bullying. Kids will find any reason to bully people. Kids are going to be different to each other in all sorts of ways, and I don't think this is significant. The greater issue here would be giving people some privacy so they're not inspecting each other's dicks. Myself and plenty of others got bullied relentlessly, for no particular reason at all besides people got a kick out of it.

If you think this is adequate justification, then fair enough.

This is only my personal experience, but I've seen circumcised dicks quite a few times. Never once has anyone been bullied because of it, even though others could see them too and the opportunity was there. They were the only ones with such a dick, in each case. Yet it made no difference. (This is a reversal of the described scenario.)

Also, statistically it seems unlikely a kid will be the only uncircumcised kid in a class; especially if you're making the choice right now, which is the matter at hand. In fact, it may swing the other way by the time it becomes an issue.

[GrandizerII]

Being normally a reputable national organization does not automatically mean that every study or review they conduct will not suffer major flaws.

As a skeptic, you shouldn't trust blindly what any one organization or scientist tells you.

Where did I say we should do such a thing?  

My bad then. I for one have personally considered the evidence and do not find it convincing.

[LadyForCamus]

To be fair, studies done outside of America and on non-Americans are not considered to be generalizable to this population.   I had not seen this AAP link before, and I don't think it's right to dismiss it just because we don't like what it says.  If we, as skeptics, are not going to consider scientific research from a reputable, national medical organization, then we are no better than the crazy Christians who deny evolution research because the source has an "agenda."  

Being normally a reputable national organization does not automatically mean that every study or review they conduct will not suffer major flaws.

As a skeptic, you shouldn't trust blindly what any one organization or scientist tells you. The best thing you can trust is the scientific method itself when done properly and replicated multiple times to the point that you can't but be confident of the findings.

Evolution is a theory, and a really good one at that. It's been tested so many times, and despite everything, still is the theory that we can trust to explain the variation of life on this planet.

I agree. In fact, meta analyses are prone to flaws by their very design, and while they can be useful, it's important for differences in methods of statistical analysis, and differences in individual study design be taken into account when results are interpreted. It also needs to be taken into account that researchers are free to cherry pick which studies they'd like to include.

I was not making a positive statement about the AAP's supporting evidence; i haven't even read any of it yet. I was merely responding to Losty's opinion that we should dismiss said evidence based on a perceived philosophical stance taken by the organization.

In fact, the AAP does NOT recommend universal newborn circumcision. Their position is that there MAY be health benefits, including prevention of STD's and penile cancer, but that the scientific evidence for these things is NOT overwhelming, and ultimately it is a clinical judgement call to be made between the parents and their pediatrician. This is exactly the kind of 'play it safe until the evidence is stronger' recommendation I would expect from any scientifically reputable medical organization.

[robvalue]

You could make a (weak) case for the removal of a huge number of body parts, with the argument that the removed part can no longer go bad in any way.

Of course, you then have to balance the likely damage such a removal causes.

If the medical community as a whole considered every single modification you could make as a general rule, and decided that it's foreskins and nothing else, I'd be surprised and suspicious. It just happens to correlate with what people have been doing for a long time for other reasons, mainly religious, or for primitive hygiene.

But still, if the evidence was there and experts agreed it really is worth it, then I'd accept that. That doesn't seem to be the case though.

[Tiberius]

It was medically recommended by 3 separate doctors, one a urologist, to circumcise my son at 7 months old because his foreskin didn't retract. -_-

Unfortunately it sounds like you got bad advice from 3 doctors. A 2005 study found that the average age of a first retraction was around 10 years.

Forcible retraction should not be attempted because it can damage the penis / foreskin.

Speaking from personal experience, my foreskin first retracted when I was around 6 or 7 as far as I can remember. It was extremely tight at first, and I first retracted it whilst in the bath. It gets much more loose over time though, and the more you retract it (especially when you pee / masturbate) the easier it will become.

[Mr.wizard]

Rob, what you have to understand is that  a circumcised penis is the norm in America. You don't want your child to be the kid with the weird dick in the locker room or cause any type of awkward sexual situations for them down the road. So for parents in America its not as easy as saying well he can do it when he's an adult, there are things parents are considering beyond religion or medical reasons.

From what people have said, it's no longer the norm and is on the decline.

But even if it were, I don't agree that performing this surgery is adequately justified by trying to prevent a bit of bullying. Kids will find any reason to bully people. Kids are going to be different to each other in all sorts of ways, and I don't think this is significant. The greater issue here would be giving people some privacy so they're not inspecting each other's dicks. Myself and plenty of others got bullied relentlessly, for no particular reason at all besides people got a kick out of it.

If you think this is adequate justification, then fair enough.

This is only my personal experience, but I've seen circumcised dicks quite a few times. Never once has anyone been bullied because of it, even though others could see them too and the opportunity was there.

It's not about bullying, It's about wanting your child to fit in and not feel awkward about their body, especially during those developmental stages. I would make argument that you shouldn't do it for cultures where circumcision is not common, based on the same reasoning.

[robvalue]

Okay, fair enough.

I would still consider this a very inadequate reason, but clearly you value it much higher.

How far would you take this to make your child fit in with other fads? What if other weird unecessary surgeries became common?

[GrandizerII]

It was medically recommended by 3 separate doctors, one a urologist, to circumcise my son at 7 months old because his foreskin didn't retract. -_-

It gets much more loose over time though, and the more you retract it (especially when you pee / masturbate) the easier it will become.

In fact, this is the kind of advice that should be given by parents and doctors to all boys (for peeing at least), to reduce the likelihood of ending up with phimosis.