Male Circumcision - Dr. Thomas Lundberg

Stan Barnes

7/14/2011 3:17:42 AM #

The standard of care for pediatric surgery requires the medical benefits of the surgery to significantly outweigh the medical risks and harms or for the surgery to correct a congenital abnormality. Non-therapeutic circumcision of healthy boys does not even come close to meeting that standard of care. The fact that Muslim and Jewish parents believe that male circumcision is a religious requirement is not a sufficiently good reason for American doctors to tolerate unnecessary surgery on the genitals of non-Muslim and non-Jewish boys.

e n

7/14/2011 2:32:41 PM #

stan - you seem to be trying to say that jewish and muslims are the only ones who undergo this surgery. Thats pretty off the mark and you have to know it. I dont know the statistics, counrtywide, but i know that all of my male friends have been circumcised, when they were born - under their parents consent [not the decision of a doctor or government] with ONE exception. HE got circumcised when his uncircumcised flesh became severely infected around the age of 14. I think the terror infection and pain he underwent at seeing his penis become severely infected from improper cleaning [which IS why men are circumcised] could have easily been avoided. I am not saying people should be forced, but niether should they have the right to an operation that has been done for thousands of years that has good preventative  health reason to be denied them..

Stan Barnes

7/14/2011 9:20:21 PM #

No, I am saying there is no good reason for a medical doctor to circumcise a non-Muslim or non-Jewish boy. Male circumcision is not a Christian practice. Chapter 15 in the Book of Acts in the New Testament is very clear on that point of Christian doctrine.

Nationwide only about 56% of newborn boys are circumcised. The newborn circumcision rate is much lower in the western states.

If your friend had been female, I wonder what parts of her genitals the doctor would have cut off to treat an infection. Girls with intact genitals get more infections than boys with intact genitals, but doctors treat infections in girls with medication instead of surgery. Medication works for boys too!

roger desmoulins

7/15/2011 4:19:19 AM #

Although the mechanism is unclear, male circumcision has been found to decrease the transmission of HIV, genital herpes, and the human papilloma virus (HPV)....I must emphasize that being circumcised diminishes, not eliminates, the transmission of these viruses.
ME. This is not true when the cut and uncut men have similar socioeconomic status. Rates of STD infection are lower in Japan and western Europe, where men are not circumcised, than in the USA.

There are two fundamental problems with routine circumcision. First, most western nations do not practice it, and there is no evidence that those nations have higher rates of urological problems and STD infections. New Zealand used to circumcise 90% or more of its baby boys. The rate is now zero. There is no evidence of a urological disaster in that country. Australia and Canada used to circumcise 70-90% of all baby boys; the rate is now 15-25%. Where's the problem?

Second, doctors should not perform an action unless its complications are reasonably well understood. I know of no attempt to assess the possible adverse long term effects of infant circumcision on adult sexual pleasure and functionality. There is ample anecdotal evidence of such adverse effects, on both circumcised men and their sexual partners. Until there is a careful clinical study of the American adult penis, its sexual capabilities, and the experiences of their partners, routine circumcision should cease immediately, simply because its possible drawbacks are unknown.

dialurdoctor

7/16/2011 5:23:17 AM #

Now it is very easy to contact with doctor.