izaaz101 said:
Penile cancer, for the most part affects only those that have a foreskin. Not completely, mind you, but just about....out of about every 5000 penile cancer patients, only 1 of them will be circumcised - the rest will be uncircumcised. So, it's a little bit different compared to prostate cancer, in that it can be prevented via circumcision, whereas prostate cancer is an inevitability...unless, I guess you remove your prostate. As for the complication rate listed (I'll read the article sometime tomorrow - can't really read papers right before bed) I assume he extrapolated his/her results, which led to that wide range of realistic complications? Although drops in circumcisions have been seen over the past 5-6 years, I wouldn't attribute it towards Doctor's knowing "better"...in fact, going by this it appears that some Doctors are actually going the other way and going to encourage it as opposed to their former indifferent stance (also within this article - "The study found a very low rate of complications associated with newborn circumcisions; most were considered mild and no babies died"). I apologize if I'm incoherent or jumping around from topic to topic...it's quite late. I'll edit this or fix it tomorrow, if needed. |
If by some... you mean... fringe. Yes. There have always been fringe doctors who do that kind of stuff.
It's nonsense in a western country though.
Your talking about stopping something that is so unlikely that the chance of botching the prevention method is higher.... and then preventing urinary tract diseases... which 99% of people aren't going to get anyway... and which is cured by antibiotics.
It's just outright stupid.
As for Penile cancer.... are you sure about that? Everything I've read has said they are basically exactly the same when you take into account the confounding variables
"Circumcision: Whether or not circumcision is a negative risk factor (if it protects against penile cancer) is a very controversial issue.
Circumcision is the removal of a part or all of the foreskin at birth or later on in life. This practice has been suggested as conferring some protection against cancer of the penis by contributing to improved hygiene. However, the penile cancer risk is low in some uncircumcised populations, and the practice of circumcision is strongly associated with socio-ethnic factors which in turn are associated with lessened risk. The consensus among studies that have taken these other factors into account is that circumcision is not of value in preventing cancer of the penis. It is important that the issue of circumcision not distract the public's attention from avoiding known penile cancer risk factors -- having unprotected sexual relations with multiple partners (increasing the likelihood of human papillomavirus infection) and cigarette smoking."
And
In the past, circumcision has been suggested as a way to prevent penile cancer. This was based on studies that reported much lower penile cancer rates among circumcised men than among uncircumcised men. But in many of those studies, the protective effect of circumcision was no longer seen after factors like smegma and phimosis were taken into account.
Most public health researchers believe that the risk of penile cancer is low among uncircumcised men without known risk factors living in the United States. Men who wish to lower their risk of penile cancer can do so by avoiding HPV infection and not smoking. Those who aren't circumcised can also lower their risk of penile cancer by practicing good hygiene. Most experts agree that circumcision should not be recommended solely as a way to prevent penile cancer.
http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/PenileCancer/DetailedGuide/penile-cancer-prevention
In otherwords... you've been reading framed science based on by people with an agenda.
