Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [psychiatry-research] We Need To Stop Circumcision

Expand Messages
  • Glynn Owens
    ...Just to make clear, in my email I referred to *HPV* transmission reduction, not *HIV* which of course would not be affected at all. cheers, Glynn
    Message 1 of 24 , Mar 1 2:31 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      ...Just to make clear, in my email I referred to *HPV* transmission reduction, not *HIV* which of course would not be affected at all.
       
      cheers,
       
      Glynn

      From: psychiatry-research@yahoogroups.com [psychiatry-research@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dr. Chittaranjan Andrade [andradec@...]
      Sent: Monday, 1 March 2010 4:51 p.m.
      To: psychiatry-research@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [psychiatry-research] We Need To Stop Circumcision

       

      Observational data suggest a lower incidence of childhood urinary tract infection and lower overall incidence of carcinoma of the penis in males circumcised at birth.

      A 2009 Cochrane review concluded as follows:
      "There is strong evidence that medical male circumcision reduces the acquisition of HIV by heterosexual men by between 38% and 66% over 24 months. Incidence of adverse events is very low, indicating that male circumcision, when conducted under these conditions, is a safe procedure. Inclusion of male circumcision into current HIV prevention measures guidelines is warranted, with further research required to assess the feasibility, desirability, and cost-effectiveness of implementing the procedure within local contexts." [Siegfried et al, 2009]

      Male circumcision, however, does not prevent spread of HIV infection from males to females.

      CA

    • Ahmet Corak
        Male circumcision also reduced the risk of both genital HPV infections and cervical cancer in the female partner (Castelsague et all., 2002)     Safety
      Message 2 of 24 , Mar 1 3:10 AM
      • 0 Attachment

         

        "Male circumcision also reduced the risk of both genital HPV infections and cervical cancer in the female partner (Castelsague et all., 2002)"

         

         

        Safety and efficacy of nontherapeutic male circumcision: a systematic review.

        Ann Fam Med. 2010 Jan-Feb;8(1):64-72.

         

        Perera CL, Bridgewater FH, Thavaneswaran P, Maddern GJ.

         

        PURPOSE: We wanted to assess the safety and efficacy of nontherapeutic male circumcision through a systematic review of the literature. METHODS: We systematically searched The York Centre for Reviews and Disseminations, Cochrane Library, PubMed, and EMBASE databases for randomized controlled trials published between January 1997 and August 2008. Studies reporting on circumcision in an operative setting in males of any age with no contraindications to or medical indications for circumcision were eligible for inclusion. The main comparator was intact genitalia. From 73 retrieved studies, 8 randomized controlled trials were ultimately included for analysis. RESULTS: Severe complications were uncommon. Analgesia/anesthesia during circumcision was promoted. The prevalence of self-reported genital ulcers was significantly lower in circumcised men than uncircumcised men (3.1% vs 5.8%; prevalence risk ratio 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43-0.64; P<.001). Circumcised sub-Saharan African men were at significantly lower risk of acquiring human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome than were uncircumcised men (random effects odds ratio = 0.44, 95% CI, 0.32-0.59; P <.001). The evidence suggests that adult circumcision does not affect sexual satisfaction and function. CONCLUSIONS: Strong evidence suggests circumcision can prevent human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome acquisition in sub-Saharan African men. These findings remain uncertain in men residing in other countries. The role of adult nontherapeutic male circumcision in preventing sexually transmitted infections, urinary tract infections, and penile cancer remains unclear. Current evidence fails to recommend widespread neonatal circumcision for these purposes.
         

        --- On Mon, 3/1/10, Dr. Chittaranjan Andrade <andradec@...> wrote:

        From: Dr. Chittaranjan Andrade <andradec@...>
        Subject: Re: [psychiatry-research] We Need To Stop Circumcision
        To: psychiatry-research@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 5:51 AM

         
        Observational data suggest a lower incidence of childhood urinary tract infection and lower overall incidence of carcinoma of the penis in males circumcised at birth.

        A 2009 Cochrane review concluded as follows:
        "There is strong evidence that medical male circumcision reduces the acquisition of HIV by heterosexual men by between 38% and 66% over 24 months. Incidence of adverse events is very low, indicating that male circumcision, when conducted under these conditions, is a safe procedure. Inclusion of male circumcision into current HIV prevention measures guidelines is warranted, with further research required to assess the feasibility, desirability, and cost-effectiveness of implementing the procedure within local contexts." [Siegfried et al, 2009]

        Male circumcision, however, does not prevent spread of HIV infection from males to females.

        CA

      • Gaither, George A.
        From abstract below…“Strong evidence suggests circumcision can prevent human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome acquisition in
        Message 3 of 24 , Mar 1 6:48 AM
        • 0 Attachment

          From abstract below…“Strong evidence suggests circumcision can prevent human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome acquisition in sub-Saharan African men.”

           

          I don’t trust anything else written in this article if authors believe that any findings suggest that circumcision PREVENTS HIV for anyone.  Aren’t the highest HIV rates in the world found in Sub-Saharan Africa?  Do these authors just discount that, or are they ignorant enough to believe that the only sub-Sharan Africans w/HIV are those uncircumcised guys?

           

          What a great example of how statistics can be used to say anything.

           

          George A. Gaither, Ph.D.

          Associate Professor

          Department of Psychological Science

          Ball State University

          Muncie, IN 47304

           

          From: psychiatry-research@yahoogroups.com [mailto:psychiatry-research@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ahmet Corak
          Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 6:10 AM
          To: psychiatry-research@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [psychiatry-research] We Need To Stop Circumcision

           

           

           

          "Male circumcision also reduced the risk of both genital HPV infections and cervical cancer in the female partner (Castelsague et all., 2002)"

           

           

          Safety and efficacy of nontherapeutic male circumcision: a systematic review.

          Ann Fam Med. 2010 Jan-Feb;8(1):64-72.

           

          Perera CL, Bridgewater FH, Thavaneswaran P, Maddern GJ.

           

          PURPOSE: We wanted to assess the safety and efficacy of nontherapeutic male circumcision through a systematic review of the literature. METHODS: We systematically searched The York Centre for Reviews and Disseminations, Cochrane Library, PubMed, and EMBASE databases for randomized controlled trials published between January 1997 and August 2008. Studies reporting on circumcision in an operative setting in males of any age with no contraindications to or medical indications for circumcision were eligible for inclusion. The main comparator was intact genitalia. From 73 retrieved studies, 8 randomized controlled trials were ultimately included for analysis. RESULTS: Severe complications were uncommon. Analgesia/anesthesia during circumcision was promoted. The prevalence of self-reported genital ulcers was significantly lower in circumcised men than uncircumcised men (3.1% vs 5.8%; prevalence risk ratio 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43-0.64; P<.001). Circumcised sub-Saharan African men were at significantly lower risk of acquiring human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome than were uncircumcised men (random effects odds ratio = 0.44, 95% CI, 0.32-0.59; P <.001). The evidence suggests that adult circumcision does not affect sexual satisfaction and function. CONCLUSIONS: Strong evidence suggests circumcision can prevent human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome acquisition in sub-Saharan African men. These findings remain uncertain in men residing in other countries. The role of adult nontherapeutic male circumcision in preventing sexually transmitted infections, urinary tract infections, and penile cancer remains unclear. Current evidence fails to recommend widespread neonatal circumcision for these purposes.

           


          --- On Mon, 3/1/10, Dr. Chittaranjan Andrade <andradec@...> wrote:


          From: Dr. Chittaranjan Andrade <andradec@...>
          Subject: Re: [psychiatry-research] We Need To Stop Circumcision
          To: psychiatry-research@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 5:51 AM

           

          Observational data suggest a lower incidence of childhood urinary tract infection and lower overall incidence of carcinoma of the penis in males circumcised at birth.

          A 2009 Cochrane review concluded as follows:
          "There is strong evidence that medical male circumcision reduces the acquisition of HIV by heterosexual men by between 38% and 66% over 24 months. Incidence of adverse events is very low, indicating that male circumcision, when conducted under these conditions, is a safe procedure. Inclusion of male circumcision into current HIV prevention measures guidelines is warranted, with further research required to assess the feasibility, desirability, and cost-effectiveness of implementing the procedure within local contexts." [Siegfried et al, 2009]

          Male circumcision, however, does not prevent spread of HIV infection from males to females.

          CA

           

        • Philip Benjamin
          [Philip Benjamin] You have a point here. The parents also have their birthrights to bring in and bring up children in the way they want to. It is a
          Message 4 of 24 , Mar 1 7:08 AM
          • 0 Attachment
             
            [Philip Benjamin]
             
            You have "a" point here. The parents also have their birthrights to "bring in"and "bring up" children in the way they want to. It is a contradiction and a travesty only when the "birthright to be born" is arbitrarily denied to a baby for any reason other than the certainty of a "baby" killing a mother! Too sad and too bad some children are born into where they may not have liked to!! Life is very unfair.
             
            > To: psychiatry-research@yahoogroups.com
            > From: pantheon@...
            > Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:25:59 -0700
            > Subject: Re: [psychiatry-research] We Need To Stop Circumcision
            >
            > Birth right applies to the child, not his parents.
            > Anna
            >
            > --------------------------------------------------
            > From: "Philip Benjamin" <medinuclear@...>
            > Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 2:08 PM
            > To: "psychiatry-rsearch" <psychiatry-research@yahoogroups.com>
            > Cc: <pantheon@...>
            > Subject: RE: [psychiatry-research] We Need To Stop Circumcision
            >
            > > Best left to the families and their physicians. Prople have the BIRTH
            > > RIGHT to keep merrily going to HELL and even further, if they so CHOOSE!!!
            > >
            > > To: psychiatry-research@yahoogroups.com
            > > From: pantheon@...
            > > Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 20:35:03 -0700
            > > Subject: [psychiatry-research] We Need To Stop Circumcision
            > >
            > > We Need To Stop Circumcision
            > >
            > > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christiane-northrup/we-need-to-stop-circumcis_b_470689.html
            > >
            > > Read More: American Academy Of Pediatrics , App , Christiane Northrup ,
            > > Circumcise , Circumcision , Dr. Christiane Northrup , Health , Health
            > > Advice , Health Tips , Living News
            > >
            > > In the weeks ahead, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
            > > and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) are likely to publish a
            > > recommendation that all infant boys undergo circumcision. This is a huge
            > > mistake. Circumcision is an unnecessary procedure that is painful and can
            > > lead to complications, including death. No organization in the world
            > > currently recommends this. Why should we routinely remove normal,
            > > functioning tissue from the genitals of little boys within days of their
            > > birth?
            > > <Snip>
            > >
            > >
            > > ------------------------------------
            > >
            > > Yahoo! Groups Links
            > >
            > >
            > >
            >
            >
            >
            > >
            > > No virus found in this incoming message.
            > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
            > > Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2714 - Release Date: 02/28/10
            > > 00:34:00
            > >
            >
            >
            > ------------------------------------
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            > <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
            > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/psychiatry-research/
            >
            > <*> Your email settings:
            > Individual Email | Traditional
            >
            > <*> To change settings online go to:
            > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/psychiatry-research/join
            > (Yahoo! ID required)
            >
            > <*> To change settings via email:
            > psychiatry-research-digest@yahoogroups.com
            > psychiatry-research-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
            >
            > <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            > psychiatry-research-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >
            > <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
            > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            >


            Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.
          • Roy Sugarman
            Hi I have to add my voice to those who underwent this abuse in their first week of life. I have spent my life among Jews, males of course, and never met
            Message 5 of 24 , Mar 1 2:14 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi
               
              I have to add my voice to those who underwent this 'abuse' in their first week of life.  I have spent my life among Jews, males of course, and never met one, in or out of the school locker room, who had a life problem with their own circumcision or their son's.  I know many old men who deliberately made sure their sons were circumcized during the war, even though the Nazi's were prohibitive on that and other subjects Judaic.  I have certainly seen minor botched circumcisions, with the Mohel running back to fix it, or the baby going to hospital for a repair job. But no harm in a real long term sense appeared to be done.
               
              As I mentioned before, I have seen hundreds of my friends and family's sons being circumcized, with local anaesthesia and wine dripped onto a gauze (Kosher wine is quite high in alcohol content) and their cries were fairly minimal, and both before and after that circumcision they were given a codeine-paracetomol mix for pre and post operative pain, in syrup form.  As with Ahmet, I have never known anyone who ostensibly had a disaster in their Brit Milah (Covenant of the Circumcision) but I am sure there must be some, somewhere.
               
              What has to be unacceptable is the idea of real, nasty pain, with lasting damage, and given the neuroradiological imaging and its worrying evidence, what damage is done is still academic, as the millions of circumcized Jews and Moslems and others worldwide seem clinically healthy, despite centuries of such 'abuse'.
               
              Now I had two daughters.  The look on their faces when the doctor stuck needles in their arms for their innoculation 'jabs' was one of awful betrayal, with screams I had not heard before, staring at the doctor immediately with lower lip far outstretched and sobs pouring for days, pointing to their arms and screaming.  Both girls never responded to the doctor in the same way again, shrinking back in horror.  On the other hand, I met an old rabbi many years ago, who reminded me that he was the one who did the chop on me! I had no memory of him, fortunately, even if my mother was not happy with the job he did :-)
               
              But without it, I could not have been Bar Mitvahed, or Married, or ever take my clothes off around other Jews, and my children could not have gone to Jewish schools (which might have actually worked out better, but hey...they dont anyway).  A lot of mothers cannot go near the ceremony and cry themselves, but as with many who submit to female mutilation at a much later stage in life, its about a lot of things social, dating back forever.
               
              I would circumsize my sons, but I would really want to know how their pain could be minimized.
               
              Its a difficult one for any parent, but my choice as a dad to engage my sone with a God I am unsure of, but a society I definately wouldnt want shunning them, social pressure notwithstanding: my sons can crap on me later....soz boys, it had to be done, to keep your future wife shtum (quiet).  Happily, I only had girls.
               
              R

              On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Ahmet Corak <ahmetcorak@...> wrote:
               

               

              "Male circumcision also reduced the risk of both genital HPV infections and cervical cancer in the female partner (Castelsague et all., 2002)"

               

               

              Safety and efficacy of nontherapeutic male circumcision: a systematic review.

              Ann Fam Med. 2010 Jan-Feb;8(1):64-72.

               

              Perera CL, Bridgewater FH, Thavaneswaran P, Maddern GJ.

               

              PURPOSE: We wanted to assess the safety and efficacy of nontherapeutic male circumcision through a systematic review of the literature. METHODS: We systematically searched The York Centre for Reviews and Disseminations, Cochrane Library, PubMed, and EMBASE databases for randomized controlled trials published between January 1997 and August 2008. Studies reporting on circumcision in an operative setting in males of any age with no contraindications to or medical indications for circumcision were eligible for inclusion. The main comparator was intact genitalia. From 73 retrieved studies, 8 randomized controlled trials were ultimately included for analysis. RESULTS: Severe complications were uncommon. Analgesia/anesthesia during circumcision was promoted. The prevalence of self-reported genital ulcers was significantly lower in circumcised men than uncircumcised men (3.1% vs 5.8%; prevalence risk ratio 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43-0.64; P<.001). Circumcised sub-Saharan African men were at significantly lower risk of acquiring human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome than were uncircumcised men (random effects odds ratio = 0.44, 95% CI, 0.32-0.59; P <.001). The evidence suggests that adult circumcision does not affect sexual satisfaction and function. CONCLUSIONS: Strong evidence suggests circumcision can prevent human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome acquisition in sub-Saharan African men. These findings remain uncertain in men residing in other countries. The role of adult nontherapeutic male circumcision in preventing sexually transmitted infections, urinary tract infections, and penile cancer remains unclear. Current evidence fails to recommend widespread neonatal circumcision for these purposes.
               

              --- On Mon, 3/1/10, Dr. Chittaranjan Andrade <andradec@...> wrote:

              From: Dr. Chittaranjan Andrade <andradec@...>

              Subject: Re: [psychiatry-research] We Need To Stop Circumcision
              To: psychiatry-research@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 5:51 AM


               
              Observational data suggest a lower incidence of childhood urinary tract infection and lower overall incidence of carcinoma of the penis in males circumcised at birth.

              A 2009 Cochrane review concluded as follows:
              "There is strong evidence that medical male circumcision reduces the acquisition of HIV by heterosexual men by between 38% and 66% over 24 months. Incidence of adverse events is very low, indicating that male circumcision, when conducted under these conditions, is a safe procedure. Inclusion of male circumcision into current HIV prevention measures guidelines is warranted, with further research required to assess the feasibility, desirability, and cost-effectiveness of implementing the procedure within local contexts." [Siegfried et al, 2009]

              Male circumcision, however, does not prevent spread of HIV infection from males to females.

              CA





              --
              Roy Sugarman PhD
              Consultant Clinical Neuropsychologist and Clinical Psychologist
              Level 7 Psychology
              Suite 1, Level 7
              35 Spring Street
              Bondi Junction
              NSW 2022
              Australia
              Tel: +61 (0)2 9371 7347
              Mob: +61 (0) 403 289092
              Email: roy@...

            • Glynn Owens
              I m not sure of your point here Philip, is this an obscure reference to abortion? If so I think it takes us a long way from the topic of circumcision, and
              Message 6 of 24 , Mar 1 3:24 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                I'm not sure of your point here Philip, is this an obscure reference to abortion?  If so I think it takes us a long way from the topic of circumcision, and presupposes a "right to be born" (not actually denied where abortion is legal).  Of course whether one then has a "right not to be born before viability" is a separate issue.  Rights are always a difficult subject when giving one group rights infringes on the rights of others.
                 
                cheers,
                 
                Glynn

                From: psychiatry-research@yahoogroups.com [psychiatry-research@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Philip Benjamin [medinuclear@...]
                Sent: Tuesday, 2 March 2010 4:08 a.m.
                To: psychiatry-rsearch
                Cc: pantheon@...
                Subject: RE: [psychiatry-research] We Need To Stop Circumcision

                 


                [Philip Benjamin]
                 
                You have "a" point here. The parents also have their birthrights to "bring in"and "bring up" children in the way they want to. It is a contradiction and a travesty only when the "birthright to be born" is arbitrarily denied to a baby for any reason other than the certainty of a "baby" killing a mother! Too sad and too bad some children are born into where they may not have liked to!! Life is very unfair.
                 

                > To: psychiatry-research @yahoogroups. com
                > From: pantheon@ix. netcom.com
                > Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:25:59 -0700
                > Subject: Re: [psychiatry- research] We Need To Stop Circumcision
                >
                > Birth right applies to the child, not his parents.
                > Anna
                >
                > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --
                > From: "Philip Benjamin" <medinuclear@ hotmail.com>
                > Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 2:08 PM
                > To: "psychiatry- rsearch" <psychiatry-research @yahoogroups. com>
                > Cc: <pantheon@ix. netcom.com>
                > Subject: RE: [psychiatry- research] We Need To Stop Circumcision
                >
                > > Best left to the families and their physicians. Prople have the BIRTH
                > > RIGHT to keep merrily going to HELL and even further, if they so CHOOSE!!!
                > >
                > > To: psychiatry-research @yahoogroups. com
                > > From: pantheon@ix. netcom.com
                > > Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 20:35:03 -0700
                > > Subject: [psychiatry- research] We Need To Stop Circumcision
                > >
                > > We Need To Stop Circumcision
                > >
                > > http://www.huffingt onpost.com/ christiane- northrup/ we-need-to- stop-circumcis_ b_470689. html
                > >
                > > Read More: American Academy Of Pediatrics , App , Christiane Northrup ,
                > > Circumcise , Circumcision , Dr. Christiane Northrup , Health , Health
                > > Advice , Health Tips , Living News
                > >
                > > In the weeks ahead, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
                > > and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) are likely to publish a
                > > recommendation that all infant boys undergo circumcision. This is a huge
                > > mistake. Circumcision is an unnecessary procedure that is painful and can
                > > lead to complications, including death. No organization in the world
                > > currently recommends this. Why should we routinely remove normal,
                > > functioning tissue from the genitals of little boys within days of their
                > > birth?
                > > <Snip>
                > >
                > >
                > > ------------ --------- --------- ------
                > >
                > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                > >
                > >
                > >
                >
                >
                >
                > >
                > > No virus found in this incoming message.
                > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                > > Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2714 - Release Date: 02/28/10
                > > 00:34:00
                > >
                >
                >
                > ------------ --------- --------- ------
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                > <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                > http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/psychiatry -research/
                >
                > <*> Your email settings:
                > Individual Email | Traditional
                >
                > <*> To change settings online go to:
                > http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/psychiatry -research/ join
                > (Yahoo! ID required)
                >
                > <*> To change settings via email:
                > psychiatry-research -digest@yahoogro ups.com
                > psychiatry-research -fullfeatured@ yahoogroups. com
                >
                > <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                > psychiatry-research -unsubscribe@ yahoogroups. com
                >
                > <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                > http://docs. yahoo.com/ info/terms/
                >


                Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.

              • Anna
                And, most men are circumcised in Africa, so how was the study done and with whom? Anna From: Gaither, George A. Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:48 AM To:
                Message 7 of 24 , Mar 1 6:17 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  And, most men are circumcised in Africa, so how was the study done and with whom? Anna
                   

                  Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:48 AM
                  Subject: RE: [psychiatry-research] We Need To Stop Circumcision

                  From abstract below…“Strong evidence suggests circumcision can prevent human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome acquisition in sub-Saharan African men.”

                   

                  I don’t trust anything else written in this article if authors believe that any findings suggest that circumcision PREVENTS HIV for anyone.  Aren’t the highest HIV rates in the world found in Sub-Saharan Africa?  Do these authors just discount that, or are they ignorant enough to believe that the only sub-Sharan Africans w/HIV are those uncircumcised guys?

                   

                  What a great example of how statistics can be used to say anything.

                   

                  George A. Gaither, Ph.D.

                  Associate Professor

                  Department of Psychological Science

                  Ball State University

                  Muncie, IN 47304

                   

                  From: psychiatry-research@yahoogroups.com [mailto:psychiatry-research@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ahmet Corak
                  Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 6:10 AM
                  To: psychiatry-research@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Re: [psychiatry-research] We Need To Stop Circumcision

                   

                   

                   

                  "Male circumcision also reduced the risk of both genital HPV infections and cervical cancer in the female partner (Castelsague et all., 2002)"

                   

                   

                  Safety and efficacy of nontherapeutic male circumcision: a systematic review.

                  Ann Fam Med. 2010 Jan-Feb;8(1):64-72.

                   

                  Perera CL, Bridgewater FH, Thavaneswaran P, Maddern GJ.

                   

                • David Schneider
                  That s not what the abstract says. Just a difference in rates. Best criticism would be that circumcised and uncircumcised men differ in some other relevant way
                  Message 8 of 24 , Mar 1 6:55 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    That's not what the abstract says. Just a difference in rates. Best criticism would be that circumcised and uncircumcised men differ in some other relevant way (e.g., SES or other factors affecting sexual practices.). But for all we know circumcision does help prevent HIV. Perhaps the conclusion as stated is a bit strong but not necessarily wrong. The fault isn't with the statistics but with assuming correlation is cause -- maybe, maybe not.

                    I think we've said about all there is to say on this fundamentally boring topic. Circumcision these days is not painful to the child (a bit of soreness for a day or two); it's more painful when done as an adult. Hard to argue that it's brutal in terms of pain, and it's a decision parents must make one way or the other at least in the US, like lots of other decisions parents make for their children such as various vaccinations (often more painful than circumcision), diet, what books to read to them, haircut styles, and whatever. There are a variety of religious and health reasons for preferring it and other reasons for not. Hard to imagine why this is a topic of grave concern. If folks are really interested in the brutality inflicted on children by their parents deliberately or unwittingly, there are far more serious things to consider.

                    Dave

                    At 08:48 AM 3/1/2010, you wrote:
                     

                    From abstract below…“Strong evidence suggests circumcision can prevent human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome acquisition in sub-Saharan African men.”

                     

                    I don’t trust anything else written in this article if authors believe that any findings suggest that circumcision PREVENTS HIV for anyone.  Aren’t the highest HIV rates in the world found in Sub-Saharan Africa?  Do these authors just discount that, or are they ignorant enough to believe that the only sub-Sharan Africans w/HIV are those uncircumcised guys?

                     

                    What a great example of how statistics can be used to say anything.

                     

                    George A. Gaither, Ph.D.

                    Associate Professor

                    Department of Psychological Science

                    Ball State University

                    Muncie, IN 47304

                     

                    From: psychiatry-research@yahoogroups.com [ mailto:psychiatry-research@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ahmet Corak
                    Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 6:10 AM
                    To: psychiatry-research@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [psychiatry-research] We Need To Stop Circumcision

                     

                     

                     

                    "Male circumcision also reduced the risk of both genital HPV infections and cervical cancer in the female partner (Castelsague et all., 2002)"

                     

                     

                    Safety and efficacy of nontherapeutic male circumcision: a systematic review.



                    Ann Fam Med. 2010 Jan-Feb;8(1):64-72.

                     

                    Perera CL, Bridgewater FH, Thavaneswaran P, Maddern GJ.

                     

                    PURPOSE: We wanted to assess the safety and efficacy of nontherapeutic male circumcision through a systematic review of the literature. METHODS: We systematically searched The York Centre for Reviews and Disseminations, Cochrane Library, PubMed, and EMBASE databases for randomized controlled trials published between January 1997 and August 2008. Studies reporting on circumcision in an operative setting in males of any age with no contraindications to or medical indications for circumcision were eligible for inclusion. The main comparator was intact genitalia. From 73 retrieved studies, 8 randomized controlled trials were ultimately included for analysis. RESULTS: Severe complications were uncommon. Analgesia/anesthesia during circumcision was promoted. The prevalence of self-reported genital ulcers was significantly lower in circumcised men than uncircumcised men (3.1% vs 5.8%; prevalence risk ratio 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43-0.64; P<.001). Circumcised sub-Saharan African men were at significantly lower risk of acquiring human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome than were uncircumcised men (random effects odds ratio = 0.44, 95% CI, 0.32-0.59; P <.001). The evidence suggests that adult circumcision does not affect sexual satisfaction and function. CONCLUSIONS: Strong evidence suggests circumcision can prevent human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome acquisition in sub-Saharan African men. These findings remain uncertain in men residing in other countries. The role of adult nontherapeutic male circumcision in preventing sexually transmitted infections, urinary tract infections, and penile cancer remains unclear. Current evidence fails to recommend widespread neonatal circumcision for these purposes.

                     


                    --- On Mon, 3/1/10, Dr. Chittaranjan Andrade <andradec@...> wrote:


                    From: Dr. Chittaranjan Andrade <andradec@...>
                    Subject: Re: [psychiatry-research] We Need To Stop Circumcision
                    To: psychiatry-research@yahoogroups.com
                    Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 5:51 AM

                     

                    Observational data suggest a lower incidence of childhood urinary tract infection and lower overall incidence of carcinoma of the penis in males circumcised at birth.

                    A 2009 Cochrane review concluded as follows:
                    "There is strong evidence that medical male circumcision reduces the acquisition of HIV by heterosexual men by between 38% and 66% over 24 months. Incidence of adverse events is very low, indicating that male circumcision, when conducted under these conditions, is a safe procedure. Inclusion of male circumcision into current HIV prevention measures guidelines is warranted, with further research required to assess the feasibility, desirability, and cost-effectiveness of implementing the procedure within local contexts." [Siegfried et al, 2009]

                    Male circumcision, however, does not prevent spread of HIV infection from males to females.

                    CA

                     


                    !DSPAM:3694,4b8c440b82761234018321!

                    David J. Schneider
                    Professor Emeritus of Psychology & Cognitive Sciences

                    sch@...
                    713-348-5144

                    http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~sch/

                  • Glynn Owens
                    Sounds implausible to me, too, but the observations aren t inconsistent - for example it would still be possible to have high rates of circumcision and for the
                    Message 9 of 24 , Mar 1 7:59 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Sounds implausible to me, too, but the observations aren't inconsistent - for example it would still be possible to have high rates of circumcision and for the uncircumcised men to be the ones with HIV - after all the percentages in neither case are overwhelming.
                       
                      Glynn

                      From: psychiatry-research@yahoogroups.com [psychiatry-research@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Anna [pantheon@...]
                      Sent: Tuesday, 2 March 2010 3:17 p.m.
                      To: psychiatry-research@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: Re: [psychiatry-research] We Need To Stop Circumcision

                       

                      And, most men are circumcised in Africa, so how was the study done and with whom? Anna
                       

                      Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:48 AM
                      Subject: RE: [psychiatry- research] We Need To Stop Circumcision

                      From abstract below…“Strong evidence suggests circumcision can prevent human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome acquisition in sub-Saharan African men.”

                       

                      I don’t trust anything else written in this article if authors believe that any findings suggest that circumcision PREVENTS HIV for anyone.  Aren’t the highest HIV rates in the world found in Sub-Saharan Africa?  Do these authors just discount that, or are they ignorant enough to believe that the only sub-Sharan Africans w/HIV are those uncircumcised guys?

                       

                      What a great example of how statistics can be used to say anything.

                       

                      George A. Gaither, Ph.D.

                      Associate Professor

                      Department of Psychological Science

                      Ball State University

                      Muncie, IN 47304

                       

                      From: psychiatry-research @yahoogroups. com [mailto:psychiatry- research@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Ahmet Corak
                      Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 6:10 AM
                      To: psychiatry-research @yahoogroups. com
                      Subject: Re: [psychiatry- research] We Need To Stop Circumcision

                       

                      "Male circumcision also reduced the risk of both genital HPV infections and cervical cancer in the female partner (Castelsague et all., 2002)"

                      Safety and efficacy of nontherapeutic male circumcision: a systematic review.

                      Ann Fam Med. 2010 Jan-Feb;8(1) :64-72.

                      Perera CL, Bridgewater FH, Thavaneswaran P, Maddern GJ.

                    • Anna
                      It is not a travesty. The legal rights are only for persons. A born child is a person, a fetus cannot be considered a person until it is born. To be
                      Message 10 of 24 , Mar 1 9:48 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        It is not a travesty. The legal rights are only for persons. A born child is a person, a fetus cannot be considered a person until it is born. To be considered a person, the "entity" must be be able to have independent life.
                        Since a fetus is hooked up to the circulatory system of another human being ( mother), it does not have independent life and thus is not a person.
                        Seems logical to me. Giving birth is a choice which only a mother can make, nobody else. We cannot enforce "want" on a mother.
                        Of course, moral and ethical consideration tend to overtake biological reality, but this is another issue.

                        Anna

                        From: Philip Benjamin
                        Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 8:08 AM
                        To: psychiatry-rsearch
                        Cc: pantheon@...
                        Subject: RE: [psychiatry-research] We Need To Stop Circumcision

                        [Philip Benjamin]

                        You have "a" point here. The parents also have their birthrights to "bring in"and "bring up" children in the way they want to. It is a contradiction and a travesty only when the "birthright to be born" is arbitrarily denied to a baby for any reason other than the certainty of a "baby" killing a mother! Too sad and too bad some children are born into where they may not have liked to!! Life is very unfair.

                        > To: psychiatry-research@yahoogroups.com
                        > From: pantheon@...
                        > Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:25:59 -0700
                        > Subject: Re: [psychiatry-research] We Need To Stop Circumcision
                        >
                        > Birth right applies to the child, not his parents.
                        > Anna
                        >
                        > --------------------------------------------------
                        > From: "Philip Benjamin" <medinuclear@...>
                        > Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 2:08 PM
                        > To: "psychiatry-rsearch" <psychiatry-research@yahoogroups.com>
                        > Cc: <pantheon@...>
                        > Subject: RE: [psychiatry-research] We Need To Stop Circumcision
                        >
                        <Snip>
                      • Anna
                        Glynn, My parents forced me to have 15 years of piano lessons. Sure, it exposed me to music, but since piano lessons plus learning languages took so much time,
                        Message 11 of 24 , Mar 1 10:37 PM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Glynn,
                           
                          My parents forced me to have 15 years of piano lessons. Sure, it exposed me to music, but since piano lessons plus learning languages took so much time, I never learned how to swim and in consequence, I am afraid of water.
                           
                          I think that anything what alters appearance and is not a medical necessity, is imposing on child's rights. However, this issue is minor and for me as a woman, it makes no difference if my husband is circumcised on not. Actually, I think circumcised men would be on average cleaner than uncircumcised  unless these follow scrupulous personal hygiene.
                          And as someone mentioned here, there are more urgent concerns regarding  child's abuse, than his circumcision. World would be a paradise if this is all that parents are guilty of.
                           
                          Anna
                           
                           
                           

                          Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:28 PM
                          Subject: RE: [psychiatry-research] We Need To Stop Circumcision

                          Hi Anna, of course in general I agree with the principle that we should resist imposing things on a child without good reason.  I wonder though if this is a line of argument which has fuzzy edges.  For example, I profoundly regret that piano lessons and ballet lessons weren’t forcefully imposed on me as a child, although I probably would have objected at the time.  I’m not entirely sure that “traumatic” is the right word for my own experience, am sure it could well have been unpleasant, but surely words like “traumatic” should be reserved for events which have some longer-lasting consequences?

                          I could see a line of argument which ended up being one of costs and benefits; my problem is that I’m not convinced that we yet have good evidence regarding either of these.

                          Isn’t there evidence that circumcision helps reduce the spread of HPV?

                          Cheers,
                          Glynn

                          From: psychiatry-research@yahoogroups.com [mailto:psychiatry-research@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Anna
                          Sent: Monday, 1 March 2010 2:24 p.m.
                          To: psychiatry-research@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: Re: [psychiatry-research] We Need To Stop Circumcision

                           

                          My objection is that this surgery is forcefully imposed on a child, who has no rights and cannot decide on his own. Since it involves a permanent change in appearance, I think it should be left to the child once he grows up to choose what he  wants to do. The fact that so many babies were circumcised in the past ( and still are ) without any anesthesia  makes this practice even more questionable. You may not remember your own circumcision,  but does not mean that the experience was not  traumatic. 

                          Is this practice barbaric? Sure. Imagine cutting baby's ear lobes  on a pretext that he would hear better! Of course, this is done routinely on dogs on the basis of a such ( ridiculous) claim, plus cutting off the tails and toes.

                          I can understand the reason for doing circumcision in the past when nomadic Jewish  and Arab tribes lived in the desert and lacked an access to water to maintain personal hygiene, but we do have now bathtubs and showers, so WHY?

                          Anna

                          Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 1:53 PM

                          Subject: RE: [psychiatry-research] We Need To Stop Circumcision

                          I should start by saying I have no strong feelings either way on this, but, a few responses to specific points below, Anna.

                          [Routine female circumcision, which has been practiced in some cultures, is completely unacceptable. Few people would argue otherwise. In fact, the United Nations has issued a decree against it. Circumcision is a form of sexual abuse whether it's done to girls or boys. We justify male infant circumcision by pretending that the babies don't feel it because they're too young and it will have no consequences when they are older. This is not true. Women who experience memories of abuse in childhood know how deeply and painfully early experiences leave their marks in the body. Why wouldn't the same thing apply to boys? ]

                          I think it’s important to recognise that “female circumcision” is a misnomer, what we’re talking about is clitoridectomy – the equivalent operation on males would be removal of the penis; the closest thing one could do to circumcision in females would be removal of the folds of skin surrounding the clitoris.  I know of no evidence that circumcision leads to effects similar to that of early abuse, and definitely have no memory of my own circumcision.

                          [In medical school, I was taught that babies couldn't feel when they were born and therefore wouldn't feel their circumcision. Why was it, then, that when I strapped their little arms and legs down on the board (called a "circumstraint"), they were often perfectly calm; then when I started cutting their foreskin, they screamed loudly, with cries that broke my heart? For years, in some hospitals, surgery on infants has been carried out without anesthesia because of this misconception! ]

                          Yes, this is clearly barbaric.  But presumably the recommendation about which you’re commenting doesn’t suggest it be done without anaesthetic

                        • Jim Goodwin
                          Both my sons and myself have been circumcised, been treated for depression w/meds and are Jewish zombies all!        X    X           
                          Message 12 of 24 , Mar 1 10:51 PM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Both my sons and myself have been circumcised, been treated for depression w/meds and are Jewish zombies all!  
                             
                               X    X
                                        {}   
                                /\/\/\/\/\
                             
                            Jim G.

                            --- On Mon, 3/1/10, Roy Sugarman <beegone@...> wrote:

                            From: Roy Sugarman <beegone@...>
                            Subject: Re: [psychiatry-research] We Need To Stop Circumcision
                            To: psychiatry-research@yahoogroups.com
                            Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 2:14 PM

                             
                            Hi
                             
                            I have to add my voice to those who underwent this 'abuse' in their first week of life.  I have spent my life among Jews, males of course, and never met one, in or out of the school locker room, who had a life problem with their own circumcision or their son's.  I know many old men who deliberately made sure their sons were circumcized during the war, even though the Nazi's were prohibitive on that and other subjects Judaic.  I have certainly seen minor botched circumcisions, with the Mohel running back to fix it, or the baby going to hospital for a repair job. But no harm in a real long term sense appeared to be done.
                             
                            As I mentioned before, I have seen hundreds of my friends and family's sons being circumcized, with local anaesthesia and wine dripped onto a gauze (Kosher wine is quite high in alcohol content) and their cries were fairly minimal, and both before and after that circumcision they were given a codeine-paracetomol mix for pre and post operative pain, in syrup form.  As with Ahmet, I have never known anyone who ostensibly had a disaster in their Brit Milah (Covenant of the Circumcision) but I am sure there must be some, somewhere.
                             
                            What has to be unacceptable is the idea of real, nasty pain, with lasting damage, and given the neuroradiological imaging and its worrying evidence, what damage is done is still academic, as the millions of circumcized Jews and Moslems and others worldwide seem clinically healthy, despite centuries of such 'abuse'.
                             
                            Now I had two daughters.  The look on their faces when the doctor stuck needles in their arms for their innoculation 'jabs' was one of awful betrayal, with screams I had not heard before, staring at the doctor immediately with lower lip far outstretched and sobs pouring for days, pointing to their arms and screaming.  Both girls never responded to the doctor in the same way again, shrinking back in horror.  On the other hand, I met an old rabbi many years ago, who reminded me that he was the one who did the chop on me! I had no memory of him, fortunately, even if my mother was not happy with the job he did :-)
                             
                            But without it, I could not have been Bar Mitvahed, or Married, or ever take my clothes off around other Jews, and my children could not have gone to Jewish schools (which might have actually worked out better, but hey...they dont anyway).  A lot of mothers cannot go near the ceremony and cry themselves, but as with many who submit to female mutilation at a much later stage in life, its about a lot of things social, dating back forever.
                             
                            I would circumsize my sons, but I would really want to know how their pain could be minimized.
                             
                            Its a difficult one for any parent, but my choice as a dad to engage my sone with a God I am unsure of, but a society I definately wouldnt want shunning them, social pressure notwithstanding: my sons can crap on me later....soz boys, it had to be done, to keep your future wife shtum (quiet).  Happily, I only had girls.
                             
                            R

                            On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Ahmet Corak <ahmetcorak@yahoo. com> wrote:
                          • Gaither, George A.
                            Hi Dave. Please read the WHOLE abstract and you’ll see that I did copy what they said VERBATIM – bad interpretation is on their part, not mine. Yes, there
                            Message 13 of 24 , Mar 2 9:41 AM
                            • 0 Attachment

                              Hi Dave.

                               

                              Please read the WHOLE abstract and you’ll see that I did copy what they said VERBATIM – bad interpretation is on their part, not mine. 

                               

                              Yes, there are always different ways of interpreting findings – I am saying that this is a great example of that.  Your suggestions about correlations and prevention have nothing to do w/what I said, nor Dixie’s further criticism of the flawed methodology.

                               

                              BTW, though you don’t feel this discussion is worthy of thought, let alone discussion, I believe it is a concern, for at least 2 reasons.

                              1)      I would have to agree w/Dixie’s oft-stated opinion that when it comes to controlling someone else’s body, I think we need to consider whose interests we are looking out for and whether there are unnecessary negative consequences likely (e.g., we no longer recommend taking out tonsils or appendices as routine b/c we know that those procedures cause more harm than good).

                              2)      Bad science is being used to suggest bad medical practices.  Just like we should be concerned that antidepressants are being prescribed at record rates for mild and moderate depression when there is no CREDIBLE support, though there is tons of junk science published like the abstract cited below.

                              3)      Do you have any data to support the contention that it doesn’t cause pain (I seem to remember the John-Joan case started w/a botched circumcision).

                               

                              Regarding circumcision not being painful, tell that to the kid below (said w/tongue in cheek).

                               

                              Two little kids are in a hospital, lying on beds next to each other, outside the operating room.
                              The first kid leans over and asks, "What are you in here for?"

                              The second kid says, "I'm in here to get my tonsils out and I'm a little nervous."

                              The first kid says, "You've got nothing to worry about. I had thatdone when I was four. They put you to sleep, and when you wake up they give you lots of Jell-O and ice-cream. It's a breeze."

                              The second kid then asks, "What are you here for?"

                              The first kid says, "A circumcision."

                              And the second kid says, "Whoa, Good luck, buddy, I had that done when I was born...

                              Couldn't walk for a year....

                               

                              George

                               

                              From: psychiatry-research@yahoogroups.com [mailto:psychiatry-research@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Schneider
                              Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 9:55 PM
                              To: psychiatry-research@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: RE: [psychiatry-research] We Need To Stop Circumcision

                               

                               

                              That's not what the abstract says. Just a difference in rates. Best criticism would be that circumcised and uncircumcised men differ in some other relevant way (e.g., SES or other factors affecting sexual practices.). But for all we know circumcision does help prevent HIV. Perhaps the conclusion as stated is a bit strong but not necessarily wrong. The fault isn't with the statistics but with assuming correlation is cause -- maybe, maybe not.

                              I think we've said about all there is to say on this fundamentally boring topic. Circumcision these days is not painful to the child (a bit of soreness for a day or two); it's more painful when done as an adult. Hard to argue that it's brutal in terms of pain, and it's a decision parents must make one way or the other at least in the US, like lots of other decisions parents make for their children such as various vaccinations (often more painful than circumcision), diet, what books to read to them, haircut styles, and whatever. There are a variety of religious and health reasons for preferring it and other reasons for not. Hard to imagine why this is a topic of grave concern. If folks are really interested in the brutality inflicted on children by their parents deliberately or unwittingly, there are far more serious things to consider.

                              Dave

                              At 08:48 AM 3/1/2010, you wrote:

                            • Glynn Owens
                              Well put, Anna, makes perfect sense to me. G ... From: psychiatry-research@yahoogroups.com [mailto:psychiatry-research@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Anna Sent:
                              Message 14 of 24 , Mar 2 5:21 PM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Well put, Anna, makes perfect sense to me.

                                G

                                -----Original Message-----
                                From: psychiatry-research@yahoogroups.com [mailto:psychiatry-research@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Anna
                                Sent: Tuesday, 2 March 2010 6:48 p.m.
                                To: psychiatry-research@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: Re: [psychiatry-research] We Need To Stop Circumcision

                                It is not a travesty. The legal rights are only for persons. A born child is a person, a fetus cannot be considered a person until it is born. To be considered a person, the "entity" must be be able to have independent life.
                                Since a fetus is hooked up to the circulatory system of another human being ( mother), it does not have independent life and thus is not a person.
                                Seems logical to me. Giving birth is a choice which only a mother can make, nobody else. We cannot enforce "want" on a mother.
                                Of course, moral and ethical consideration tend to overtake biological reality, but this is another issue.

                                Anna

                                From: Philip Benjamin
                                Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 8:08 AM
                                To: psychiatry-rsearch
                                Cc: pantheon@...
                                Subject: RE: [psychiatry-research] We Need To Stop Circumcision

                                [Philip Benjamin]

                                You have "a" point here. The parents also have their birthrights to "bring in"and "bring up" children in the way they want to. It is a contradiction and a travesty only when the "birthright to be born" is arbitrarily denied to a baby for any reason other than the certainty of a "baby" killing a mother! Too sad and too bad some children are born into where they may not have liked to!! Life is very unfair.
                                <Snip>
                              • Philip Benjamin
                                [Philip Benjamin] Saddened to know that you once were NOT a person!! Also surprised that SUDDENLY one fine morning or evening or during sleeping personhood was
                                Message 15 of 24 , Mar 3 8:46 AM
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  [Philip Benjamin]
                                   
                                  Saddened to know that you once were NOT a person!! Also surprised that SUDDENLY one fine morning or evening or during sleeping personhood was infused (?) into or acquired by you. That must be then the third MIRACLE in your development, after conception and birth, noe of which was your DOING!

                                  To: psychiatry-research@yahoogroups.com
                                  From: g.owens@...
                                  Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 14:21:48 +1300
                                  Subject: RE: [psychiatry-research] We Need To Stop Circumcision

                                   
                                  Well put, Anna, makes perfect sense to me.

                                  G

                                  -----Original Message-----
                                  From: psychiatry-research @yahoogroups. com [mailto:psychiatry-research @yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Anna
                                  Sent: Tuesday, 2 March 2010 6:48 p.m.
                                  To: psychiatry-research @yahoogroups. com
                                  Subject: Re: [psychiatry- research] We Need To Stop Circumcision

                                  It is not a travesty. The legal rights are only for persons. A born child is a person, a fetus cannot be considered a person until it is born. To be considered a person, the "entity" must be be able to have independent life.
                                  Since a fetus is hooked up to the circulatory system of another human being ( mother), it does not have independent life and thus is not a person.
                                  Seems logical to me. Giving birth is a choice which only a mother can make, nobody else. We cannot enforce "want" on a mother.
                                  Of course, moral and ethical consideration tend to overtake biological reality, but this is another issue.

                                  Anna

                                  From: Philip Benjamin
                                  Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 8:08 AM
                                  To: psychiatry-rsearch
                                  Cc: pantheon@ix. netcom.com
                                  Subject: RE: [psychiatry- research] We Need To Stop Circumcision

                                  [Philip Benjamin]

                                  You have "a" point here. The parents also have their birthrights to "bring in"and "bring up" children in the way they want to. It is a contradiction and a travesty only when the "birthright to be born" is arbitrarily denied to a baby for any reason other than the certainty of a "baby" killing a mother! Too sad and too bad some children are born into where they may not have liked to!! Life is very unfair.
                                  <Snip>



                                  Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.
                                • Glynn Owens
                                  Ah Philip, person is a word socially defined, to some a person comes into being when fertilisation occurs (I think one needs to believe in miracles for
                                  Message 16 of 24 , Mar 3 2:35 PM
                                  • 0 Attachment

                                    Ah Philip, “person” is a word socially defined, to some a “person” comes into being when fertilisation occurs (I think one needs to believe in miracles for that to make sense, personally), to others it’s when a human first becomes capable of sustaining independent life, to others it’s at birth.  For some it’s seen as a gradual thing, and indeed one might in some cases argue that one could progressively *lose* personhood.  If by person you simply mean “fertilised egg” then let’s call a spade a spade and not claim that this “fertilised egg” is somehow anything more, or comparable to an independently functioning human being.  Incidentally, I’m not sure that sarcasm is either persuasive or respectful to those to whom one’s replying – but that’s just my opinion.

                                     

                                    G

                                     

                                    From: psychiatry-research@yahoogroups.com [mailto:psychiatry-research@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Philip Benjamin
                                    Sent: Thursday, 4 March 2010 5:46 a.m.
                                    To: psychiatry-rsearch
                                    Cc: pantheon@...
                                    Subject: RE: [psychiatry-research] We Need To Stop Circumcision

                                     

                                     

                                    [Philip Benjamin]
                                     
                                    Saddened to know that you once were NOT a person!! Also surprised that SUDDENLY one fine morning or evening or during sleeping personhood was infused (?) into or acquired by you. That must be then the third MIRACLE in your development, after conception and birth, noe of which was your DOING!


                                    To: psychiatry-research@yahoogroups.com
                                    From: g.owens@...
                                    Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 14:21:48 +1300
                                    Subject: RE: [psychiatry-research] We Need To Stop Circumcision

                                     

                                    Well put, Anna, makes perfect sense to me.

                                    G

                                    -----Original Message-----
                                    From: psychiatry-research@yahoogroups.com [mailto:psychiatry-research@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Anna
                                    Sent: Tuesday, 2 March 2010 6:48 p.m.
                                    To: psychiatry-research@yahoogroups.com
                                    Subject: Re: [psychiatry-research] We Need To Stop Circumcision

                                    It is not a travesty. The legal rights are only for persons. A born child is a person, a fetus cannot be considered a person until it is born. To be considered a person, the "entity" must be be able to have independent life.
                                    Since a fetus is hooked up to the circulatory system of another human being ( mother), it does not have independent life and thus is not a person.
                                    Seems logical to me. Giving birth is a choice which only a mother can make, nobody else. We cannot enforce "want" on a mother.
                                    Of course, moral and ethical consideration tend to overtake biological reality, but this is another issue.

                                    Anna

                                    From: Philip Benjamin
                                    Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 8:08 AM
                                    To: psychiatry-rsearch
                                    Cc: pantheon@...
                                    Subject: RE: [psychiatry-research] We Need To Stop Circumcision

                                    [Philip Benjamin]

                                    You have "a" point here. The parents also have their birthrights to "bring in"and "bring up" children in the way they want to. It is a contradiction and a travesty only when the "birthright to be born" is arbitrarily denied to a baby for any reason other than the certainty of a "baby" killing a mother! Too sad and too bad some children are born into where they may not have liked to!! Life is very unfair.
                                    <Snip>

                                     


                                    Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.

                                     

                                    __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4910 (20100302) __________

                                     

                                    The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

                                     

                                    http://www.eset.com



                                    __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4913 (20100303) __________

                                    The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

                                    http://www.eset.com
                                  • Glynn Owens
                                    Philip, Isn t casuistry wonderful? Words are defined by their social meaning, and of course in some societies specific animals are indeed regarded as people or
                                    Message 17 of 24 , Mar 4 12:11 PM
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Philip,
                                       
                                      Isn't casuistry wonderful? 
                                       
                                      Words are defined by their social meaning, and of course in some societies specific animals are indeed regarded as people or even gods.  I think perhaps you're missing the point - "personhood" is socially defined simply because a statement like "someone becomes a person at x point in time" is not one that's subject to empirical refutation, rather a social agreement on how to use the word.  The problem is that if we agree to use it in a particular way (e.g. someone becomes a person at conception) that runs the risk of making it meaningless, i.e. we're saying that a single cell is a person.  If we decide to use the word in this way, we then prohibit ourselves from saying that "persons" are able to do certain things (since single cells, empirically, aren't).
                                       
                                      Hope this clarifies.
                                       
                                      cheers,
                                       
                                      Glynn

                                      From: Philip Benjamin [medinuclear@...]
                                      Sent: Friday, 5 March 2010 5:57 a.m.
                                      To: psychiatry-rsearch
                                      Cc: Glynn Owens
                                      Subject: RE: [psychiatry-research] We Need To Stop Circumcision


                                       Is my belief or your belief or anybody's belief what determines "personhood"? Does that apply to a dog or a cat? When is a dog a dog? Whenever I "believe" it to be a dog? No animal can "believe" anyone to be a "person".So does that mean no "person" exists, since animals are also elevated to equal (often more) status as humans by the same way of rationality.  
                                      To: psychiatry-research@yahoogroups.com
                                      From: g.owens@...
                                      Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 11:35:33 +1300
                                      Subject: RE: [psychiatry-research] We Need To Stop Circumcision

                                       

                                      Ah Philip, “person” is a word socially defined, to some a “person” comes into being when fertilisation occurs (I think one needs to believe in miracles for that to make sense, personally), to others it’s when a human first becomes capable of sustaining independent life, to others it’s at birth.  For some it’s seen as a gradual thing, and indeed one might in some cases argue that one could progressively *lose* personhood.  If by person you simply mean “fertilised egg” then let’s call a spade a spade and not claim that this “fertilised egg” is somehow anything more, or comparable to an independently functioning human being.  Incidentally, I’m not sure that sarcasm is either persuasive or respectful to those to whom one’s replying – but that’s just my opinion.

                                       

                                      G

                                       

                                      From: psychiatry-research @yahoogroups. com [mailto:psychiatry- research@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Philip Benjamin
                                      Sent: Thursday, 4 March 2010 5:46 a.m.
                                      To: psychiatry-rsearch
                                      Cc: pantheon@ix. netcom.com
                                      Subject: RE: [psychiatry- research] We Need To Stop Circumcision

                                       

                                      [Philip Benjamin]
                                       
                                      Saddened to know that you once were NOT a person!! Also surprised that SUDDENLY one fine morning or evening or during sleeping personhood was infused (?) into or acquired by you. That must be then the third MIRACLE in your development, after conception and birth, noe of which was your DOING!

                                      To: psychiatry-research @yahoogroups. com
                                      From: g.owens@auckland. ac.nz
                                      Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 14:21:48 +1300
                                      Subject: RE: [psychiatry- research] We Need To Stop Circumcision

                                       

                                      Well put, Anna, makes perfect sense to me.

                                      G

                                      -----Original Message-----
                                      From: psychiatry-research @yahoogroups. com [mailto:psychiatry-research @yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Anna
                                      Sent: Tuesday, 2 March 2010 6:48 p.m.
                                      To: psychiatry-research @yahoogroups. com
                                      Subject: Re: [psychiatry- research] We Need To Stop Circumcision

                                      It is not a travesty. The legal rights are only for persons. A born child is a person, a fetus cannot be considered a person until it is born. To be considered a person, the "entity" must be be able to have independent life.
                                      Since a fetus is hooked up to the circulatory system of another human being ( mother), it does not have independent life and thus is not a person.
                                      Seems logical to me. Giving birth is a choice which only a mother can make, nobody else. We cannot enforce "want" on a mother.
                                      Of course, moral and ethical consideration tend to overtake biological reality, but this is another issue.

                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.