Cutting Out Circumcision Could Cost Billions: Do You Support Circumcision?
mrosen814
2012/08/21 19:00:00
|
|
|||||
|
528 votes
|
|
57% | |||
|
399 votes
|
|
43% | |||
Research suggests that circumcision can cut risk of penile and prostate cancers in men, as well as cervical cancer risk in their female partners. Circumcision, for those who are unaware, removes the foreskin at the end of the penis, which would otherwise potentially serve as a haven for bacteria and viruses that can cause diseases including HIV, herpes, genital warts, bacterial infections and urinary tract infections.
In a paper in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, "a team of health economists and disease experts at Johns Hopkins cite the declining rates of U.S. infant male circumcision -- from 79 percent in the 1970s to approximately 55 percent today -- as responsible for billions of dollars spent in the U.S. on preventable infections."
Research says that the decline in circumcision has already cost the nation an estimated $2 billion. If the rates decrease to the 10 percent levels seen in Europe, "this could mean an additional $4.4 billion for the nation." According to ABC News, "the cost of treating sexually transmitted infections in both males and females that could be prevented with circumcision accounts for most of this total."
ABCNEWS.GO.COM reports:
In a paper in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, "a team of health economists and disease experts at Johns Hopkins cite the declining rates of U.S. infant male circumcision -- from 79 percent in the 1970s to approximately 55 percent today -- as responsible for billions of dollars spent in the U.S. on preventable infections."
Research says that the decline in circumcision has already cost the nation an estimated $2 billion. If the rates decrease to the 10 percent levels seen in Europe, "this could mean an additional $4.4 billion for the nation." According to ABC News, "the cost of treating sexually transmitted infections in both males and females that could be prevented with circumcision accounts for most of this total."
ABCNEWS.GO.COM reports:
Declines in infant male circumcision in the United States could add more than $4.4 billion in avoidable health care costs for sexually transmitted infections, experts warn in a new report.
Read More: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/08/21/cutt...
Top Opinion
-
Cuthbert Allsgood 2012/08/21 18:32:53
There is also scientific evidence that an intact foreskin can lead to greater risks of contracting some diseases, including HIV, so I think your asserting that no child "ever" died as a result of staying genitally intact is not true. But I am also not saying that a slight increased risk for contracting certain diseases means every boy should be circumcized. But I would also say there is not enough evidence that having it done causes harm in every case so that it should be outlawed. I don't care for extreme views on either side of the coin in a grey issue. There are some valid points on both sides of this issue unlike female circumcision which almost always causes the female pain and suffering her entire life.
As I said before, my comment was just relating my personal experience with the issue. Being circumcised has not injured me in any noticeable way (my glans is still very sensitive thank you very much) and my dad had to have it done later in life for medical reasons. Why can't you at least acknowledge that for some of us, it was an okay decision?
If circumcision is performed on the adult male, it opens up a whole new set of issues.
The above article mentions that diseases that are allegedly preventable by circumcision are 10% lower in Europe. The thing is, almost no European male is circumcised. Shouldn't the disease rate be *higher* over here? If you look at the statistics, you will see that the opposite is the case. This alone should tell you that circumcision has no real health benefits.
PS: The research that "proves" the lower HIV risk was conducted in African countries, where poor people can't afford to have their infants circumcised. This means that circumcised men are born into families with a higher socioeconomic status, get a better education and have better job opportunities. They're better informed about STD risks and safe sex, and have no reason to prostitute themselves. Of course that lowers their HIV risk. Their missing foreskin has nothing to do with it.
"Declines in infant male circumcision in the United States could add more than $4.4 billion in avoidable health care costs for sexually transmitted infections, experts warn in a new report."
I wont say they'll mandate circumcision, but that excuse will one day be used.
As for circumcision, I'm not for it, and I do not like the the idea of permanent cosmetic procedures being performed on those that cannot consent. I'll leave it at that
Brilliant!!!
Just because I dont stop individuals from getting them doesnt mean it doesnt disturb me. At the very least I'm against compulsory and tax payer funded abortions.
Brilliant!!!
As someone who is uncircumcised and living in a country where only 8% of men are circumcised. I can categorically state that good hygiene prevents any build up of bacteria. I can also state that being circumcised does not prevent aids. In fact in homosexual men it increases the likelihood (don't know how or why, there's also no cause and effect link). I can also state that it circumcision does not ward off herpes, genital warts or urinary tract infections. I can however and will say that being circumcised or uncircumcised has absolutely no effect whatsoever (that goes for aids/hiv if I disregard that particular study).
I question the experts at the John Hopkins Hospital and ask for their data.
Circumcision I'll repeat does not decrease STI's (at least not directly. That'd be like saying, removing my toe nails would prevent bunions or something )
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.co...
http://110.164.68.227/homelib...
http://bases.bireme.br/cgi-bi...
http://ijsa.rsmjournals.com/c...
In fact the only credible argument for circumcision to prevent STI's is because removing the foreskin makes sex less comfortable. However rates of AID's are rising i...
As someone who is uncircumcised and living in a country where only 8% of men are circumcised. I can categorically state that good hygiene prevents any build up of bacteria. I can also state that being circumcised does not prevent aids. In fact in homosexual men it increases the likelihood (don't know how or why, there's also no cause and effect link). I can also state that it circumcision does not ward off herpes, genital warts or urinary tract infections. I can however and will say that being circumcised or uncircumcised has absolutely no effect whatsoever (that goes for aids/hiv if I disregard that particular study).
I question the experts at the John Hopkins Hospital and ask for their data.
Circumcision I'll repeat does not decrease STI's (at least not directly. That'd be like saying, removing my toe nails would prevent bunions or something )
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.co...
http://110.164.68.227/homelib...
http://bases.bireme.br/cgi-bi...
http://ijsa.rsmjournals.com/c...
In fact the only credible argument for circumcision to prevent STI's is because removing the foreskin makes sex less comfortable. However rates of AID's are rising in some parts of Africa because they believe that being circumcised is somehow a magical halo barrier that prevents all diseases getting through and thus do not use condoms. -_-
The evidence that I've found 'for' circumcision generally comes from American states known for their religious attitudes and prevalence of circumcision already exists there, done by hospitals that get an awful lot of money from Circumcision each year. Finding the bias is particularly easy.