Posted: Feb 02, 2011 12:44 pm
However, if it could be shown that a significant percentage of the population requires circumcision at later age to correct recurring infections - with the increased pain and mental trauma involved - it might be sufficient reason. Particularly if these infections resulted in tissue damage ...trubble76 wrote:Weaver wrote:I echoed anti-circumcision info I got from people here to some Norwegian friends, and made the statement that I thought there were few hygienic reasons for circumcision. They disagreed - in fact, two of the 8 male Norwegians I worked with had to have circumcisions at fairly advanced years due to recurring infections (9 y/o)
So I'm back to being in the "needs more study" camp. Certainly wanting your kid's junk to look just like yours is a silly reason, though.
If I suffered from repeated infections, for example tonsilitis, I would consider having my tonsils removed. I would not have my newborn's tonsils removed prior to any evidence of a problem. The same applies to all amputations, no matter how harmless they supposedly are. Meeting two blokes that professed recurrent infections is such a piss weak reason to consider removal of part of a baby's penis.
Personally, I would require some pretty strong evidence before I could be convinced that a piece of my child should be surgically removed.
I agree 100% - that's why I say it "needs more study". There needs to be good clinical research performed here, and a journey away from only anecdotal "evidence" which is ruling the debate now.
For me, the subject is academic - I won't be having any kids to worry about making this decision. But I am still interested in establishing strong scientific reasons for any given pathway.