“Unconscionable” San Francisco archbishop rejects circumcision ban

[Blacksword]

The data on the protective effect of male circumcision against HIV, HPV and herpes are all recent, published in per-reviewed journals and involve large numbers. There is no doubt about their validity.

Penile cancer is rare in the US because circumcision is common. It is not so rare in China where circumcision is rare. It is virtually unknown among the circumcised.

Circumcision is performed routinely at birth. It sounds as if the 2 year old had it for phimosis, a band forming around the glans, or some other medical reason. The link was for the article in the NY Post, which contained no medical details. I couldn’t find the link to the cartoon.

There is no justification for banning circumcision. If they want to ban something potentially dangerous, why not ban tatoos? Think of how far that would get.

Sigh, the rate of penile cancer among intact European men is the same as in the US, please explain why this is so?

Can I tattoo my baby if I wish? Is that legal? China remains third world in much of the nation, and is in no way comparable. Japan, however, is. And guess what? Same penile cancer rate as the US!!!

And there is ONE recent study on HPV, that we’ve talked about. The three principal AIDS trials on HIV were absolutely NOT peer-reviewed, and have been heavily criticized by other researchers. Again, please see Nov. 2010 issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, and the May 2011 issue of Future HIV Therapy.

 

[Corki]

Oh dear, I’m afraid you’re having trouble reading there. The AMA has affirmatively called circumcision “non-therapeutic” since 1999, it’s the AAP you might be thinking of, and you’re missing a crucial modifier to their internally inconsistent statement on the topic. They say there are REAL risks, and “potential” benefits. The word “potential” means, in science, basically “X has been proposed but as yet remains unestablished by the evidence”.

Not one medical organization in the world has declared there are actual, known benefits. Go ahead and read their statement again on the AAP’s website. It’s an exercise in ethics hedging to try to give cover to their members, NOT a helpful reference for your cause at all.

I think there is trouble reading on your side too. Real risk is incurred by anyone undergoing a procedure but when someone speaks of potential benefits, it just means that not all people in the group will realize the benefit. Another ESL issue, I think.

BTW – From the AAP website:

Medical benefits, including
A slightly lower risk of urinary tract infections (UTIs). A circumcised infant boy has about a 1 in 1,000 chance of developing a UTI in the first year of life; an uncircumcised infant boy has about a 1 in 100 chance of developing a UTI in the first year of life.
A lower risk of getting cancer of the penis. However, this type of cancer is very rare in all males.
A slightly lower risk of getting sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.
Prevention of foreskin infections.
Prevention of phimosis, a condition in uncircumcised males that makes foreskin retraction impossible.
Easier genital hygiene.

These are not theoretical benefits, but actual medical benefits, according to the AAP. Whether the benefits outweigh the risks is the subject of the debate.

Also (from Johns Hopkins)

Male Circumcision Cuts Women’s Cervical Cancer Risk

webmd.com/cancer/cervical-cancer/news/20110106/male-circumcision-cuts-womens-cervical-cancer-risk

While the risk of penile cancer is very low, as noted above, the differential in rates between circumcised and non-circumcised population groups is statistically significant. A peer-reviewed article from Pediatrics Journal.

pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/105/3/e36.full

 

[meltzerboy]

You clearly haven’t read anything on the issue. It’s not harmless, the best medical evidence continually shows these “health” reasons to be greatly exaggerated or outright false, and it IS amputation. Do you know what the word “amputate” means?? Look it up in the dictionary. Surgical excision of the foreskin is, by definition, an amputation of a body part. Don’t argue with me there, argue with the good people at Webster’s Dictionary, LOL!

And please articulate for me the objective, non-arbitrary basis for your contention that male foreskin amputation is wholly different from excision of the female clitoral hood? It’s anatomically the same tissue, it develops in the fetus from the same base, it serves much the same function for the owner of the body part, and in the original justifications for the male cutting in the West are much the same, reduction of sexual pleasure, sexual control, prevention of masturbation, etc. Medical justifications are continually invented for female cutting abroad as well as social ones…they say it’s cleaner, looks better, less likely to get infections, easier to take care of…please explain?

In Judaism, there is a religious connection between circumcision, blood, and sexual control as part of entrance into the Covenant, but the sexual control part is on a symbolic level! Your repeated claim of its causing reduction of sexual pleasure and prevention of masturbation has nothing to do with Mosaic Law. I don’t know what the religious justification is intended to be according to Islam.

 

[antonivs]

Blacksword,
Given that this proposed unconstitutional law in San Francisco does NOT have a religious exemption, and thus is outlawing an essential practice of Judaism would you personally vote against this if you were a resident of San Francisco?

 

[Blacksword]

I disagree with you that the word “potential” means unproven. It means that not all people who are circumcised would have had penile cancer, etc. The AMA is clear that there are benefits and risks and that parents should make an informed decision:

I’m sorry, but that’s precisely what it means in scientific research. If there were any proven benefits, they would SAY so. The fact that they don’t speaks volumes.

 

[antonivs]

I’m sorry, but that’s precisely what it means in scientific research. If there were any proven benefits, they would SAY so. The fact that they don’t speaks volumes.

You are incorrect.

 

[Blacksword]

I think there is trouble reading on your side too. Real risk is incurred by anyone undergoing a procedure but when someone speaks of potential benefits, it just means that not all people in the group will realize the benefit. Another ESL issue, I think.

BTW – From the AAP website:

These are not theoretical benefits, but actual medical benefits, according to the AAP. Whether the benefits outweigh the risks is the subject of the debate.

Also (from Johns Hopkins)

Male Circumcision Cuts Women’s Cervical Cancer Risk

webmd.com/cancer/cervical-cancer/news/20110106/male-circumcision-cuts-womens-cervical-cancer-risk

While the risk of penile cancer is very low, as noted above, the differential in rates between circumcised and non-circumcised population groups is statistically significant. A peer-reviewed article from Pediatrics Journal.

pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/105/3/e36.full

Old studies, and ones that conflict with other studies. We can argue on it all day long, but at the end of the day the fact is there are NO conclusively shown medical benefits, only studies showing some benefit, and others showing the opposite result. The science doesn’t support any benefit which us why NO medical association in the world recommends the procedure in routine cases. Why is that simple fact controversial on here?

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR NOTICE

Antisemitism will not be tolerated at CAF

Do not post antisemitic cartoons, nor defend or try to justify someone’s antisemitism.

 

[1holycatholic]

Ok, but isn’t this a ballot initiative proposed by a citizen? I don’t see what the San Francisco govt has to do with it… are they advocating for the ballot to pass?

Archbishop Niederauer from the article in the OP:
“The proposed ban on circumcision represents an unconscionable violation of the sanctuaries of faith and family by the government of San Francisco,” wrote Archbishop Niederauer in a letter to the editor published May 25 in the San Francisco Chronicle. “Although the issue does not concern Christians directly, as a religious leader I can only view with alarm the prospect that this misguided initiative would make it illegal for Jews and Muslims who practice their religion to live in San Francisco – for that is what the passage of such a law would mean.”

“Apart from the religious aspect, the citizens of San Francisco should be outraged at the prospect of city government dictating to parents in such a sensitive matter regarding the health and hygiene of their children,” wrote Archbishop Niederauer.

 

[Blacksword]

In Judaism, there is a religious connection between circumcision, blood, and sexual control as part of entrance into the Covenant, but the sexual control part is on a symbolic level! Your repeated claim of its causing reduction of sexual pleasure and prevention of masturbation has nothing to do with Mosaic Law. I don’t know what the religious justification is intended to be according to Islam.

Yes, I know. I wasn’t talking about Judaism there. Notice I said “the West” referring to the introduction of medical circ in non-Jewish western societies.

 

[Blacksword]

Blacksword,
Given that this proposed unconstitutional law in San Francisco does NOT have a religious exemption, and thus is outlawing an essential practice of Judaism would you personally vote against this if you were a resident of San Francisco?

Probably, yes. Although consistent principles of ethics mean I have to favor repeal of the FGM law too, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[SamTheNewfie]

Penile cancer is rare in the US because circumcision is common. It is not so rare in China where circumcision is rare. It is virtually unknown among the circumcised.
.

If that were the case Penile Cancer would be more common in Europe than the US. It’s not.

 

[Blacksword]

You are incorrect.

Ok, I think not, please prove otherwise. If there were proven benefits, why don’t they say so? Please explain the meaning of “potential” in this context?

 

[SamTheNewfie]

It is a violation of the First Amendment precisely because circumcision as it is practiced today is comparable to infant baptism: both practices bring infants into their respective religious communities.

As for “others’ rights,” I don’t know to what extent circumcision is medically beneficial - I’m not a doctor or medical researcher. But I do know that as a medically neutral procedure, it in no way could ever constitute a violation of an infant boy’s rights.

Please show me where St. Paul said this. He condemned the teaching that circumcision is necessary for salvation and said that the Church should never bother Gentiles with observing Jewish legal practices. Those are not the same things as saying that observing some parts of the Jewish law is a mortal sin - an outlandish claim.

Yes he did. Speaks for itself, doesn’t it?

Wow, the overt anti-Semitism surprises even me. I’d have thought they’d try to hide it.

Bull. “Female circumcision” is an abuse in no way on par with male circumcision. Comparing the two is fruitless.

Okay then.

You clearly have no idea about the many forms of female circumcision. The removal of the clitoral hood is completely analogous to the removal of the foreskin. The only difference between the two is one is accepted by American culture. If banning RIC is a violation of the First Amendment it is inconsistent to ban all forms of FC or at least not to allow a religious exemption.

 

[SamTheNewfie]

There is no justification for banning circumcision. If they want to ban something potentially dangerous, why not ban tatoos? Think of how far that would get.

I’m all for banning tattoos on infants. If an adult chooses to be tattood or circumcised that is their business.

 

[antonivs]

Ok, I think not, please prove otherwise. If there were proven benefits, why don’t they say so? Please explain the meaning of “potential” in this context?

I don’t have to prove anything. The AMA statement is quite clear and I wasn’t the only one to see it so.

The AMA stated that parents should be informed of both the benefits and risks and then they should make an informed decision. If the AMA thought there were no benefits, there would be nothing to inform the parents about except for the risks.

 

[antonivs]

from the Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics:

Objective. We determined the relation between newborn circumcision and both invasive penile cancer (IPC) and carcinoma in situ (CIS) among adult male members of a large health maintenance organization.

Subjects and Methods. Circumcision status was ascertained by a combination of pathology reports, medical record review, and questionnaires for 213 adult male members of a large prepaid health plan who were diagnosed with IPC or CIS.

Results. Of 89 men with IPC whose circumcision status was known, 2 (2.3%) had been circumcised as newborns, and 87 were not circumcised. Of 118 men with CIS whose circumcision status was known, 16 (15.7%) had been circumcised as newborns.

Conclusions. Our results confirm the highly protective effect of newborn circumcision against IPC and the less protective effect against CIS.

source: pediatricsdigest.mobi/content/105/3/e36.full

 

[SamTheNewfie]

Frankly, the AMA is completely out of step with the rest of the Western World. Circumcision is too profitable. There is a clear conflict of interest. Here is an example of where non-biased medical professionals stand:
circinfo.org/Dutch_circumcision_policy.html

 

[antonivs]

Frankly, the AMA is completely out of step with the rest of the Western World. Circumcision is too profitable. There is a clear conflict of interest. Here is an example of where non-biased medical professionals stand:
circinfo.org/Dutch_circumcision_policy.html

For you to accuse the AMA of lying in the interest of increased profits is unfair in my opinion. They are not calling for circumcision to be banned or performed, but rather that parents should be able to make an informed medical decision on behalf of their child and learning of both the risks and benefits.

The AAP’s policy statement:
aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;103/3/686

 

[meltzerboy]

Ok, I think not, please prove otherwise. If there were proven benefits, why don’t they say so? Please explain the meaning of “potential” in this context?

Some scientists avoid the use of the word “proven” because theories change based on new evidence. They use expressions such as “scientific evidence” and the “preponderance of the evidence” instead (cf. Karl Popper). I don’t mind saying that testing a hypothesis may lead to “proving” it, provided it is understood that the resulting theory is not necessarily the final word. The term “potential” means a possibility based on supporting research, but there is not yet enough evidence to reach a strong conclusion. For example, saying that moderate obesity is a potential risk factor for coronary heart disease means there have been studies (sometimes only one study) supporting the causal link, but no definitive conclusions have been reached; whereas smoking and hypertension are risk factors for CHD, without the use of the word “potential,” since these have been “proven” by the bulk of the evidence to be causally linked.