|
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
yeah, for sanitary reasons. |
Sanitary reasons? 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circum...of_circumcision
| quote: | Risks of circumcision
Circumcision is a surgical procedure, and there is a risk of complications. The AAP, AMA, and AAFP state that the rate is between 0.2% and 0.6%, based upon large series. The CPS acknowledge these series, but additionally cite a review which suggested that a rate of 2% to 10% would be more realistic. The Royal Australasian College of Physicians states the rate of complications of infant circumcision as "between 0.2% and 0.6% to 2%-10%" in one section, and "1% to 5%" in another. They suggest that the variation in reported rates depends upon the situation in which circumcision is performed and the definition of complication used.
The Royal Australasian College of Physicians and the American Medical Association criticise neonatal circumcision without anaesthetics because of the pain involved in the procedure [23] [24]. The American Academy of Pediatrics explicitly recommends that if the procedure is to be performed, anaesthetics are to be used [25]. Bleeding and infection are the most common complications, according to the AMA. Other complications are known, including infections, urinary fistulas, meatal stenosis, ulceration of the glans, removal of too much tissue, and secondary phimosis. Infant circumcision may cause problems such as skin bridges, when the foreskin does not just heal back together but instead attaches to the glans penis [26]. Loss of the penis itself has been documented. The RACP states that the penis is lost in 1 in 1,000,000 circumcisions.
Gairdner's 1949 study [27] reported that 16 children per year died in the UK during the 1940s, a rate of 1.8 in 10,000 [28]. At that time, deaths attributed to phimosis and circumcision were grouped together, but Gairdner stated that the deaths were probably due to circumcision. Gairdner stated that most deaths had occurred suddenly under anaesthesia, and couldn't be explained further, but haemorrhage and infection had also proven fatal.
The American Academy of Family Physicians states that death is rare, and cites an estimated death rate with circumcisions of infants of 1 in 500,000 [29].
[edit]
HIV
The March 2005 Cochrane review concluded that while individual studies are of variable quality, there are clear indicators that circumcision can significantly reduce the chances of female-to-male HIV infection in an African population, when compared against a non-circumcised control group.[30] The review commented that the results of the three randomised controlled trials will be essential. The results of the first trial were published in November 2005, reporting 60% protection against HIV infection.[31] The World Health Organization stresses that the protective effect offered by male circumcision in Africa has to be confirmed by further studies, and is not reliable enough to replace, or undermine, sex education and safer sex practice as a means to combat AIDS. Currently, several more studies are under way to investigate the protective effect of circumcision against HIV infections, but the results will not be available until 2007.[32]
In 2000, Szabo and Short suggested that the foreskin's langerhans cells might provide an entry point for the virus, which Patterson et al. confirmed in their 2002 study.[33] McCoombe et al. found that these cells were close to the surface and that the layer of protective keratin above them was thin or nonexistent.[34] Langerhans cells, a part of the human immune system, can be infected by the HIV virus.[35]
There is some debate, even among the medical community, as to whether or not circumcision can prevent certain infectious diseases, including HIV. Some authors are of the opinion that the prepuce has an important immunological function, and that its removal increases the chances of infections[1]. Their hypothesis has been criticised on technical grounds.[36] [37]
[edit]
HPV
Several studies have shown that non-circumcised men are at greater risk of human papilloma virus (HPV) infection.[38] [39] [40] While most genital HPV strains are considered harmless, some can, but not necessarily do, cause genital warts or even cancer. One study found no statistically significant difference between men with foreskins for HPV infection than those who are circumcised, but did note a significantly higher incidence of HPV lesions and urethritis [41].
[edit]
Hygiene
Circumcision reduces the amount of smegma produced by the body. Smegma, a transliteration of the Greek word σμήγμα for soap, is a combination of exfoliated (shed) , epithelial cells, transudated skin oils and moisture that can accumulate under the foreskin of males and within the female vulva area, with a characteristic strong odor and taste. Smegma is common to all mammals, male and female. While smegma is generally not believed to be harmful to health, the strong odour may be considered to be a nuisance giving the impression of lacking hygiene. In rare cases, accumulating smegma may play into causing balanitis.
The Royal Australasian College of Physicians and the Canadian Pediatric Society emphasize that a non-circumcised infants penis should be left alone and requires no special care. Attempts to forcibly retract the foreskin, e.g. to clean it, are painful, often injure the foreskin, and can lead to scarring, infections and pathologic phimosis. It is recommended that, while there is no special age where the foreskin should be retractible, once the foreskin becomes retractible, the child should gently wash it with soap and water. It has been suggested, however, that excessive washing of the foreskin and the glans will make infections such as balanitis more likely.
[edit]
Infectious and chronic conditions
Non-circumcised children and men tend to have higher rates of various infections and inflammations of the penis, and of the foreskin, than circumcised men.[42] The reasons are unclear, but several hypotheses have been suggested:
* The foreskin may harbor bacteria and infect if it is not cleaned enough.[43]
* The foreskin may become inflamed if it is cleaned too often with soap.[44]
* The forcible retraction in boys can lead to infections.[45]
There are less invasive treatments than circumcision for posthitis (an inflamed foreskin) [46] and balanitis (inflammation of the glans) [47][48][49]. However, these are not as successful in treating balanitis xerotica obliterans (BXO) [50] [51] [52], which is harder to treat [53] [54].
Lichen sclerosus et atrophicus (LSA) produces a whitish-yellowish patch on the skin, and is not believed to be always harmful or painful, and may sometimes disappear without intervention. Some consider balanitis xerotica obliterans to be a form of LSA that happens to be on the foreskin, where it may cause pathological phimosis. Circumcision is believed to reliably reduce the threat of BXO. [55]
[edit]
Penile cancer
Penile cancer is cancer of the penis, i.e. on the glans or the foreskin. The lifetime risk is estimated to be 0.17% for a non-circumcised male, [56] and 80% of the cases are men over the age of 70. [57]
Circumcision and penectomy may be necessary to treat penile cancer. Less invasive treatments may include freezing of the tumor, chemical treatment, radiotherapy, and minimally invasive surgery. [58]
In 1998, the American Cancer Society labelled some claims about a relationship of circumcision with penile cancer misleading. It said:
However, the penile cancer risk is low in some non-circumcised populations, and the practice of circumcision is strongly associated with socio-ethnic factors, which in turn are associated with lessened risk. The consensus among studies that have taken these other factors into account is circumcision is not of value in preventing cancer of the penis. (1998, [59])
However, in 2005, the society said:
Recent studies have found that circumcised men are less likely to be infected with HPV, even after this risk is adjusted for differences in sexual behavior. Other studies suggest that circumcision may reduce the risk of more invasive forms of penile cancer. However, it is important that the issue of circumcision not distract the public's attention from avoiding known penile cancer risk factors – poor hygiene, having unprotected sex with multiple partners (increasing the likelihood of human papillomavirus infection), and cigarette smoking. (2005, [60])
While in another 2005 statement, they state:
In the past, circumcision has been suggested as a way to prevent penile cancer. This suggestion was based on studies that reported much lower penile cancer rates among circumcised men than among non-circumcised men. However, most researchers now believe those studies were flawed because they failed to consider other factors that are now known to affect penile cancer risk. (2005, [61])
[edit]
Phimosis and paraphimosis
Pathological phimosis is a condition of a very tight foreskin that makes retraction over the glans painful or impossible. Rickwood suggested that the term 'phimosis' should be restricted to cases in which the prepuce loses suppleness and becomes scarred.[62] Paraphimosis is an acute condition where the tight foreskin is stuck behind the glans and cannot be moved back, curbs the blood flow to the glans, and in children, is sometimes caused by a caregiver trying to forcibly retract the infant foreskin.[63]
The AAP state that the true frequency of such problems is unknown.[64] Fergusson et al found phimosis in 16% of non-circumcised boys,[65] while Herzog and Alvarez found it in 2.6%.[66] Rickwood and Walker raised concern that phimosis is frequently misdiagnosed by physicians confusing it with the developmentally non-retractible foreskin.[67]
Several studies have identified phimosis as a risk factor for penile cancer, leading Willcourt to state that it would be irresponsible to expose a patient to risk for longer than necessary.[68]
[edit]
Urinary tract infections
Several studies and statistics have indicated that neonatal circumcision reduces the occurrence rate of UTI in male infants by a factor of about 10.[69] Some of these studies have been criticised in not taking other factors (especially for non-circumcision) into account.[70] A Swedish study found that the cumulative incidence of UTIs in boys under 2 years of age was 2.2%.[71]
The Canadian Pediatric Society poses the question of whether increased UTI and balanitis rates in non-circumcised male infants may be caused by forced premature retraction. [72] |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
why is a penis circumsized then? |
Stupid religious traditions? It's also thought to prevent mastrubation 
|
I once asked my mom, "mom why does the foreskin of my penis get cut off when I'm 8 days old?" and she replied, "it's brings you closer to god honey." She didn't like my reply, "so when i die and meet god, if I cut off part of his penis, will it bring him closer to me?"
What?!?! 
.
Anti-Purple Alliance.
