5 common medical procedures

[Bill Gibson]

that secretly aren't worth it. I thought this was interesting.

http://www.cracked.com/article_18840...-worth-it.html

(SFW)

[Matt Haxmeier]

Interesting.

But the circumcision part is debatable now that they've had a few studies which do show it has some health benefits.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...011503106.html (WFS)

[Troy Becker]

I love # 4- I had a job once in an office that required me to do a physical where they had me lift a 5lb beanbag over my head. My press was 145ish at the time.

I really like the antibiotics thing too- I once was dreaming up an Orwellian future for a story to write, and one of the elements was the fact that the human race, at least the ones in the Orwellian society, had no immune system anymore.

[Megan Zetter]

Originally Posted by Matt Haxmeier

Interesting.

But the circumcision part is debatable now that they've had a few studies which do show it has some health benefits.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...011503106.html (WFS)

As a female, having been in a long term relationship with two uncircumcised men, I would never have this procedure done on a baby. Neither man suffered consequences, nor did I, due to his foreskin. The increased prevalence of STD's and disease in non-circumcised men is highly correlated to lack of cleanliness. Bacteria and viruses love warm moist places, so it's no wonder they tend to occur in higher rates than in circumcised men. And it should come as no surprise that third world countries that lack the luxury or practice of multiple daily showers and clothes washing have a higher incidence.

I feel it's barbaric and a completely unnecessary procedure.

[Matt Haxmeier]

Originally Posted by Megan Zetter

As a female, having been in a long term relationship with two uncircumcised men, I would never have this procedure done on a baby. Neither man suffered consequences, nor did I, due to his foreskin. The increased prevalence of STD's and disease in non-circumcised men is highly correlated to lack of cleanliness. Bacteria and viruses love warm moist places, so it's no wonder they tend to occur in higher rates than in circumcised men. And it should come as no surprise that third world countries that lack the luxury or practice of multiple daily showers and clothes washing have a higher incidence.

I feel it's barbaric and a completely unnecessary procedure.

Regardless of your personal experience and feelings it does show valid medical benefits as claimed as well as being cleaner. And I'm not sure how barbaric it is anymore either. With our second child they just put a little cap on there and it falls right off. Not exactly a hooded figure wielding an axe.

[Jared Ashley]

Originally Posted by Matt Haxmeier

Regardless of your personal experience and feelings it does show valid medical benefits as claimed as well as being cleaner. And I'm not sure how barbaric it is anymore either. With our second child they just put a little cap on there and it falls right off. Not exactly a hooded figure wielding an axe.

Pretty barbaric.

The foreskin holds the majority of the erogenous material in the penis, thereby significantly reducing the individual's enjoyment of sex if removed. Also reduces enjoyment for both partners because the foreskin keeps the tip moistened and therefore lubricated.

From a paleo perspective, the idea is absurd... clearly evolution developed a foreskin on humans and every single other male mammal for a reason, no? "Cleanliness" is largely a myth, as the body has defense mechanisms in place for this area just like other bacteria-prone areas of the body (eyes, nose, airway, mouth, ect). The STD argument is also absurd. One prevents STD infection by avoiding unprotected sexual activity, not by having a procedure done to slightly reduce the odds of infection when one makes a stupid decision.

There was a time, not long ago in fact, that i agreed with you. Since going to nursing school and researching the issue in detail I have come to the conclusion that my previous opinion was based on outdated information, speculation, and the american religious and medical culture rather than scientifically valid study and the natural state of the human body.

[Matt Haxmeier]

Originally Posted by Jared Ashley

Pretty barbaric.

The foreskin holds the majority of the erogenous material in the penis, thereby significantly reducing the individual's enjoyment of sex if removed. Also reduces enjoyment for both partners because the foreskin keeps the tip moistened and therefore lubricated.

From a paleo perspective, the idea is absurd... clearly evolution developed a foreskin on humans and every single other male mammal for a reason, no? "Cleanliness" is largely a myth, as the body has defense mechanisms in place for this area just like other bacteria-prone areas of the body (eyes, nose, airway, mouth, ect). The STD argument is also absurd. One prevents STD infection by avoiding unprotected sexual activity, not by having a procedure done to slightly reduce the odds of infection when one makes a stupid decision.

There was a time, not long ago in fact, that i agreed with you. Since going to nursing school and researching the issue in detail I have come to the conclusion that my previous opinion was based on outdated information, speculation, and the american religious and medical culture rather than scientifically valid study and the natural state of the human body.

1. I can assure you that it's still pleasurable for both.

2. People have an appendix, excess eyelid skin, excess body hair, wisdom teeth, webbed feet etc. All of which people have removed often for their own mental and/or physical health.

3. You two are making claims that are incorrect according to Recent research.

"The Africa trials add substantial weight to a mounting pile of evidence that circumcision also reduces the spread of other sexually transmitted illnesses, including several types of cancer and venereal disease. The journal BMC Infectious Diseases published a study (coauthored by Halperin and four others) that compared rates of cervical cancer -- caused by the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus, or HPV -- in more than 100 countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. In countries where fewer than 20 percent of men were circumcised, cervical-cancer rates were about 70 percent higher than in countries where more than 80 percent were circumcised."

"...similar study results are turning up on this continent, as well. A team of researchers from the CDC, Johns Hopkins, and the Baltimore health department examined the records of more than 1,000 African American males --
all heterosexual -- who tested positive for HIV at Maryland clinics. Uncircumcised men were 50 percent more likely to be infected."

"But 2 years ago, a consortium of experts convened by the World Health Organization and UNAIDS (the United Nations' HIV program) announced that circumcision should indeed "be part of a comprehensive HIV prevention package." It did so because three separate, meticulous medical trials in Kenya, Uganda, and South Africa, involving more than 10,000 men, had proved that circumcision could reduce the risk of female-to-male HIV infection by approximately 60 percent. This discovery is one that, over the next two decades, could save three million lives in Africa alone."

http://www.menshealth.com/health/deb...r-circumcision (WFS)

Take your emotion out of it and look at the numbers. It's pretty overwhelming that it does in fact have benefits to STD prevention. Perhaps at the time you were evaluating it this information was not available...but it is now.

[Megan Zetter]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I still hold firm to my opinion that it's unnecessary, however as someone who will be entering the medical field very soon, I will counsel patients who inquire about it on both sides of the issue so they are well informed.

[Jared Ashley]

On the topic of africa specifically (and possibly other parts of the third world) where the sexual culture is different, access to barrier devices is extremely limited, and education is severely lacking, I actually see the argument in favor of circumcision. It starts to become a "lesser of two evils" argument, and with that many lives at stake I get it.

In the US and the rest of the first world that argument falls apart. HIV and hepatitis C are spread much more through IV drug use and tatooing in the streets and prisons then by intercourse, *** or straight. Herpes will be spread regardless because of the lesions. HPV infects an absurd number of the american populace, male and female... seriously, it's like 80%+ (I was astonished when I learned this in microbiology) so I doubt it's going to be prevented by anything, and now we have a vaccine for the scariest strains.

On UTI's... meh. men aren't particularly prone anyway due to the length of the urethra. A man with a foreskin is at considerably less risk of UTI than a woman, so I fail to see a reason to reduce risk further.

[Everett Steinbarger]

Do a google search for "phimosis".

"Balanitis" is another fun one.

Note that these conditions do not happen in the circumcised.

Is circumcision an absolute necessity? Obviously not.

Is circumcision a sign of barbarism? Again, no. It is a choice.