Yes, but many more people have 'occasional' tonsillitis than chronic. I would guess that the percentage of men diagnosed with chronic balanitis is much smaller than those with a single, treatable case.
Current circumcision is presented to parents as a preventative measure. I don’t agree with it, but it has reason to be, from a few medical papers. So I’m saying don’t target the doctors, change the parents’ minds on why a foreskin is worth the higher rates of infection.
-
-
And why don't parents need to justify why keeping the labia is worth the higher rates of infection? You're promoting sexist double standards. ROUTINE INFANT CIRCUMCISION IS MEDICALLY UNNECESSARY.
-
A normal labia doesn’t cause constant urinary tract infections. That’s why.
-
Neither does a normal foreskin.
-
Nope, circumcised boys have lower rates of infection. Here’s a study. https://adc.bmj.com/content/90/8/853 …. Here’s another: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1477524/ …
-
Did you even read that article? It says there is a 1% risk of a UTI in an intact male and that circumcising him creates a 2% risk hemorrhaging and infection, which completely defeats the purpose. More importantly, neither of those studies controlled for iatrogenic UTIs.
-
And if there’s a 2% risk and doctors circumcise like I’ve been saying they should, then it’s a smaller 2% than 1% of all uncircumcised men. All up, it’s medically necessary to circumcise to prevent chronic infection and we both agree on it. It’s a non-argument.
-
You're using the word 'prevent' rather than 'to treat'. If a boy has had 5 UTIs over 5 years, all treated easily, the next step is not 'Cut off his foreskin before he gets another one.'
-
If a kid has had 5 tonsilitis infections in one year, the recommended treatment is tonsillectomy
- 22 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
That right there is my issue. No. It should not be offered to parents as a preventative measure. With proper hygiene and care, an infant boy has a 99% chance of growing to adulthood intact with no issues.
-
And I'd far, far, far rather risk a UTI, than my son bleed out after a circ. Or need reconstructive surgery after a botched circ. All your supposed 'risks' in leaving them intact are countered for by avoiding the risks of circ'ing.
-
I’m not arguing for doing a surgery for no reason, and I never have. I would not risk my kid dying from chronic infection if circumcision would prevent further infections.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.