Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Johnny Pyro
"Of the 60,000 cases of penile cancer reported since the 1930's, fewer than 10 occurred in circumcised men. The risk of penile cancer in uncircumcised men is 1 case per 380-600 men; in circumcised men it is 1 case per 75,000 to 8."
Maybe it's just a coincidence.
|
With the exception of the UK, circumcision is quite rare in Europe...I don't see them getting penile cancer left and right (nor do I see Australians having huge penile cancer issues, where neonatal circumcision runs at about 10%, like much of Europe). First, correlation != causation, second, I'm curious to know where you got that from, and third, if the evidence were that clear, respected medical organizations wouldn't be saying things like:
(emphasis mine)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by American Academy of Pediatrics (1999)
Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision
|
Funny, even the American Academy of Pediatrics - based in the ONLY country in the world that routinely circumcises children for non-therapeutic (meaning there is no present *need* for it) and non-religious reasons - can't bring itself to say routine neonatal circumcision is a good thing.
Elsewhere, the criticism is more harsh:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (2002)
There is no medical indication for routine male circumcision.... The foreskin requires no special care during infancy. It should be left alone.
|