Ah, a meta-analysis! Excellent, studies of studies are almost always the best way for researchers to summarize findings, thanks a lot.
The conclusions very much match what I was trying to say: done in a sterile environment by doctors in hospitals with anesthetic, it’s a very safe procedure. Done by rabbis/imams in the synagogue/mosque, this is insanely dangerous. If I had my way, I’d ban religious figures from performing circumcisions. If you want to get it done, go to a hospital.
As an elective surgery, the benefits are so close to zero as to be non-existent. From the meta-analysis:
while male circumcision may be useful in protecting against the incidence of male urinary tract infections, 12 bacterial colonization is still present after circumcision, so genital hygiene is regarded as more effective in preventing UTIs rather than circumcision surgeries. 13 In certain instances where hygiene is poor, circumcision may be implemented to prevent urinary tract infections.
I certainly wouldn’t advocate for anyone that I know getting this procedure as it seems like a small risk for zero benefit (again, when done by doctors), but neither is it mutilation.
There are links and sources throughout if you want to dig deeper.
The conclusions very much match what I was trying to say: done in a sterile environment by doctors in hospitals with anesthetic, it’s a very safe procedure.
No, they don’t. It concludes it’s safer in hospitals with anaesthetic, which should be obvious, but that even in those environments, it carries the same risks as any surgical procedure.
This does not imply that every male circumcision performed results in a complication but it is important to note that there can be serious life‐altering consequences from this procedure, even if it is done correctly.
Again, even if the complication rate is low (and it’s nowhere near as low as should be acceptable), nearly every instance is preventable by not performing elective surgery on infants.
Ah, a meta-analysis! Excellent, studies of studies are almost always the best way for researchers to summarize findings, thanks a lot.
The conclusions very much match what I was trying to say: done in a sterile environment by doctors in hospitals with anesthetic, it’s a very safe procedure. Done by rabbis/imams in the synagogue/mosque, this is insanely dangerous. If I had my way, I’d ban religious figures from performing circumcisions. If you want to get it done, go to a hospital.
As an elective surgery, the benefits are so close to zero as to be non-existent. From the meta-analysis:
I certainly wouldn’t advocate for anyone that I know getting this procedure as it seems like a small risk for zero benefit (again, when done by doctors), but neither is it mutilation.
There are links and sources throughout if you want to dig deeper.
No, they don’t. It concludes it’s safer in hospitals with anaesthetic, which should be obvious, but that even in those environments, it carries the same risks as any surgical procedure.
Again, even if the complication rate is low (and it’s nowhere near as low as should be acceptable), nearly every instance is preventable by not performing elective surgery on infants.
I definitely will. Thanks for taking the time to share some good sources.
Happy to. It’s been a while, but I did a lot of research when I was pregnant with my son, and it made me an advocate against doing it.
I appreciate that you’re open to discussion and asking for sources.