430
Just a bit strange
(lemmy.dbzer0.com)
All the chaos of Tumblr, without actually going to Tumblr.
Rule 1: Be Civil, Not Cursed
This isn’t your personal call-out post.
Rule 2: No Forbidden Posts
Some things belong in the drafts forever. That means:
If you see a post that breaks the rules, report it so the mods can handle it. Otherwise just reblog and relax.
Lost Boys: An Estimate of U.S. Circumcision-Related Infant Deaths:
That study is from 2010, and the fact that he seems to constantly blame the medical establishment for "hiding the facts", uses cherry-picked emotive cases instead of relying on numbers, and lines like "an unrecognized sacrifice of innocents" in the conclusion make me very skeptical of this whole document. 117 children per year in the US, if true, is absolutely nothing. That'd make this an incredibly safe procedure. Consider the fact that the mortality rate for SIDs in the US is in the thousands per year. SIDs, for those that don't know, is essentially when the baby suddenly dies for no explicable reason whatsoever.
I've been trying to google for either a well-sourced mortality rate for circumcision, or a longitudinal study that shows a decreased standard of living for circumcised people, and I can't seem to find either. If either the mortality rate is indeed high or it decreases standard of living in some way, I will change my mind on this topic immediately.
Okay, I can understand your point.
Here’s a more recent study of circumcision complications from 2021:
Systematic review of complications arising from male circumcision
…
There are tables that include long lists of complications and links to case studies, and these are worldwide, both in hospital and religious settings.
The point is that circumcision is elective surgery, and can and does pose risks to infants, from psychological damage to permanent disfigurement or even death.
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.
Killing 117 children a year for no reason is absolutely nothing? Uh huh.
117 ÷ 1,300,000 * 100 = 0.009% of babies undergoing the procedure die, according to that source. Of course, that doesn't include other complications and potential trauma from the baby experiencing post-op pain and thus disrupting the mother-child bond, which I wasn't fully aware of. I've linked some of the studies in my original comment.