Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Don't Ask Rambi -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: nihil who wrote (29145)	6/17/1999 10:15:00 AM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 71178

Just got back from a quick PubMed search. The current medical thinking is that circumcision is a decision that is most often made for non-medical reasons. A couple of articles said that uncircumcised men are more likely to get STDs, which must be balanced against the risks of complication from the procedure. The American Academy of Pediatricians does not recommend circumcision, but does not advise against it, either, just states that anesthesia should be used. When I worked in labor and delivery, anesthesia was never used, and those little boys' howls were horrifying. Everyone would say, they are just babies so it's ok, they will get over it. Now, it seems that we have become more enlightened, thank goodness. But, I wonder about the statistics. Apparently only 25% of men are circumcised worldwide - and as your own experience demonstrates, if men are not circumcised for religious reasons, they are most likely to have educated, higher social status parents. I would venture a wager that educated people of higher social status are less likely to have STDs anyway, if only because once they get them, they get medical treatment, and don't pass them on.