> a wlasnie ze ma znaczenie dla higieny, a jak sie na tym nie znacie to sie nie
> wypowiadajcie!! pia.ed ma racje! wiec na nia nie napadajcie!!
> p.s nie zapomnijcie ze obrzezanie chroni przed co prwda rzadkim ale jednak,
> rakiem prącia!! pozdro
> p.s 2 zeby nie bylo... nie jestem zydem, a kobietą lekarzem
Ale BZDURY KLEPIESZ!
Przeczytaj sobie artykuly NAUKOWE a nie jakies tam wypociny ....
NIE MA, NIE BYLO i NIE BEDZIE ZADNYCH DOWODOW NAUKOWYCH ZE
OBRZEZANIE W JAKI KOLWIEK SPOSOB CHRONI PRZED RAKIEM!
Jako "lekarka" powinnas wpierw zrozumiec CO POODUJE tak zwango RAKA!
Badania naukowe jedno a ty drugie!
Czy dlatego ze masz miec dziury w przyszlosci w zebach to bedziesz
wczesniej usowac zeby?
Rak zdarza sie jeden przypadek na 100,000 czyli 99,000 osob obrzezac aby
twierdzic ze mozna zapobiec w tym jedynym przypadku?
Tylko "lekarz" moze byc tak naiwny i tak glupi!
Circumcision as an alleged alternative to hygiene in prevention of penile
carcinoma is an oft voiced argument.
The author has quoted figures based on the 1971 national cancer survey (US) and
extrapolated from the unsupported assumption that all penile carcinomas
occurred in uncircumcised males.
More recent data calculate the relative risk in the US to be 3.2 times greater
in the intact male.
Using the author's own source, the quoted incidence of penile carcinoma in the
US was one per 100,000 (1969-71). This is a comparable incidence with that in
Finland at the same time, where the circumcision rate is less than 1%, of 0.5
per 100,000 (1970) with a 78% relative 20-year survival rate.
Thus, I find Marshall's argument at a meeting of the Society for Paediatric
Urology, that one would have to perform 140 circumcisions a week, for 25 years,
to prevent one case of carcinoma of the penis, enough to prevent me from
setting out on such a course.
Circumcision itself is, of course, not a riskless procedure, so its risks have
to be compared to those of penile cancer.
Sydney Gellis, MD, then a pediatrician at the New England Medical Center and
avid opponent of circumcision, wrote in 1978 that it was "an uncontestable
fact" that there were "more deaths from complications of circumcision than from
cancer of the penis"
This comparison does not take into account that there remains at least some
(if not the entire) risk of penile cancer after the procedure.
Deaths from circumcision and related causes are estimated at 229 per year.
Circumcision in the neonatal period is contraindicated.14 The American Academy
of Pediatricians concluded:
“There is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the
newborn.” The American Medical Association concurs.
Jest to wylacznie obrzadek z powdow RELIGIJNYCH a nie medycznych!
"Several groups have developed in the past twenty years to oppose circumcision.
Most of the groups are not opposed to adults choosing circumcision but regard
neonatal circumcision as a sexual mutilation, and consider it barbaric,
primitive, unnecessary, and dangerous. Most oppose infant circumcision in all
cases but many are particularly concerned when the procedure is done without
pain relief, still a common practice. Many of these groups try to avoid
vocabulary like "anti-circumcision" in order to avoid confusion with the adult
circumcision issue; the critics of the movement, however, often use such
Approximately one sixth of males worldwide are circumcised
; the vast majority
for religious or cultural reasons. The United States For other uses see United
The United States of America (U.S.A.), is the only country that still
practices circumcision routinely on a majority of infants for non-religious
Routine neonatal circumcision in the United States grew out of a widespread
fear that masturbation caused various diseases, a view now universally rejected
by the medical community. Circumcision was thought to reduce masturbation and
other sexual behavior considered undesirable. Circumcision, depending on how it
is practiced, can have a significant impact on masturbation; see masturbation
for a detailed discussion.
Circumcision is now also dwindling in the United States. The rate has been
steadily decreasing from near universality in the 1960s to approximately 55%
today. While some states no longer pay for the procedure under Medicaid, more
than 75% of the states still do.
In most of these countries the predominant religion endorses circumcision, such
as Islam or Judaism."
Several groups have developed in the past twenty years to oppose
circumcision. Most of the groups are not opposed to adults choosing
circumcision but regard neonatal circumcision as a sexual mutilation, and
consider it barbaric, primitive, unnecessary, and dangerous. Most oppose infant
circumcision in all cases but many are particularly concerned when the
procedure is done without pain relief, still a common practice. Many of these
groups try to avoid vocabulary like "anti-circumcision" in order to avoid
confusion with the adult circumcision issue; the critics of the movement,
however, often use such vocabulary.
The goal of most of these groups is to end, and possibly even criminalize, the
forced circumcision of male and female individuals. Anti-circumcision groups
take a varying approach toward Judaism and Islam. Some make no distinction
between differently motivated types of circumcision, while others ask for
reform instead of criminalization www.noharmm.org/anti-semitism.htm
Among Jews and Muslims, circumcision is religiously prescribed for all baby
boys, and in those countries where the population is mostly Jewish or Muslim,
circumcision is prevalent. Most Jewish and Muslim groups oppose the anti-
circumcision movement, as they fear that it could stigmatize or criminalize a
key practice of their religions.
Jezeli jestes tak jak twierdzisz "lekarka" to tylko potwierdzasz i
dokumentujesz jak glupi moga byc niedouczeni lekarze!