The Benefits Of Circumcision in Manchester For Babies

The Benefits Of Circumcision in Manchester For Babies
SHARE

Circumcision is a surgical operation wherein medical practitioners remove the foreskin or the skin wrapping the head of the penis. Many parents acknowledge the removal of the foreskin for babies, and parents in Manchester may even opt to circumcise their newborn children while the little ones are still in the hospital. The reasons behind the decision may stem from medical, personal, or religious factors. Continue reading to know the five benefits of a circumcised penis for babies in Manchester.

  1. Easier Penis Hygiene

Individual parents may find cleaning the penis of their newborn child a challenging feat. Circumcision may help make the cleaning process more comfortable to wash the male genital. Specific babies may be sensitive to touch, especially in the areas on and around the penis.

You might decide to have a doctor circumcise your child right after birth. A facility like Circumcision Manchester Clinic can help you in that regard. Opt for a medical facility with experienced professionals with expertise on cutting off a baby’s foreskin.

While it may be easier to clean a circumcised penis of a baby, it’s still possible to clean the male infant’s uncircumcised genital. As your boy grows, you can teach him how to clean his uncircumcised penis. Tell him to wash beneath the foreskin regularly to avoid health complications.

  1. Helps Reduce Urinary Tract Infection (UTI) In Male Infants

According to a report from the Archives of Disease in Childhood, circumcision helps reduce the risk of acquiring UTI. The study shows a significantly reduced risk of acquired UTI from data obtained on 402,908 children.

However, this study also shows that male infants coming from parents with histories of UTI may still present high risks of acquiring the infection from natural means. Nonetheless, this research concludes that circumcision is still a recommended option for male infants with genetics with histories of recurrent UTI.

The feelings of becoming a father may cloud better judgment. It’s best to consult with a medical practitioner expert in Manchester for advice on circumcision for babies when there are doubts.

  1. Helps Prevent Penile Cancer

Penile cancer may be rare for infants, especially for male babies in Manchester. However, it doesn’t disregard the fact that the possibility is still there. According to a report from the US National Library of Medicine’s National Institutes of Health entitled Male Circumcision and Penile Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, men circumcised during their childhood or adolescent years have a significantly reduced risk of acquiring invasive penile cancer.

Furthermore, the study proclaims that circumcision may become an HIV prevention strategy. Infant circumcision may become a cost-effective and long-term solution to prevent HIV for males.

  1. A Reduction of the Risk of Penile Problems

Babies in Manchester who have their penises circumcised at an early age may have a reduced risk of acquiring penile problems as they grow old. These problems may include irritation and inflammation of the penis. The act may also help prevent phimosis, a condition in which the foreskin is impossible to retract from the tip of the penis. Also, this condition may affect the appearance of an erect, uncircumcised penis.

These penile problems may come from a result of lesser penis hygiene due to the uncircumcised male genital. Hence, it goes back to the previous benefit wherein it’s easy to maintain better health for circumcised penises.

As a parent, you can clean the circumcised penis’ area with child-friendly soap and water. Furthermore, don’t forget to change your son’s diapers regularly. Apply petroleum jelly or ointments ideal for babies’ skin to help clean the newly-circumcised penis of your little one.

  1. A Reduced Risk of Sexually-Transmitted Infections (STIs)

A study in Uganda showed evidence that circumcision may help reduce the risk and spread of specific STIs. However, keep in mind that the study’s findings may not be directly comparable to the results in Manchester or other parts of the UK. The reason behind this notion is because of the difference in STI rates between the two areas.

Nonetheless, circumcision may still be a recommended means to help reduce the risk and spread of specific STIs. Check out reliable circumcision facilities in Manchester like this one:

 

Always opt for trustworthy services to avoid health complications for your son.

Remember, while there are many benefits to a circumcised penis, it doesn’t guarantee protection from sexually-transmitted diseases (STDs) later in life. It still falls on the person’s responsibility to act correctly to prevent illnesses from sexual acts. As parents, you should educate your children at the right time about responsible prevention is critical to their well-being. Nonetheless, it’s best to talk it out as a family unit when deciding to push for the idea of circumcising your son.

This is a sponsored PR. Notice, we are not aiming to influence adults into any decisions, please ask your doctor before doing anything of this kind.


SHARE

Share this post

19 thoughts on “The Benefits Of Circumcision in Manchester For Babies

  1. Literally EVERY point you made PRO-circ is completely false. I highly suggest doing in depth research before promoting a dangerous and damaging surgery for boys, which violates their consent and right to bodily integrity. NO medical organization in the world recommends routine infant circumcision. Watch “Elephant in the Hospital” on YouTube for some basic education, and American Circumcision on Netflix.

    Reply
    1. In a strict reading of the word “recommends” you are indeed correct as they are not promoting circumcision the way they do vaccinations (for example). However none oppose circumcision as they all recognise the proven benefits for the boy, man and his sexual partners.

      Reply
  2. Are you kidding me!? I have changed diapers on both intact boys and boys that have had their prepuce removed (aka circumcised). Intact is SOOO much easier! What else are you going to suggest having removed to make things easier? You going to remove the lips to make it easier to get to the teeth? The prepuce is attached to the glans during the early years; you do NOT forcefully retract it to clean underneath!

    UTIs? Really? Girls get 9 times as many UTIs as boys and they are treated with anti-biotics. Besides, the reduction in risk is very little. They can STILL get a UTI.

    Cancer? Seriously? That’s on the bottom of the barrel when it comes to cancers. The American Cancer Society sent a letter to the AAP telling them to NOT use it as a reason to promote genital mutilation (aka circumcision).

    Penile problems and STDs? Nearly 4 out of 5 men in the world have their whole, natural, normal penis. If the problems and risks of keeping it were really that high, don’t you think more of them would be rushing to the clinic to get it removed? How biased can you get?

    Why not cover the harm that is done too? Be fair. People need to weigh the harm and risks against these tiny benefits. You can come up with benefits for removing any body part.

    There’s a documentary out called American Circumcision. There’s tons of other videos and information on the Internet. You’re making yourself look sooo bad.

    Reply
  3. These claims made about circumcision are false. There is a down turn in parents subjecting their infants to this very painful unnessessary perverse mutelation and abuse. People are learning the truth through valid research and valid studies. Please watch several circumcision videos with volume not muted to learn the truth of the horror. Look up doctors opposing circumcision, Nurses for the rights of the child, Jews against circumcision, BLOODSTAINEDMEN, and your whole baby. Please stop spreading lies. Also, the American cancer society does not claim circumcision prevents Penial cancer. In fact they claim the opposit. Why dobyou think baby boys get strapped down and have their pinus probed, clamped, and cut with no anistesia i might add, yet baby girls i
    The USA are protected? It takes searching your soul and searching for the truth to know deep down it is sick and wrong and down right evil to profit off of cutting children’s genitals. Also, it is phsycologically damaging. It has been proven. It changes the structure of the brain permanently. 100% FACT.

    Reply
  4. Three national medical organizations (Iceland, Sweden and Germany) have called for infant male circumcision to be *banned*, and two others (Denmark and the Netherlands) have said they’d support a ban if they didn’t think it would drive the practice underground.

    “Routine” circumcision *is* banned in public hospitals in Australia (almost all the men responsible for this policy will be circumcised themselves, as the male circumcision rate in Australia in 1950 was about 90%).

    If it weren’t a religious thing, elective circumcision of boys would have banned in lots of countries decades ago, same as it was for girls.

    Reply
    1. Thankfully such calls have been rejected. They are not science-based but ideology-based, something the American Academy of Pediatrics effectively acknowledged when they pointed out that their European critics are culturally biased against the procedure. It is telling that of all the professional medical & health bodies in the developed world, only 3 have attempted anything approaching a systematic evaluation of the evidence. Two (the AAP & CDC) came out cautiously in favour (or favor, being American) but stopped short of saying it should be routine. The 3rd (the Canadian Pediatric Soc.) decided it was “closely balanced”. None of the dissenting bodies has even attempted a systematic review of the evidence, and until they do they should be ignored. Ideology based medicine should not trump evidence based medicine.

      Risk/benefit and cost/benefit analyses are beginning to appear in the literature indicating that even in low-HIV settings medical circ wins, the benefits exceeding the risks, and it is cost-effective. If true then circ is preventive medicine that just happens to have religious or cultural significance for some.

      No professional body anywhere disputes the vital importance of circ in high-HIV settings, or makes the extravagant claims circ opponents do about the wonders of foreskin or supposed harm of circ. Only on-line quacks and peddlers of pseudoscience do that. You wouldn’t be one of those now, would you Mark?

      Reply
      1. The AAP claiming that their European critics are culturally biased was in my opinion a very weak response to this, which was written in direct response to the AAP’s position statement on male circumcision, and signed by 38 senior physicians, about half of them presidents or chairs of national paediatric or urological organisations:

        http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/12/peds.2012-2896.abstract
        “The other claimed health benefits, including protection against HIV/AIDS, genital herpes, genital warts, and penile cancer, are questionable, weak, and likely to have little public health relevance in a Western context, and they do not represent compelling reasons for surgery before boys are old enough to decide for themselves.”

        I can’t think of any area of medicine where there’s anything close to the level of disagreement that exists with male circumcision. It’s not as if the European medical organisations are unaware of the arguments of the AAP and CDC in favour, but they are in some cases adamantly against.

        You need a very high bar to suggest that cutting off healthy normal living tissue from any part of the body without informed consent is acceptable, and especially the genitals. We could cut off babies’ ears and reduce the 10% of all skin cancer that starts there. We could operate on girls to prevent breast cancer. 11% of women in the US get breast cancer, and 3% die of it, so the health benefits to the girls would massively outweigh the risks. Even carriers of BRCA mutations get the chance to decide for themselves though.

        “In the United States, vulvar cancer accounts for about 4% of cancers of the female reproductive organs and 0.6% of all cancers in women. In the United States, women have a 1 in 406 chance of developing vulvar cancer at some point during their life.
        The American Cancer Society’s estimates for vulvar cancer in the United States for 2014 are:
        • About 4,850 cancers of the vulva will be diagnosed
        • About 1,030 women will die of this cancer.”

        Neither the AAP nor CDC seem interested in looking at risk/benefit or cost/benefit analyses for female genital cutting though. Maybe that’s “cultural bias” too? They certainly seem to have a higher regard for genital autonomy for females than for males.

        As you know, I regard the promotion of male circumcision for HIV prevention as a gross abuse of science. It’s no surprise that a lot of the same people behind promotion of MC in Africa also promote it in western countries. The evidence is presented as being overwhelming, but on inspection seems surprisingly weak, especially when considering the real risk of risk compensation, and I believe that promoting MC rather than ABC, even in high-HIV settings, will lead to more people living with or dying from HIV rather than fewer.

        In Rwanda in 2005, 3.8% of circumcised men have HIV, compared to 2.1% of intact men, so why is Rwanda one of the countries which started a mass male circumcision campaign shortly after?

        I know you’re going to hate this, but I think it’s worth repeating, and anyone else reading can make their own minds up:

        From a USAID report:
        “There appears no clear pattern of association between male circumcision and HIV prevalence—in 8 of 18 countries with data, HIV prevalence is lower among circumcised men, while in the remaining 10 countries it is higher.”
        http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/CR22/CR22.pdf
        (this will include men who were circumcised tribally rather than medically, but they and their partners may also believe themselves to be protected, and the whole rationale for the RCTs into female-to-male transmission was a purported correlation between high rates of male circumcision and low rates of HIV)

        Reply
  5. Despite these vague benefits, no national health organisation in the world recommends routine infant Male circumcision.
    You do not mention the harm done by circumcision, or MGM. Loss of erogenous tissue, loss of the sliding action of the skin over the entire shaft of the penis, toughening up (desensitising) of the glans. All of this limits the sexual experience every time, for life! This I would regard as harm. I thought doctors pledged to do no harm.
    Some forms of FGM are less invasive than circumcision, yet they are illegal in the UK. MGM should be too.

    Reply
    1. “Vague benefits”? They are very real and backed up by multiple studies including high-quality randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses. In high-HIV settings it is now consensus that medical circumcision is vital for curbing the epidemic. See: https://www.malecircumcision.org/resources/clearinghouse-partners-and-contributors for a list of some of the professional bodies that endorse circumcision in the war on HIV.

      “no national health organisation in the world recommends routine infant Male circumcision.” FALSE: http://circfacts.org/general-information/#med5

      “harm done by circumcision” There isn’t any.

      “Loss of erogenous tissue” The foreskin is not particularly erogenous. The relevant nerve endings are concentrated in the glans and shaft, not the foreskin: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4498824/

      “the sliding action” is unimportant: http://circfacts.org/function-sensation/#sens4

      “toughening up (desensitising) of the glans” does not happen: http://circfacts.org/function-sensation/#sens3 & http://circfacts.org/function-sensation/#sens7

      There is a substantial body of replicated research showing that medical circumcision has no adverse effect on sexual function, pleasure or satisfaction. A handful of weak studies purporting to “prove” the contrary have been discredited: http://circfacts.org/function-sensation/#sens0

      “doctors pledged to do no harm”. As medical circumcision is not “harm” what is the relevance of your statement? Doctors also pledge to act in their patients’ best interests, and that includes preventing disease. Medical circumcision prevents, whether partially or near totally, an impressive list of pathologies.

      “MGM” is an abbreviation of “Male Genital Mutilation”. I agree that mutilation of any sort (male, genital, or otherwise) has no place in medicine. However, medical circumcision is not “mutilation”, rendering your comment irrelevant: https://www.circumcisionchoice.com/single-post/Dulin

      Reply
      1. I don’t have time to respond to all of this, but here’s a start:

        ” ‘harm done by circumcision’ There isn’t any.”

        Dr. M. David Gibbons :
        “In my practice, as a pediatric urologist, I manage the complications of neonatal circumcision. For example, in a two year period, I was referred >275 newborns and toddlers with complications of neonatal circumcision. None of these were ‘revisions’ because of appearance, which I do not do. 45% required corrective surgery (minor as well as major, especially for amputative injury), whereupon some could be treated locally without surgery.

        Complications of this unnecessary procedure are often not reported, but of 300 pediatric urologists in this country who have practices similar to mine…well, one can do the math, to understand the scope of this problem…let alone, to understand the adverse cost-benefit aspect of complications (>$750,000) in this unfortunate group of infants and young children.”

        The AAP seemed to be a lot more thorough in their search for benefits of male circ than downsides btw. Many of their members also make large amounts of money performing circumcisions, so it’s hard not to be cynical about their motives.

        “Vague benefits”? Well plenty of doctors seem to think so.

        http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/12/peds.2012-2896.abstract
        “The other claimed health benefits, including protection against HIV/AIDS, genital herpes, genital warts, and penile cancer, are questionable, weak, and likely to have little public health relevance in a Western context, and they do not represent compelling reasons for surgery before boys are old enough to decide for themselves.”
        (signed by 38 senior physicians, about half of them presidents or chairs of national paediatric or urological organisations)

        “ ‘Loss of erogenous tissue’ The foreskin is not particularly erogenous. ”
        My foreskin contains the most sensitive and pleasurable parts of my penis by far (and that’s one of the reasons I’m so opposed to male circumcision without consent). I’d certainly regard it as “mutilation” if I were circumcised, and it seems unlikely that I’m a genetic freak:

        Sorrells (2007)
        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06685.x/abstract
        “Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis.”

        Kim and Pang 2006 (255 men circumcised as adults)
        http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06646.x
        “About 6% answered that their sex lives improved, while 20% reported a worse sex life after circumcision.”

        Frisch 2011
        http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/06/13/ije.dyr104.short
        “Conclusions Circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfilment.”

        Bronselaer et al, 2013
        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11761.x/abstract
        “For the glans penis, circumcised men reported decreased sexual pleasure and lower orgasm intensity”

        Since in your view, the benefits of male circumcision are so convincing, and there appear to be few or no downsides, why aren’t European men queuing up to get circumcised? I’d certainly do it if I were convinced by your arguments.

        Reply
  6. This article never considers that the foreskin itself may be of value to a man in Manchester – or anywhere else. It is in fact a sensory organ, ani important part of a man’s sexual apparatus.

    As usual, the article uses weasel-wording, like “may reduce the risk” but never says from what, to what. Medical science considers Numbers Needed to Treat. For infant male genital cutting, those numbers – numbers of babies cut in vain for every one protected – are in the scores, hundreds or thousands. And it does not mention the risks and inevitable harms of male genital cutting, starting with the loss of that sensory organ, and going all the way to death.

    Finally, it never mentions that many men hate the fact that their foreskin was stolen from them before they could have any say in the matter, and they have every right to do so. Genital cutting without medical need or the informed consent of the person concerend is a human rights violation, in Manchester and everywhere else.

    Reply
    1. The foreskin has the same compliment of sensory nerves as any other bit of skin, but that no more makes it a “sensory organ” than the fact that it contains blood vessels makes it a “circulatory organ”.

      As multiple, high quality, replicated studies have shown, medical circumcision has no adverse effect on sexual function, pleasure or sensation, so why should anyone value theirs’ unless they’ve had their head filled with anti-circumcision propaganda, or they have a fetish? The great majority of circumcised males are happy with their status – until got at by the anti-circumcision brigade.

      Risk reductions from circumcision vary from pathology to pathology, and in some cases (e.g. penile cancer), according to age when circumcised. NNTs are also a function of the prevalence of the disease in question, and so vary greatly from country to country, which is why relative risk reduction is the more usual way of citing the data. Nevertheless NNTs for infant UTIs have been estimated at, variously, 83 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29880703), 37 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29623700) & 111 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15890696). For penile cancer in the US it is 909 (AAP, 2012) or 4237 (from one of your gang: https://www.circinfo.org/cancer.html). There are problems with the latter figure (as is often the case for Van Howe’s stats) but I’ll use it below for the sake of argument.

      As circumcision is broad spectrum, the NNT for any of all conditions combined will be very much lower. Thus the 4237 NNT for penile cancer will also prevent 38 – 115 UTIs, and hundreds of phimosis and other dermatological cases, later age circumcisions, and assorted infections including STIs etc. Bear in mind also that a proportion of UTIs, and phimosis cases etc., can lead to serious complications. If the estimate that 1 in 2 non-circumcised men will suffer a foreskin-related problem in their lives is correct (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5296634/ ) then the NNT for any condition could be as low as 2.

      These NNTs are actually rather good, and compare favourably with some vaccines. For example the NNT for childhood influenza vaccine is in the thousands (https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/120/3/467). For rarer diseases, like whooping cough, the NNT will be even higher, but I don’t see you using that as an argument against vaccination.

      The risks of medical circumcision are very low, and deaths from UTIs that infant circumcision would have prevented are much higher, even in the antibiotic era (https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/83/6/1011 ). As UTIs are now increasingly resistant, expect this to get worse. Babies and children occasionally die from adverse reactions to vaccines, but I don’t see you calling for a halt to vaccination.
      Perhaps far fewer men would “hate” that their foreskins were removed if they were not duped by malicious anti-circumcision pseudoscience telling them that they are missing something wonderful, the best part, they are sexually crippled, damaged goods etc. In fact this is official policy among circumcision opponents who deliberately and cynically set out to make circumcised males angry, in the hope that this will draw motivated new recruits into the movement. They have even set a target – 600,000 angry circumcised males: https://notyourstocut.com/2014/12/06/the-biggest-risk-factor-and-the-quickest-path-to-change/ That this may cause psychological distress to those duped by this narrative concerns them not (tragically, the chap in the picture was driven to suicide, evidently after falling for this nonsense). In fact it was this body-shaming that drew me into the debate. The first example here: http://circfacts.org/cyber-bullying/#cyber4 and the obscene reply, was the final straw. After reading that I had had enough of the anti-circumcision rubbish that is all over the internet, and I went to war.

      Reply
      1. The great majority of men that don’t have their prepuce are happy because they never had the opportunity to experience it. The great majority (even a larger percentage) of intact men are happy with their status. Thus, this argument is a non-starter.

        You can add up all the risk reductions and they still do not pass muster for pre-emptively removing a valued body part that the individual may desire as an adult. Especially, when you consider the main risk reduction that applies to a child is the UTI argument which can be easily addressed with anti-biotics.

        The term “pseudoscience” gets used on both sides of the debate. All you have to do is talk with men with their entire penis that can verify the anatomy of the prepuce that is addressed by http://www.doctorsopossingcircumcision.org to understand what is being removed. No scientific studies required. You can run “scientific” studies to find that removing any body part reduces chances of some obscure disease.

        If half the population was walking around with only one arm due to some superstition, far more people would be angry about it. But, our genitalia is hidden behind clothing and it’s taboo to talk about the differences in genitalia, of course there are not many speaking out about it. I hear that 80% of FGM victims think that they are better off because that’s the propaganda that they have been fed since it was done to them. You can’t stop this. The Internet is making the information readily available; more and more men are learning the truth about what was taken from them and the fear tactics by the medical industry with purported health benefits is insufficient. But, keep speaking out because you’re just giving more attention to the whole topic of genital autonomy.

        Which side is doing the body shaming, anyway? Maybe, if everyone was left with the genitalia they were born with, there would be no reason to body shame from either side of the fence.

        Keep fighting the war. This is a win-win for the genital autonomy advocates. Keep bringing attention to the issue!

        Reply
  7. Poor, Stephen Moreton. His obsession with promoting circumcision never dies. Maybe he has invested in this clinic?

    Keep your foreskin guys. Don’t fall for the bull. Google foreskin function and circumcision harm and learn.

    Reply
    1. Google does not replace a medical degree. You might as well ask people to Google vaccine harm and “learn”. I use PubMed.

      Reply
  8. I mentioned the harm done by circumcision in a previous post and this was poo-pooed by another poster. There are many men out there who feel robbed by the non-consented procedure as a baby. Why are their genuine concerns casually dismissed?
    I am not against circumcision for a medical need, only that on babies who cannot consent, whose parent will likely have forgotten about the whole thing by the time the boy grows and is sexually active and has to live with the harm for life!
    Circumcision is like being colour blind; you can get by, but you don’t experience the full spectrum of pleasure that nature intended. You would not inflict colour blindness on someone for a neutral health benefit. Would you?

    Reply
  9. Pls Aeshley make some beatiful article about female genitalia, how beneficial is cutting labia of little girls for their cleanliness. Im sure u find so many wonderful muslim articles about this procedure.

    Reply
  10. You were not “poo-pooed”. You were debunked. Not the same thing. Your claims were refuted, and you were provided with links to where you can find the references to the relevant scientific literature. It is telling that you fail to provide any scientific citations at all, either in your first post, or your second. Large scale randomised controlled trials, and cohort studies of men circumcised as adults find no adverse effect, and even some benefits. Odd if your colour-blind analogy was true. It isn’t. References in the links in my previous post.

    Perhaps the reason a minority of circumcised men wail about their infant circumcisions is that they have had their heads filled with pseudoscientific nonsense telling them how awful it is, and how wonderful foreskins are.

    If you apply the “wait until adulthood” philosophy in high-HIV settings you just get more dead people, more sick people and higher health care costs: http://circfacts.org/general-information/#med3

    Reply
    1. Your disgusting obssesion with cutting genitalia is furthemore shown when you turn your attention to babies. You and others like you never mention condom as a first and highly efective method of prevention.

      Reply

Post Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.