Discouraged - JAMA Article/MSNBC link

[vachi73]

Not sure if anyone else saw it today, but there's a link off of msnbc.com to an article that discusses a recent article in JAMA about circumcision. Apparently all sorts of STDs are prevented by circ'ing.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29882368/

I am discouraged. We left our 2 ds's intact, and are basically the ONLY people we know who did not circ. I do not regret our decision because we are not in the "in" group - I have never based parenting decisions on "what everyone else does" - but this recent study does concern me. What if my stubborn "protection" of my two sons comes back to haunt one or both of them? will they regret that we didn't circ them? that would break my heart!

okay, actually, that would be sad, but MUCH LESS sad than if we HAD circ'd and they wished that we HADN'T!

Anyway - anyone have any thoughts on this recent study? I didn't do any further digging. Would welcome a pep talk!

thx!

[yamilee21]

I was just coming to check if this latest story was being discussed here. I wonder if the research is from that same group that is constantly trying to come up with "new" proof to justify circumcision.

[glongley]

Behavior is ALWAYS going to be much more important than circumcision status in reducing the risk of sexually transmitted diseases. Any person who does not practice safe sex behaviors will be at higher risk for STDs whether they (or their partner) is circumcised or not. Circumcision is neither a guarantee nor a necessity for preventing STDs. Babies are not sexually active, therefore circumcision of babies for possible prevention of STDs is neither immediately necessary, nor is it ethical. When a male is old enough to decide for himself whether any potentially risk-reducing effects of circumcision seem reasonable or desirable to him, in comparison to his OWN evaluation of the value of having an intact penis, he can make the choice himself.

There are plenty of studies showing no significant difference in STDs by circumcision status. The media and medical community seem to love to loudly chant the mantra "circ prevents STDs" whereas they ignore the countervailing evidence, the value of the intact penis, and the rights of the male to make his own decisions about his body.

Nothing has changed. This is more of the same fear-mongering, and "circ as panacea"-mongering that has gone on for decades. You did the right thing, mama. No fears, just teach your intact sons safe sex information, just like all parents should teach ALL their children.

Gillian

[vachi73]

To answer your question, I'm not sure, but I don't doubt it. I did see a list of some of the patrons who sponsored the study, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which made me mad for some reason. ??

The prior studies in sub-Saharan African countries did not bother me very much -- there are so many cultural, sexual practices in so many of the populations studied that I thought the results were more or less useless. But that info took a while to "trickle out." I'm not sure what the basis for this recent article/study is.

Their bottom-line recommendations were the most upsetting:

“Evidence now strongly suggests that circumcision offers an important prevention opportunity and should be widely available,” Drs. Matthew Golden and Judith Wasserheit of the University of Washington wrote in an accompanying editorial.

They also said the AAP is reconsidering its position.

Anyone else?

[Fellow Traveler]

Originally Posted by vachi73

Their bottom-line recommendations were the most upsetting:

“Evidence now strongly suggests that circumcision offers an important prevention opportunity and should be widely available,” Drs. Matthew Golden and Judith Wasserheit of the University of Washington wrote in an accompanying editorial.

They also said the AAP is reconsidering its position.

Anyone else?

That data was also based on groups in Africa. There are several studies from first world countries that don't find any significant difference. Basically, they're finding groups at the highest risk and testing them.

ETA: I agree with glongley this is just more fear mongering. For example, there is now the option to have an HPV vaccine so why would you consider circumcision for something that we can vaccinate against, should you want to go that route? There are a number of studies in first world countries that show no difference in herpes rates and we just had a discussion on HIV if you want to check out the thread I bet it's on page two by now.

[carriebft]

It's hype. Ask yourself this question:

Why does this study get 200 news hits on googlenews while this one:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...?dopt=Abstract

CONCLUSIONS: These findings are consistent with recent population-based cross-sectional studies in developed countries, which found that early childhood circumcision does not markedly reduce the risk of the common STIs in the general population in such countries.

got only two?



The answer looks something like this: $

[LavenderMae]

I wonder why they aren't doing similar studies about FGM? Anyway, I don't really care about these studies because I can almost guarantee they are biased and flawed. They go against common sense imo. Safe sex is what needs to be wide spread not GM.

Doesn't the US (in our highest circed population) have a much higher % if STIs compared to intact countries?

I really wish these sick people would stop trying to find an excuse to keep mutilating baby boys.

[glongley]

Originally Posted by LavenderMae

Doesn't the US (in our highest circed population) have a much higher % if STIs compared to intact countries?

Yep, the US has THE highest rate of STDs in general, and THE highest rate of HIV, in the developed world.

Gillian

[purplestraws]

Originally Posted by LavenderMae

I wonder why they aren't doing similar studies about FGM?

I ALWAYS wonder about this. ALWAYS.

When you start comparing MGM and FGM people always say, "There are no medical benefits to female circumcision!"...but seriously...how many studies have been done on the benefits of female circumcision vs. male circumcision?

[Revamp]

Yo Vachi, I haven't posted here for a while but this seeing this article lured me back.

My take on it is as follows: while lacking the expertise in statistics and medicine to have any truly informed opinion I'll just state that it clearly contradicts with much of the research already out there (see the post above mine by carrie, although idk about the $ angle, seems a tad conspiracy hypothesist to me) & that since it wasn't conducted on infants I'm not sure you can extrapolate the results of infant circumcision onto it. Remember the issues about whether the "Right kind of circumcision" is getting done in Africa with regards HIV, if you saw that. Additionally, there could by psychological stuff involved with adults that isn't with infants.

Secondly, and on a more personal note, I'm an intact male and this article doesn't come anywhere close to making me want to rush to a doctor. The same is true of the overwhelming majority of us. & even if it wasn't, even if there was just a single man who wouldn't go for it, then infant circumcision is still a massive and totally unacceptable presumption for a parent to make.

For the seventeen billionth time:

Subjective decisions get made by the subject. The owner of the penis gets to decide what happens to it. Parental prerogative beings where good health ends and not a moment before.

If your sons want to protect themselves from STIs and on the basis of this research are convinced then that is their decision, over their bodies. All as it should be. Do I imagine they'll take up that opportunity, though? I very, very much doubt it.

[vachi73]

Thank you

all so much, I feel MUCH better reading your thoughts, and - in James' case - experiences. I feel I can rest tonight knowing we made THE BEST choice for our two gorgeous boys

Again, sincere thanks. What a great forum!

[moonglowmama]

This is so frustrating to me! I have a friend who I'm trying to advise regarding circumcision, and when things like this come out it gives parents an "easy" way to alleviate guilt over cutting off their son's penis. UGH!

[Fellow Traveler]

Here is another example of an article that never got a lot of press:

http://tinyurl.com/d94u6o

Testing for HSV in a group of New Zealand boys followed to age 26, no significant difference similar to results found in a study in India.

[perspective]

Originally Posted by vachi73

I have never based parenting decisions on "what everyone else does" - but this recent study does concern me. What if my stubborn "protection" of my two sons comes back to haunt one or both of them? will they regret that we didn't circ them? that would break my heart!

Even if these studies were fool proof, it would not matter. The point here is not if circumcision can offer any benefit. (heck I bet if you did a study with circumcised women you would find similar results)

The point here is that this is a boy's body, his rights. In the end even if all the "benefits" pro-circs say are there were actually there, they amount to nothing more then a preference.

This is about boys, men being able to keep the natural rights to control their own bodies. When your boys are older, they can get circumcised because they think its a health benefit, heck even if they just thinks it looks prettier. But the importance is that it was always their choice, and never was yours in the first place, so their is nothing to feel bad about.

[Papai]

These are from the same crappy African studies? oh please, that makes me less nervous.

[carriebft]

My point about money, I believe, is very valid when it comes to the media in the USA. Circumcision remains popular here because of many reasons, and money is the root cause of lots of those. Insurance pays for it, hospitals are paid to collect the tissue, even formula companies benefit from circumcision. Thus, circumcision remains entrenched here and it remains firmly places in the minds of 70% of the people living here.

Thus, all of our media outlets jump on a story like this (its top health news on cnn, msnbc, etc) while foreign media outlets such as the BBC treat the call to circumcise US infants because of this as the joke it is:

Dr Colm O'Mahony, a sexual health expert from the Countess of Chester Foundation Trust Hospital in Chester, said the US had an "obsession" with circumcision being the answer to controlling sexually transmitted infections.

He said: "Sure, a dry skinned penis is a bit less likely to contract HIV, herpes and possibly genital warts but it will get infected eventually."

Dr O'Mahony also said pushing circumcision as a solution sent the wrong message.

"It suggests that it is women who infect innocent men - let's protect the innocent men.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7960798.stm

If you took away the money angle, we would not be reporting the way we are on this.

"every boy in the united states is born with a 300$ coupon attached to the end of his penis. All the doctor has to do to collect is cut it off."

[purplestraws]

You know guys...I think they're probably right. We SHOULD circumcise all of our boys. But...honestly...why should we stop there?

Think of all the benefits of female circumcision that just haven't been "proven" yet. I mean, surely if we removed all of the tissue from a woman's genetalia, she'd be SO much less likely to contract STDs, right? None of those icky, moist folds that easily pick-up those diseases. She'll still have all the enjoyment that penetration brings during sex. And think of how much easier it will be to clean! We can't expect our girls to clean themselves properly down there! And let's just be honest here...think of how much prettier it will be. Nothing just hanging there...getting in the way during certain intimate times with their partners. I'm sure most husbands would agree that they would prefer their little girls not have their labia.

But...I hear that it's illegal to do that here in the United States. Do you think we could just come up with some more "studies"? Surely that will convince the people...

P.S. - Please note the sarcasm.

[Frootloop]

Originally Posted by purplestraws

You know guys...I think they're probably right. We SHOULD circumcise all of our boys. But...honestly...why should we stop there?

Think of all the benefits of female circumcision that just haven't been "proven" yet. I mean, surely if we removed all of the tissue from a woman's genetalia, she'd be SO much less likely to contract STDs, right? None of those icky, moist folds that easily pick-up those diseases. She'll still have all the enjoyment that penetration brings during sex. And think of how much easier it will be to clean! We can't expect our girls to clean themselves properly down there! And let's just be honest here...think of how much prettier it will be. Nothing just hanging there...getting in the way during certain intimate times with their partners. I'm sure most husbands would agree that they would prefer their little girls not have their labia.

But...I hear that it's illegal to do that here in the United States. Do you think we could just come up with some more "studies"? Surely that will convince the people...

P.S. - Please note the sarcasm.

I could have written this sarcasm-filled reply myself.. and have actually stopped myself from starting a post filled with things like this MANY times. May I add some more sarcasm..?

I'm pretty damn upset that I can't share a tradition like this with my daughter. I'm a little jealous. I really think that we should make sure that her vulva will look like mine later on, just like a man's son's penis should look like his father's. Hmmm. Perhaps we should start exploring baby girls' labia to make sure that they will likely turn out to be equal length as moms'? Not to mention, the longer they end up, the more folds that that *icky* smegma can accumulate in.
And OMG, what if her breasts get bigger than mine? Hmmm. We should really match there, too. One of us will be getting implants.

Of course, I'm being extremely sarcastic, too.. But, these stupid excuses are driving me crazy.

If circumcision of a man can "prevent" all of these diseases, why won't they do the studies on women? Heck, we women deal with simple yeast infections WAY more often than an intact male does.. I'm sure those could be prevented, or at least dramatically lessened with female circ, too. If an intact male gets a yeast infection, many peds act like it's the end of the world, but a baby girl can have the same thing, yet she gets cream to fix it up.

The double-standard is sickening.

[Tanibani]

Scientific American: Circumcision cuts the risk of herpes, HPV

Just another link. I just started to subscribe to their daily e-mails and this is infuriating.

These e-mail alerts reach a lot of "brainy" people.

[Fellow Traveler]

I just thought you might enjoy the 'British' perspective:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7960798.stm

Dr Colm O'Mahony, a sexual health expert from the Countess of Chester Foundation Trust Hospital in Chester, said the US had an "obsession" with circumcision being the answer to controlling sexually transmitted infections.