Discouraged - JAMA Article/MSNBC link - Page 2

[Papai]

Originally Posted by jwhispers

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

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

Wow. Look at that. A doctor with some common sense and he called a spade a spade. I'll just post this article for anyone who cares about this junk.

[To-Fu]

Originally Posted by glongley

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

Gillian

Do you have an online source for that? I'd love to share the info with some friends.

[To-Fu]

Originally Posted by jwhispers

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

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

I think this is the bottom line:

He said: "We have to be careful not to take evidence from one part of the world and apply it uncritically to others.

That's a great article--thanks for sharing the link.

[trauerweidchen]

I actually only saw the BBC article, but it was enough to make me upset, not because I am against legitimate studies that might draw conclusions that I do not agree with, but because I think it is misleading and inappropriate to draw the conclusions that the researchers did (based on my incomplete understanding of how the study was conducted, at least).

What concerns me the most is my fear that many people who are used to taking news reports at face value, or blindly following the medical establishment without researching issues on their own, will now have a knee-jerk reaction to the circumcision decision-"if ______ (insert expert/doctor/news source here) says that it'll protect my son, then we'll go ahead and do it". We as a culture seem to be good at removing personal responsibility from a situation as much as possible (ie, if he's circumcised, he won't have to worry about X disease), and it would be helpful if contrasting studies were mentioned when articles of this sort are written. There was a recent study in MN about bed-sharing that MPR reported on, and the tack they took in the presentation was quite upsetting to me and felt very biased, although I doubt they meant it that way per se. It's tough to get fair, balanced information in the mass media these days.

[claddaghmom]

Well I think we should all remove our spleens, prostates, fallopian tubes, eyeballs and brains.

That should about cover it.



seriously though, this does not computer. STDs are everywhere in the U.S. and we do tons of circ. scratchy scratchy?

[Fellow Traveler]

Originally Posted by To-Fu

Do you have an online source for that? I'd love to share the info with some friends.

Yes, here: http://health.msn.com/mens-health/ar...ntid=100170966

[Fellow Traveler]

Here is another British perspective:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandsty...genital-herpes

Notice how much more measured it is. Whereas the American press releases make it sound like they curred cancer.

[PassionateWriter]

Originally Posted by 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

great post! thanks for giving me the words to be rational...b/c i just want to go OFF!

[Ahappymel]

I did see the article...it has/is continuing to make me ill

[Claire and Boys]

Originally Posted by purplestraws

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?

ITA! And if you ask why they haven't they say it isn't ethical. So why is it ethical to do these studies on male circumcision? Why aren't they doing studies on other body parts to see if it's beneficial to remove them? Why is the foreskin so special?

Something else I have noticed is that ALL of the studies done are based in the US. Why is that? If intact countries' men are suffering SO much from the lack of circumcision that people would have you believe, why are their doctors not doing studies on circ? How many have you seen trying to link circ with UTI? Every single one of those ( apart from one in Canada that I am aware of ) was done by US doctors. Trying to justify it over and over again.

[Claire and Boys]

Originally Posted by jwhispers

Here is another British perspective:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandsty...genital-herpes

Notice how much more measured it is. Whereas the American press releases make it sound like they curred cancer.

I like how they say "circumcising men and teenage boys" NO mention of newborns - and it says it decreases the risk "slightly"

I have no problem with adults getting circumcised if that's what they want.

[PolarMommy]

There WAS a study on FGM that proved female circumcision to lower STD risks, (I'll have to dig it up) and yet all forms of FGM are illegal. Not that I think such studies are even meaningful. All of these studies about circumcision are DESIGNED TO LEGITIMIZE this barbaric practice.

Sorry about the yelling.....in a world gone raving mad, where infants are routinely mutilated (and without anesthesia), few even question what STDs have to do with BABIES. Even as a measure of STD risk reduction (which is bogus to begin with), circumcision needs to be an elective procedure available for consenting adults. :

[perspective]

Originally Posted by 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!

Any study that says circumcision lowers the risk of STDs falls flat on itself because of four main points:

1. You can bring out as many studies you want, but that does not change the fact that if you look at data comparing the US to intact countries in Europe, many of them have the same if not LOWER STD rates then the US. Reality is reality, no study can trump that.

2. STD's are are ADULT issues. A 5 year old is never going to loose out on any hypothetical benefit of STD protection. People can get circumcised as adults, and when they are adults they can made decisions for their OWN sexual health.

This now goes beyond the whole "parental rights" reasoning that "some decisions have to be made" because this is a decision ONLY AN ADULT DEALS WITH. Its appropriate that the adult decides for themselves.

3. If your a guy that uses condoms, and is responsible in his sexual relationships then these studies become about just as useful as the paper they are printed on.

4. Finally, and most importantly. Everyone has the right to control their own body. Its truly the only thing we will ever own on this earth, and that most basic of rights should never be taken away.

[Free Thinker]

My DH told me about this article, too. He's on-board w/ not circing, but he still worries we made the wrong choice sometimes. I think the part that bothers me is that in the two groups, the non-circed group had a rate of 50% more HIV (estimating here) but roughly 80 got HIV. In the circed group 40 men still got HIV! THat doesn't sound like a good method of stopping disease, if so many men still got it! If it had been 4, I might see the point, but HIV is serious and deadly in Africa! Shouldn't our efforts focus on constant condom use instead of cutting off our body parts? Or what about focusing on having fewer partners to reduce ones chance of having one w/ HIV? Those are two things that we could do that would actually help and not cost much $$!

[Hallielynn01]

http://mothering.com/articles/new_ba...n-and-hiv.html

[pigpokey]

It makes me so sad.

(1) Babies are not at risk from unprotected sex. Certainly by the time a child comes to that point of being at risk, he can choose between desensitizing and thickening his skin, or condoms, serial monogamy with testing, just plain monogamy, celibacy, etc.

(2) In this country, men rarely catch HIV by a route that involves the penis of the person catching HIV. It is just plain hard to catch it through your penis without open sores. Easy to give, yes. To catch, no. It's easy to catch when receiving anal sex. I read a book about HIV biology and how it fits into human behavior once that said that a man would have to have unprotected sex with an infected woman, on average, 100 times before catching HIV, or he could have receptive anal sex with an infected man once. It was called ... ARG I can't remember. One of the take home messages from the book, written by a gay man, was that the way to turn the tide was to love our gay sons and include them in our society fully so that they can have a vision of a future where they can love, be loved and have success in the ways that we raise our boys to anticipate is possible. When we marginalize men to the bars, and out of business and church leadership, out of legitimized family formation with the possibility of children -- when society takes away their dreams for a full life when they hit adolescence -- some of them will continue to engage in this high risk behavior because they just don't care. Of course many gay men fight through and go on to have successful partnerships, businesses, children, spiritual lives. But many do not and who can blame them for being a bit depressed in our society.

So basically -- if my son is heterosexual, we're dealing with super low risk of helping him EVEN IF circ'ing "works", and if my son is going to have receptive anal sex without insisting on condom use, well, cutting off part of his penis is not going to help him. What will help him is making sure he values his life enough to not engage in unprotected receptive anal sex.

(3) Condoms are more effective than circ'ing under any existing set of beliefs about the HIV / Circ'ing mess. Condoms are widely available in the US. Condoms are widely used by heterosexual men to prevent child support payments, anyway, Anything that may possibly decrease the sensitivity of the penis -- in my mind, that's a risk that the condom is not going on. Don't want that for my son.

Well this became a bit of a rant. I'm off for lunch.

[susienjay]

Originally Posted by pigpokey

(2) In this country, men rarely catch HIV by a route that involves the penis of the person catching HIV. It is just plain hard to catch it through your penis without open sores. Easy to give, yes. To catch, no. It's easy to catch when receiving anal sex. I read a book about HIV biology and how it fits into human behavior once that said that a man would have to have unprotected sex with an infected woman, on average, 100 times before catching HIV, or he could have receptive anal sex with an infected man once. It was called ... ARG I can't remember. One of the take home messages from the book, written by a gay man, was that the way to turn the tide was to love our gay sons and include them in our society fully so that they can have a vision of a future where they can love, be loved and have success in the ways that we raise our boys to anticipate is possible. When we marginalize men to the bars, and out of business and church leadership, out of legitimized family formation with the possibility of children -- when society takes away their dreams for a full life when they hit adolescence -- some of them will continue to engage in this high risk behavior because they just don't care. Of course many gay men fight through and go on to have successful partnerships, businesses, children, spiritual lives. But many do not and who can blame them for being a bit depressed in our society.

So basically -- if my son is heterosexual, we're dealing with super low risk of helping him EVEN IF circ'ing "works", and if my son is going to have receptive anal sex without insisting on condom use, well, cutting off part of his penis is not going to help him. What will help him is making sure he values his life enough to not engage in unprotected receptive anal sex.

That is a great explanation. I've never thought of it that way.


I just get so frustrated and angry about the AAP statement. They devote the majority of it to supposed benefits, barely touch on any of the risks (the last I looked they don't even mention meatal stenosis anywhere), and in the end take no position at all. I'm sure it is a combo of money plus the doctors on the panel seem to have their cultural blinders on too. They spend so much time talking about UTIs which even if it were true isn't a huge benefit. I'd think a UTI is not as bad as meatal stenosis which they don't even mention.

[glongley]

This HIV/STDs BS is going to be reverberating for a while and we need to know how to respond to it. This thread is has a lot of very good posts and points for explaining why the African STD studies have little to no applicability to newborns in the US.

Gillian