Discuss: AAP reviewing statement (thread for action in activism)

[jessjgh1]

Ron Low posted a call to action which has been moved to the activism thread here... URGENT - Contact the AAP
http://www.mothering.com/discussions...6#post13502626

Does anyone know more about individuals on the AAP Circumcision task force?
Which ones are allies? Which ones are more neutral?

What's going to be the most compelling and convincing reason for them to consider our point of view?

I am assuming they are rallying around the 'logic' that circumcision prevents HIV and other STD's... thus aligning the procedure more with 'preventative' health (like vaccines, etc.)

What's the most compellign arguement here... (again, the one that will be most compelling to THEM, not to us)
That the US's rates of high circumcision and high STD/HIV rates show flaws in thinking/research etc
That circumcision should be a choice when the person is old enough to be making choices about sexuality
Others...

I'll be following the thread in activism too.

Jessica

[Fellow Traveler]

Originally Posted by jessjgh1

Ron Low posted a call to action which has been moved to the activism thread here... URGENT - Contact the AAP
http://www.mothering.com/discussions...6#post13502626

Does anyone know more about individuals on the AAP Circumcision task force?
Which ones are allies? Which ones are more neutral?

What's going to be the most compelling and convincing reason for them to consider our point of view?

I am assuming they are rallying around the 'logic' that circumcision prevents HIV and other STD's... thus aligning the procedure more with 'preventative' health (like vaccines, etc.)

What's the most compellign arguement here... (again, the one that will be most compelling to THEM, not to us)
That the US's rates of high circumcision and high STD/HIV rates show flaws in thinking/research etc
That circumcision should be a choice when the person is old enough to be making choices about sexuality
Others...

I'll be following the thread in activism too.

Jessica

I am not sure yet, I'll think about this. I think what they are thinking about is more along the lines of whether they should compel Medicaid and other insurers to cover the procedure, mostly because of the HIV trials. It's a curious thing because other countries have already said this is not at all necessary in low prevalence countries. It's a cultural consideration they're making not one based on rational thinking. That said I am not sure what I would say yet.

[glongley]

From a recent Newsweek article on the AAP circumcision statement revision:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/192472 Gives you an idea of what they're thinking about. I would think pointing out some of the things they're NOT thinking about (lack of applicability of African studies to newborns in US, true and unknown rates of complications, foreskin function, and the child's right to bodily integrity and self-determination) might be the way to go.

"A new AAP task force has been reexamining the 1999 report for more than a year. According to two members of the panel, though, while the oft-delayed review is likely to feature a stronger endorsement of circumcision, chiefly owing to recent studies showing benefits in reducing the spread of HIV, it will again stop short of a mandate. Panelists are aware, and worried, that that
anything less may cause more states, or even HMOs, to drop coverage. The
fate of a million foreskins is in their hands."

Scary...

Gillian

[kiara7]

Originally Posted by glongley

"A new AAP task force has been reexamining the 1999 report for more than a year. According to two members of the panel, though, while the oft-delayed review is likely to feature a stronger endorsement of circumcision, chiefly owing to recent studies showing benefits in reducing the spread of HIV, it will again stop short of a mandate. Panelists are aware, and worried, that that anything less may cause more states, or even HMOs, to drop coverage. The
fate of a million foreskins is in their hands."

Scary...

Gillian

A MANDATE? WTH?

I'm seriously thinking about moving away from this country and its backwards ideas.......................

[Fellow Traveler]

What makes it scary is how uniformed it is. Although I am not sure how well the reporter conveyed the thoughts, to believe that decreasing coverage, which will further depress rates, would lead the US into some sort of massive epidemic. We know this is simply not true. Even the WHO's statement makes it clear this is a strategy for specific areas with high prevalence and transmission of a specific mode where the epidemic is not concentrated in a specific group. AFAO pointed this out, the French, the Australian equivalent to the AAP pointed this out. It's just goes to show you how much culture plays in on this. It's like the British said, an obsession.

[tennisdude23]

I really did not like the Newsweek article because I felt that it was the epitome of bad and biased reporting. Like JWhisphers said, it made it sound as if a mass HIV epidemic will ravage the US if medicaid stops covering circumcision. The responses though were great and really illustrated the point why this article is just another piece "pro-circ" of trash. The doctors' commentaries were just atrocious with little intellectual or medically factual imput, while the whole mandate thing was just ridiculous. To be clear, for anything to be mandated, it would need to go though a constitutional process. One of the wonderful things about the medical system in the US is that you can refuse any treatment you want and fire/hire doctors as you please.

[Fellow Traveler]

I am not sure if that was the doctor's commentary or the reporter's interpretation of the commentary. For example, when they said, "like before, stop short of a mandate." I don't think that describes the 1999 position at all. It wasn't even close to that. I think the main argument they are focusing on is whether all parents should 'have access' that is no financial barriers to circumcision if they want it. That is still stupid and goes against the rest of the first world but hey this is America.

[jessjgh1]

Oh, just had a sec to be on here, but this popped into my head...

One of the things I'd want to share in a letter to the aap is that none of the published stats (on the AAP info) include the complication rate of meatal stenosis as caused by circumcision- and my concern that by not including relevant complication rates parents are not given good enough information to make a good decision. That's just one example, but relevant enough that I could use it as an example.


Jessica

[Claire and Boys]

Yes, that bothers me as well. Why is that never mentioned or taken into consideration when talking risks?

[tennisdude23]

Originally Posted by jwhispers

I am not sure if that was the doctor's commentary or the reporter's interpretation of the commentary. For example, when they said, "like before, stop short of a mandate." I don't think that describes the 1999 position at all. It wasn't even close to that. I think the main argument they are focusing on is whether all parents should 'have access' that is no financial barriers to circumcision if they want it. That is still stupid and goes against the rest of the first world but hey this is America.

Yeah, I ended up reading that the reporter interpreted things wrong. Really, Newsweek should be ashamed of its gross error. As I understand, the AAP will stop short of recommending the procedure, not stop short of mandating it. I mean obviously they won't recommend it, but rather probably come out with some neutral statement along the lines of "whatever the parents choose is fine." I am interested though if they will shed any light on the ethical considerations, pain relief, etc. Of couse, whatever they say, it won't matter in the end, at least I don't think. Their position has not mattered for the past 30 years. I doubt that the debate will swing one way or the other now either. When it comes to financial barriers, it's common sense that the state should provide funds only for essential medical treatment. Even if circumcision grants prophylactic effects, those effects, according to the AAP's own argument, are not valid enough to recommend the procedure. So, if there is no strong medical basis for circumcision, why should federal, state or local governments pay for it when they can barely make essential medical procedures available to the poor? From a rational standpoint, the answer to this question is obvious.