Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave2GA  Don't despair and don't give up. We are making real progress. All one has to do is to look at the comments to the Newsweek article and the comments on YouTube on the segments about circ. Young folks are getting it and are making a difference.
I have been at this since 1993. I have seen a sea change in attitudes. But the old ones die hard. I am in my late 50's. Folks of my age are still very much pro-circ. But that is changing with the 20 year olds.
So hang in there. I get discouraged too. When discussing my 2.3 million dollar botched circ verdict this weekend my brother in law shouted that it was a "personal choice", that he had circed his sons, and that he would do so again!! He just doesn't get it - even though I have harped on the dangers and risks for years.
On the other hand I am now bombarded with requests to sue for young men who contend, I think rightly, that their parents had no right to consent to circ.
In short, we are making progress. Every voice is vital to our effort. This will be even more so when the AAP and CDC come out with their new statements, which will apparently be more pro-circ than ever. Keep harping on the ethics. His body - His choice! as Ron Low says. And keep harping on the risks and the damage.
Don't give up the ship!!
|
Ok, seriously, what can the AAP and CDC say that will make their statements so pro-circ? I mean if one carefully looks at the research, at the real life numbers, there is nothing there to convincingly state that circumcision can truly provide benefits as a prophylactic surgery. Yes, benefits may potentially exist as they do with the cutting off any other body part. However, if you studied the effects of female circumcision, I am sure you would find benefits as well, if you looked hard enough. Yes, it does not take a scientist to figure out that circumcision may have an effect on a small subset of a population very much prone to HIV infection. The reason though why that sub group is prone in the first place is because of behavior, not the lack of genital surgery. Thus, behavior is the key to all this, and when you look at all the evidence combined, there is truly very little to suggest that circumcision will forward any positive effects in Africa. In fact, some studies point to the contrary. Furthermore, there is not a stitch of evidence to show that circumcision will in any way affect HIV transmission in the USA. That experiment has been tried, with no success. You would have to be blind not to see that. Consequently, I just don't understand what motivates intelligent professionals in this particular case to create miss information and ill-judged policy. Why the push to force surgery on un-consenting patients? Frankly, this is what I find most frustrating here. Almost as much as so as me trying to figure out why the 1989 AAP circumcision task force had Schoen as its leader. Out of all the people, they chose Schoen, the anti-thesis of unbiased. No wonder, their 1989 statement was confusing, to say the least. But I digress. Anyway, from my understanding, the vast majority of physicians who attended the AAP conference in Boston were anti-circ. So, that's a good sign. With that said, if the AAP comes out pro-circ in any way, I think that they are just shooting themselves in the foot because they would be going against what everybody else already has said, namely that circumcision provides few benefits to validate it in the newborn period.
trying to get through to others.
