or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Understanding Circumcision › CDC wants US circ program
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

CDC wants US circ program - Page 5

post #81 of 112

So so sad

I am so worn out. This is just ... beyond words how people can be so cruel for profit. And that is all it is. I just can not fathom why people don't understand that it is the WRONG thing to do.

I feel stuck. And tired. ANd I need to know this will get better. I need to work for this. Will it ever get better? Sorry.. a little rambly, I'm a little depressed...

Anyone have some ideas to stop this? It should be illegal. My new mission is to make this illegal. Ugh.
post #82 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by SleeplessMommy View Post
That study was done also (comparing women who had previously undergone FGM with intact women). The FGM group had lover HIV infection rates, though also different cultural/economic background. Fortunately, there is no pro-FGM lobby in the USA at this time.
What does FGM stand for? Is there a link to this study? I debate this issue with some women I know, and I want to come armed.

This news about the CDC absolutely disgusts me.
post #83 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by phatchristy View Post
And, you know, they don't want to do a true study on circumcision death/complication rates in infants. Because if they did one they would likely find out it was like that study they did in Britain all those years ago, after which virtually circumcision stopped, because they discovered how risky it was.
Does anyone have a link to this study? I have someone I'm trying to convince who thinks the cosmetic reasons are enough. I think something like this would help.
post #84 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by hparsh;
What does FGM stand for? Is there a link to this study? I debate this issue with some women I know, and I want to come armed.

This news about the CDC absolutely disgusts me.
FGM is Female Genital Mutilation. I prefer to call it FGC -- Female Genital Cutting. Less of a loaded term (and easier to call it MGC and not close people's ears right away when they hear the term "mutilation").

Link is here: http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138
post #85 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by karlugato View Post
I am so worn out. This is just ... beyond words how people can be so cruel for profit. And that is all it is. I just can not fathom why people don't understand that it is the WRONG thing to do.

I feel stuck. And tired. ANd I need to know this will get better. I need to work for this. Will it ever get better? Sorry.. a little rambly, I'm a little depressed...

Anyone have some ideas to stop this? It should be illegal. My new mission is to make this illegal. Ugh.
you said it sister
post #86 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZoeyZoo View Post
Does anyone have a link to this study? I have someone I'm trying to convince who thinks the cosmetic reasons are enough. I think something like this would help.
Oh, they have that 'timeline' animation basically that shows the rates based on year...hopefully someone knows what I'm talking about and has the link. It's talked about in there. It's like an animation that shows rates in US, UK and other parts of the world by year.
post #87 of 112
Quote:
quote removed by administrator
I sure do hope not. I think it is just so ingrained in this culture that to do anything else is preposterous. I have been feeling like that though. On other boards I will be involved in discussion and some moms said they just did it because they can and they will not read any research or studies because they won't change their mind. Fingers in their ears singing ladeeda deedaa... I just don't get that mindset. At all. I really think that they are just trying to get my goat.

Or they were misinformed or not informed at all and they don't want to admit to themselves or anyone else of any wrongdoing. That is a big barrier to push past.

Today I have renewed hope.
post #88 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by phatchristy View Post
Oh, they have that 'timeline' animation basically that shows the rates based on year...hopefully someone knows what I'm talking about and has the link. It's talked about in there. It's like an animation that shows rates in US, UK and other parts of the world by year.

Do you mean this one?

http://www.icgi.org/medicalization/#Page_64
post #89 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by karlugato View Post
Or they were misinformed or not informed at all and they don't want to admit to themselves or anyone else of any wrongdoing. That is a big barrier to push past.
To me, that sums up exactly why the CDC is considering this recommendation. To "prove" that American doctors and hospitals were "right" all along with the huge numbers of routine infant circumcisions. "See, all you people who were questioning our rights to take your children without your informed consent or often your consent at all? Well, you have no reason to complain because we were SAVING YOUR CHILDREN FROM AIDS!!! So you can all line up to get yourselves and your children circumcised now and STOP ASKING QUESTIONS!!"

I just can't believe anyone could consider surgery on infants as a "protection" against a sexually transmitted disease of adults. Even imagining there were no ethical considerations, the risks of the surgery are far greater than the "protection" afforded anyway (reducing risk of HIV from heterosexual vaginal intercourse from 0.03% to 0.015%.) And of course, there are HUGE ethical concerns. Who knows what will happen in these boys' lives? Some, sadly, may never survive childhood. Some may be celibate. Some may marry and be faithful to a faithful spouse. So they need to be subjected to risky, painful, amputative surgery as infants.... WHY? What would be wrong with letting young adult men decide how THEY wish to deal with avoiding HIV? They may or may not feel that circumcision would be useful to them.
The only reason I've heard for NOT letting adults choose for themselves was the pediatrician on the Today show who was featured along with Ms. Chapin from IntactAmerica:this pro-circ doctor said that it is too hard for parents to talk about sex with their children and teens. Wonderful. So instead of teaching our children about sexuality and sexually transmitted diseases and ways to reduce chances of getting one, we will just perform painful risky amputative surgery on them when they are infants. Then we won't ever have to bring up those icky subjects! Great!

Jen
post #90 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quirky View Post
sorry if this has already been discussed, but the article says:

"But they acknowledge that a circumcision drive in the United States would be unlikely to have a drastic impact: the procedure does not seem to protect those at greatest risk here, men who have sex with men."

how is it that circ protects straight, but not gay, men? does your foreskin know whether you're having sex with a man or a woman? REALLY? if foreskins are that smart, we'd better get rid of them, or they'll take over the world! :::
post #91 of 112
Does anyone have a link to that poll that was on the today show website? I couldn't find it on there.
post #92 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by ~RememberToForget~ View Post
Does anyone have a link to that poll that was on the today show website? I couldn't find it on there.
http://www.newsvine.com/_question/20...et-circumcised
post #93 of 112
I told our anti-circ Pediatrician that I'd heard rumors that the AAP and CDC were considering changing their stances, this past spring, and she said she hadn't heard anything about it, and couldn't believe it would be true.

I guess I'll be bringing it up again at dd2's 3 year appointment. The more vocal our knowledgeable, intactivist HCPs can be in this instance, I think the better. But while our Ped does her best to keep up on recent research etc. in all areas - she's got a lot on her plate! So it's up to us to make sure those we know support this cause, have a heads-up to try to counter this.

I just can't believe that they're going to make this recommendation (or want to). It's awful. I certainly hope that it doesn't go through, and that those of us opposed to circ aren't going to end up having to come up with a 'religious exemption' argument against it, just as some are having to use against vaccinations.
post #94 of 112
They're not talking about it being mandatory, but floating the idea (leaning in favor) of making an official recommendation in favor of newborn circumcision, and making it a legal requirement that Medicaid (or presumably any public health reform plan) would have to pay for it.
post #95 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by glongley View Post
They're not talking about it being mandatory, but floating the idea (leaning in favor) of making an official recommendation in favor of newborn circumcision, and making it a legal requirement that Medicaid (or presumably any public health reform plan) would have to pay for it.
I am not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying it's no big deal because it wouldn't be mandatory? Because that's what it sounds like to me.... just thinking other people might interpret that way too.
post #96 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by aran View Post
I am not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying it's no big deal because it wouldn't be mandatory? Because that's what it sounds like to me.... just thinking other people might interpret that way too.
She's just saying we won't have to come up with exemptions or anything like that, since it won't be required like vaccines. She never said it was no big deal, just that it's not as bad as some people are making it out to be. A recommendation is not as difficult to fight as a requirement.
post #97 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by minkajane View Post
She's just saying we won't have to come up with exemptions or anything like that, since it won't be required like vaccines. She never said it was no big deal, just that it's not as bad as some people are making it out to be. A recommendation is not as difficult to fight as a requirement.
This is the more correct interpretation of my post. It's still a big deal, it's still bad But just trying to clarify what has been said by the CDC so far, as stated in the NYT article. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

Gillian
post #98 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quirky View Post
FGM is Female Genital Mutilation. I prefer to call it FGC -- Female Genital Cutting. Less of a loaded term (and easier to call it MGC and not close people's ears right away when they hear the term "mutilation").

Link is here: http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138
That link didn't work for me.
post #99 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by readytobedone View Post
sorry if this has already been discussed, but the article says:

"But they acknowledge that a circumcision drive in the United States would be unlikely to have a drastic impact: the procedure does not seem to protect those at greatest risk here, men who have sex with men."

how is it that circ protects straight, but not gay, men? does your foreskin know whether you're having sex with a man or a woman? REALLY?
The "receptive partner" (male or female) of an infected male receives a viral load in the ejaculate. Of course if a condom is used correctly, risk is very close to zero. The anus, apparently, is 5 times more likely to be infected per act than the vagina. HIV grew so rapidly in the gay community because of unprotected intercourse, multiple partners and IV drug use *in a small portion of the gay community.* The "insertive partner" (male) is at risk for infection if there is an open wound or sore on the penis, allowing an entry point for the virus. (allegedly, the foreskin itself acts as an open door to the virus.) The "pro circ" movement claims to slightly reduce the 5 per 10,000 risk for the insertive male, and no reduction for the receptive partner. (I have not seen any exact number on what the new risk is claimed to be.) In fact, I believe one study suggested infection was more likely for the receptive partner of a circed male - intercourse is less gentle.

Infection risk for non-condom protected activity (source: wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS)
Receptive anal intercourse 50 out of 10,000
Insertive anal intercourse6.5 out of 10,000
Receptive penile-vaginal intercourse 10 out of 10,000
Insertive penile-vaginal intercourse 5 out of 10,000

non-sexual transmission
Needle-sharing injection drug use 67 out of 10,000
Blood Transfusion 9,000 out of 10,000

There are several huge problems with the circumcision craze in Africa (and proposed circ craze in the USA)
* Needle sharing and "receptive" intercourse are currently major sources of transmission - these will not be fixed by circ. Women receive only (alleged) "indirect" protection.
* The suggestion of (self) protection for the circed partner will make them less likely to use condoms for their partner's protection
* A circed male, not yet healed, has an increased risk of infecting his partner.
* A circed infant won't be sexually active for 12-18 years - any "benefit" is delayed.

Anyway, the "fix" offered by circ is pretty lame compared to the know risk reduction provided by needle sharing programs, condom usage and eduction. I am really disappointed that the CDC is even considering this.
post #100 of 112

Slightly off-topic

I have been academically interested in the press (internet) coverage of this debate. The day that it actually was being discussed (Monday, I think? or Tuesday?), it was a "lead" story on the Today show, and one of the lead links off of msnbc.com. Then, all of the sudden, it was pulled off ... and replaced by the Michael Jackson coroner's report story. The next day, there was a link to an article discussing the fact that circ is of no benefit for AIDS transmission in gay men ... but buried halfway down the page under "Health".

I can't figure out what happened. Is it a simple case of "more interesting news" cropping up, or is it a deliberate attempt to hide the fact that even the discussion of recommending RIC is ridiculous?! I guess I am sounding a little like a conspiracy theorist.

I wish that there were equal billing on these mainstream media internet sites to BOTH sides of the argument ... it was all about CDC recommending circ, complete with a video link and photo of baby ... but only for one day. Then *poof* not much there, except a buried link to some of the drawbacks to the current discussion.

Sorry to get off topic. The CDC drives me absolutely, positively CRAZY and I wish they would zip it. Or at least provide a BALANCED PERSPECTIVE on the true risks and benefits, not just get a bunch of pro-circ doctors/activists who are searching for a reason to alter baby boys to look for reasons to justify their biases.

ARGH. I need to be less fired up about this!! I am gestating twins and should try to be less stressed. :
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Understanding Circumcision
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Understanding Circumcision › CDC wants US circ program