Here's my letter to my local paper, I also sent one to the NY Times, and to the CDC officials directly. I hope this inspires everyone else to do the same! Now is the time to speak up!
NY Times: letters@nytimes.com
addresses for CDC: www.circumcisionandhiv.com - click on "AAP/CDC Project"
Circumcision has always been a cure in search of a disease (“Health Officials Might Urge Circumcision,” August 24). It was introduced in America as a cure for masturbation (it failed), and throughout the years, it has been promoted for epilepsy, insanity, and a host of other maladies, eventually all proven untrue. Now, some public health officials are being distracted from the very serious work needed to combat the HIV crisis by considering newborn circumcision for prevention of adult HIV. This is socially irresponsible at best, quite possibly dangerous. After years of educating Americans that safe sex practices and condoms are essential, it is dangerous to send a false message that circumcision might offer protection. We know how HIV is transmitted – if an individual is engaging in risky behaviors, he is at risk for HIV, whether circumcised or not. European males are not circumcised, and the HIV and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) rates in Europe are much lower than in the United States. Clearly other, far more important factors are involved. In order to determine if a procedure is medically necessary or beneficial, one must weigh all the potential benefits against all of the potential risks and costs. Instead of basing American newborn circumcision decisions on three studies done on adult males in Africa, it is time to seriously research the potential benefits versus the risks and complications of newborn circumcision in America. In March of this year, a boy in Atlanta was awarded a $2.3 million settlement because part of his penis was permanently cut off during a routine newborn circumcision, disfiguring him for life. In April, another lawsuit was filed in Chicago for a partial penile amputation. There have been a number of MRSA infection outbreaks linked to newborn circumcision. In addition, circumcision, like all surgeries, carries inherent risks such as pain, infection, and hemorrhaging. Before determining if newborn circumcision offers more advantages that outweigh disadvantages, public health officials must get a clear picture of the true risks and harms. Unfortunately, there has yet to be any national investigation of how common complications such as penile amputation or life threatening infections are. A new organization, Intact America, has formed, to urge the Centers for Disease Control to undertake a full scale investigation of what the true risks of neonatal circumcision are. Parents deserve to be fully informed about the risks as well as the potential benefits of circumcision.
NY Times: letters@nytimes.com
addresses for CDC: www.circumcisionandhiv.com - click on "AAP/CDC Project"
Circumcision has always been a cure in search of a disease (“Health Officials Might Urge Circumcision,” August 24). It was introduced in America as a cure for masturbation (it failed), and throughout the years, it has been promoted for epilepsy, insanity, and a host of other maladies, eventually all proven untrue. Now, some public health officials are being distracted from the very serious work needed to combat the HIV crisis by considering newborn circumcision for prevention of adult HIV. This is socially irresponsible at best, quite possibly dangerous. After years of educating Americans that safe sex practices and condoms are essential, it is dangerous to send a false message that circumcision might offer protection. We know how HIV is transmitted – if an individual is engaging in risky behaviors, he is at risk for HIV, whether circumcised or not. European males are not circumcised, and the HIV and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) rates in Europe are much lower than in the United States. Clearly other, far more important factors are involved. In order to determine if a procedure is medically necessary or beneficial, one must weigh all the potential benefits against all of the potential risks and costs. Instead of basing American newborn circumcision decisions on three studies done on adult males in Africa, it is time to seriously research the potential benefits versus the risks and complications of newborn circumcision in America. In March of this year, a boy in Atlanta was awarded a $2.3 million settlement because part of his penis was permanently cut off during a routine newborn circumcision, disfiguring him for life. In April, another lawsuit was filed in Chicago for a partial penile amputation. There have been a number of MRSA infection outbreaks linked to newborn circumcision. In addition, circumcision, like all surgeries, carries inherent risks such as pain, infection, and hemorrhaging. Before determining if newborn circumcision offers more advantages that outweigh disadvantages, public health officials must get a clear picture of the true risks and harms. Unfortunately, there has yet to be any national investigation of how common complications such as penile amputation or life threatening infections are. A new organization, Intact America, has formed, to urge the Centers for Disease Control to undertake a full scale investigation of what the true risks of neonatal circumcision are. Parents deserve to be fully informed about the risks as well as the potential benefits of circumcision.
