Forgive me for suspecting that spokespeople for the CDC and the AAP speak with a forked tongue. On the one hand, they emphasize that only parents can make an informed decision about circumcision for their son(s), and that to choose circumcision or to forgo circumcision are both valid choices.
One would presume, then, that they have no issue with whatever the US neonatal circumcision rate is.
However, they then say that their upcoming guidelines will ensure that parents get a thorough briefing on the potential medical benefits of circumcising their sons. Huh? Sounds like they really want the rate to go back up... or do they honestly think that forcing all new parents through a gantlet is going to result in a lower or unmoved infant circumcision rate? Could they be any worse liars? Where is the thorough briefing on the role and development of the foreskin? Isn't that really their job?
Then they hint they'll demand that both public (Medicaid) and private (insurance, HMO, etc.) funding be "restored" for infant circumcision to "ensure a level playing field". Again: huh? If it's equally valid not to have your son circumcised, how is asking you to pay for it yourself putting him at any disadvantage? We don't expect Medicaid or even HMO's to pay for otoplasty (pinning back children's ears) at the request of the parents. Circumcision is far more intimate and intrusive and carries dramatically higher risks.
There is a new and interesting article in the San Diego CityBeat. It is fairly balanced, but some quotes in it are really chilling. Here is a small example:
"...The American Academy of Pediatrics have formed another circumcision task force. Last week, the group finished gathering literature and a new policy could be ready as early as this summer, task force member Dr. Doug Diekema says.
“I think a lot of people in the physicians’ realm would like the Academy to take a stand like they do with immunization, that we ought to be saying, ‘This is something we do to little boys unless their parents say we can’t,’” says Diekema, a doctor with the Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics at Seattle Children’s Hospital.
http://www.sdcitybeat.com/cms/story/...spection/8895/
This same doctor acknowledges that most physicians do not really know much about the foreskin, except how to cut it off. That seems to be OK with him -- and he's a bioethecist.
I for one would be extremely alarmed if either the CDC or the AAP came out with a recommendation that U.S. male infant circumcision be automatic unless parents specifically object in writing. And apparently parents would only be able to do that after being forced to sit down and listen to a high-pressure, pro-circumcision lecture from doctors, nurses and maybe even hospital administrators.
If intact is good enough for millions of American families, I see no reason why my or your tax dollars, or insurance premium dollars, should be earmarked to promote circumcision of healthy infants.
One would presume, then, that they have no issue with whatever the US neonatal circumcision rate is.
However, they then say that their upcoming guidelines will ensure that parents get a thorough briefing on the potential medical benefits of circumcising their sons. Huh? Sounds like they really want the rate to go back up... or do they honestly think that forcing all new parents through a gantlet is going to result in a lower or unmoved infant circumcision rate? Could they be any worse liars? Where is the thorough briefing on the role and development of the foreskin? Isn't that really their job?
Then they hint they'll demand that both public (Medicaid) and private (insurance, HMO, etc.) funding be "restored" for infant circumcision to "ensure a level playing field". Again: huh? If it's equally valid not to have your son circumcised, how is asking you to pay for it yourself putting him at any disadvantage? We don't expect Medicaid or even HMO's to pay for otoplasty (pinning back children's ears) at the request of the parents. Circumcision is far more intimate and intrusive and carries dramatically higher risks.
There is a new and interesting article in the San Diego CityBeat. It is fairly balanced, but some quotes in it are really chilling. Here is a small example:
"...The American Academy of Pediatrics have formed another circumcision task force. Last week, the group finished gathering literature and a new policy could be ready as early as this summer, task force member Dr. Doug Diekema says.
“I think a lot of people in the physicians’ realm would like the Academy to take a stand like they do with immunization, that we ought to be saying, ‘This is something we do to little boys unless their parents say we can’t,’” says Diekema, a doctor with the Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics at Seattle Children’s Hospital.
http://www.sdcitybeat.com/cms/story/...spection/8895/
This same doctor acknowledges that most physicians do not really know much about the foreskin, except how to cut it off. That seems to be OK with him -- and he's a bioethecist.
I for one would be extremely alarmed if either the CDC or the AAP came out with a recommendation that U.S. male infant circumcision be automatic unless parents specifically object in writing. And apparently parents would only be able to do that after being forced to sit down and listen to a high-pressure, pro-circumcision lecture from doctors, nurses and maybe even hospital administrators.
If intact is good enough for millions of American families, I see no reason why my or your tax dollars, or insurance premium dollars, should be earmarked to promote circumcision of healthy infants.
