or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Understanding Circumcision › Latest circumcision stats from 2008
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Latest circumcision stats from 2008

post #1 of 44
Thread Starter 
Most recent circumcision stats available (2008) at:

http://mgmbill.org/statistics.htm

Explains sources and caveats, a well done page.
post #2 of 44
Thanks for that...interesting. I wish there was a way to get even more accurate info. This data doesn't capture any infant circumsized after d/c from the hospital, so basically all circs done at bris's and other religious ceremonies.

I also noticed that the states with the higher rates (with the exception of TX) are also the states where circs are still Medicaid funded. The best thing that could ever happen is if medicaid stopped paying for this accross the country!
post #3 of 44
Wow. My state (IL) is like a yellow island in the red storm. I can NOT believe the rates are so high almost everywhere! Ok, I can since not circ'ing here is like having a second head, but still. Makes me wish I lived on the west coast!

The rates in other english-speaking countries is interesting, too. Shows you how far behind the US in comparison to other "sister" countries. http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/
post #4 of 44
Our montana state has no data . I just wonder how it could get data but I imagine the montana area would prably range in the orange area if they had the stats .
post #5 of 44
at the stats for my state. I like my own little world of people who don't cut their boys or wouldn't do it again if they made the mistake with their first son. I really thought it was dropping around here too but I think these stats are the same as the last ones.
post #6 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by LavenderMae View Post
at the stats for my state. I like my own little world of people who don't cut their boys or wouldn't do it again if they made the mistake with their first son. I really thought it was dropping around here too but I think these stats are the same as the last ones.
i feel the same way. 85% here....highest in the world. though i have to believe we are making progress. it will get better. it will.

right?
post #7 of 44
Yea for Utah being yellow! (Of course green would be better but yellow is better than I expected.)

The Utah rate has dropped considerably since Medicaid no longer pays for it!!
post #8 of 44
I can't believe it's 85% in some states

Is Nevada the lowest with 12%?
post #9 of 44
I'm on my phone and can't see the map. What are CA's rates?
post #10 of 44
i think CA's was 22 percent. what makes Nevada's so low, and Florida's too?

can anybody who's in the know summarize why the vast desparity between, say Michigan 85 percent and Florida, 39 percent?
post #11 of 44
I was happy to see that my comes in at 19%! It also explains why I thought intact had become the norm. I'm always surprised when I see circ'd little boys in the dressing room at our local pool. All the naked little boys I see in my circle of friends are intact.
On the other hand, I was really shocked by how high the rates are around the country. It's so bizarre and sad to me that circumcision is still the norm across the nation.
post #12 of 44
I find this really interesting. In Canada (according to 2006-7 statistics) the national rate is approx. 31%, with no province above 50%.

http://www.courtchallenge.com/refs/yr99p-e.html
post #13 of 44
Blah, my state sucks. 83%? Well, I'm proud to be a member of the other 17%.
post #14 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vancouver Mommy View Post
I find this really interesting. In Canada (according to 2006-7 statistics) the national rate is approx. 31%, with no province above 50%.

http://www.courtchallenge.com/refs/yr99p-e.html
Yeah it's much lower than the U.S. although the rates they cobbled together seem rather high. They base this off of phone interviews and before that, the statistics they used were much lower, claiming a 13% rate (one missing a couple provinces had just a 9% rate). What changed exactly? Were they inaccurate with one or the other? Which is a more reliable stat-gathering method anyway?

Now that older one was just for hospitals and didn't include the incidence of circumcision after the neonatal period or in clinics, since hospitals barely offer it now up here. If a hospital discourages 87% of parents on it, I doubt 1/5 of those are unreceptive enough to that disclaimer to go have it done at a clinic somewhere and I doubt there's a rate of circ's done in the first few years after birth that more than equals the rates at birth. Doesn't add up. Knowing older, married-with-kids friends of mine and the locker room, it seems rarer than 31% (no I don't look but sometimes you do notice I'm afraid).
post #15 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElliesMomma View Post
i think CA's was 22 percent. what makes Nevada's so low, and Florida's too?

can anybody who's in the know summarize why the vast desparity between, say Michigan 85 percent and Florida, 39 percent?
I think for states like California, Nevada, Arizona, Texas and Florida, the defunding by medicaid was one thing but smarter doctors or possibly many more doctors of Latin descent. Florida has many Cuban defectors from over the years who were in the medical business and in their culture, circ is not practiced. The same can be said for the high amount of people of Mexican descent in Texas, Nevada, Arizona and California. The cultures haven't allowed themselves to be sucked in by the circ propaganda and the influence is spreading as a result, which is good to see.

Therefore, more Americanized generations of these minority groups will come to see circ as alien, unfamiliar and won't jump on it. That said, pockets of people with these backgrounds will do it just to fit in more. But I think that's why in a state like NY (still between 1/2 and 3/4 but close to 1/2) the lowest rates are in the NYC area where there's a high proportion of Puerto Ricans and other nationalities that don't routinely practice it. Demographics plays a big part but Caucasian and African-Americans, both of whom made up the majority of the U.S. before WW2, both do it fairly regularly. But the tide is turning, however slowly.
post #16 of 44
Also, if I'm not mistaken some hospitals in Nevada won't perform circumcision but I was thinking that would have only been las vegas but maybe there are more hospitals that won't do that in nevada .

California doctors are a mix of americans and foreigners but lot of them were made up of hispanics, and latin americans .

The foreigners in california were a bit more on top of things than some of the american ones .

Same with the demographic of the southern part of california that they had citzens of hispanic, my son's father(polish), and latin-americans .

You would order pizza, food, or go get some food you would end up with someone with an accent .
post #17 of 44
Just throwing this out for interest. I work in Minnesota, where circs are not medicaid funded. My hosptial 'eats' the cost of circ to keep the customer happy. I am sad to see all these medicaid funded states.
post #18 of 44
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by anony View Post
Yeah it's much lower than the U.S. although the rates they cobbled together seem rather high. They base this off of phone interviews and before that, the statistics they used were much lower, claiming a 13% rate (one missing a couple provinces had just a 9% rate). What changed exactly? Were they inaccurate with one or the other? Which is a more reliable stat-gathering method anyway?

Now that older one was just for hospitals and didn't include the incidence of circumcision after the neonatal period or in clinics, since hospitals barely offer it now up here.
The 9% vs. 31% rate in Canada does indeed reflect the difference between rates at hospital discharge, vs. the number of boys who are ultimately circumcised within the first year of life. It may be that circumcisions are not performed in hospitals in Canada much any more due to lack of reimbursement and general recognition of lack of medical necessity, but that post-hospital circumcision providers are picking up the slack for those parents determined to have it done.

Relaize that the numbers given for the US are also hospital discharge figures. Certainly a number of circumcisions are performed for religious reasons after hospital discharge or in doctor's offices instead of the hospital for whatever reason. So the 55% national circ rate usually quoted only reflects hospital discharge figures and the rates for all circumcision in the first year of life are undoubtedly higher. I believe there was a study in the last few years looking at data in Maryland that showed perhaps 10% higher rates for post hospital infant circs than were reflected in the discharge stats. (I may not be remembering the exact numbers right).

Gillian
post #19 of 44
I live in Ohio and I am sad to say that I am not surprised at all at the 85% rate. I don't know of anyone but me IRL that has not had their son circ'd. Not one person.

DS was born in TX and there was no push for circ. I was asked (still on the operating table!) and then the next day the ped asked and that was it. We moved here when he was 8 months old and I turned down circ twice. The first time he was having raw patches on his scrotum and thighs and at one point, his foreskin was slightly inflamed. The very FIRST thing that popped out of her mouth was that if it happened again, he'd need a circ. She insisted that it was a foreskin infection and pushed HARD for both oral and topic abx. I refused without a culture and she refused to culture it. If we don't know what we're treating, I'm not giving him meds! If she had bothered to culture it, she would have found that it was a yeast infection (caused by a food allergy). If I had agreed, the abx would have made the yeast infection much worse and we would have ended up with an open wound from a circ AND a yeast infection and we might have ended up one of those "he HAD to be circ'd for infections!" stories.

The second time the doctor insisted that he MUST have a UTI even though he wasn't showing any symptoms and that since he was "uncircumcised" they'd have to cath him to get a clean catch since "he probably has some bacteria up there." I wish I'd said no to that, but it didn't really seem to bother him. It turned out to just be some kind of mild viral illness and he was fine. The nurse who did the cath said they get a LOT of older kids in for circ's. I told her about them trying to circ him for what turned out to be a yeast infection and she was shocked. I said, "So how many of those do you think were really necessary?" and she had no answer. Hopefully it made her think.

Anyway, long story short, I'm not surprised at all at the numbers. I also wouldn't be surprised if they were actually much higher than that. We have significant Jewish, Muslim, and Amish communities in this state, none of which would be included in the 85% statistic.
post #20 of 44

typo?

...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Understanding Circumcision
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Understanding Circumcision › Latest circumcision stats from 2008