...oops...that was meant for a pm...
post #21 of 44
6/11/10 at 2:02am
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).
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).