I never ever see families choosing circumcision anymore (except my sister of course). I would say the last 80 families chose not to do it if they had a boy.
post #21 of 48
8/9/10 at 7:58pm
Wow, 33%? Some areas of the country must be darn near zero, because the hospital where I work has a 95% plus circ rate. I've worked here for 6 mos, and have only seen a whopping ONE family that chose not to circ their baby boy, out of over 100 boy babies that I've cared for. ONE!
|In this database, 6,571,500 newborn boys underwent circumcision during 2006-2009.|
I'm sorry, but those numbers make no sense to me. Perhaps the author of the article is just confusing numbers but in the first part it says:
[Circumcision rates fell from 56% in 2006 to 33% in 2009.
The review, which included more than 6.5 million U.S. newborn boys during the period, also showed that adverse event rates following newborn male circumcision were “extremely low,” and that the most common adverse events were “mild and easily corrected,” Charbel El Bcheraoui, Ph.D., said at the 18th International AIDS Conference. ]
So they looked at 6.5 million newborn boys to gather this data, right? But then it says:
[In this database, 6,571,500 newborn boys underwent circumcision during 2006-2009. ]
So even if that's just a journalistic error, I still can't understand the 33% thing. The last two years for which I've been able to find US birth data are 2006 (4,265,555 births) and 2007 (4,317,117 births). http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/births.htm and http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/births.htm
Assuming that 2008 and 2009 have approximate the same birth rate and that half of those babies are boys, you get 8,582,674 boys born from 2006-2009. So if 6,571,500 were cut, that's a 77% circ rate, right? Is there an error in my math here?
So where does the 33% come from?
Personally I don't believe the circ rate is 33% or 77%, but probably somewhere between 45% - 50%. So if the numbers are wonky (and someone correct me if any of my assumptions or math are in error), how accurate is the rest of the article?
Secondly, the assumption that falling circ. rates of the past few years are the result of medicaid stopping coverage, increased immigration rates, and the 1999 AAP statement is completely off. In relation to all U.S. families, only a fraction are on medicaid, and most states which stopped covering circumcision under medicaid did so before 2006.
And of course, no mention of meatal stenosis - something that is quite common in circ'd boys and pretty much unheard of in intact boys. If they reported that they could never say that adverse events were rare.