I often ask myself why the AAP feels the need to weigh in on circumcision every every 10 years or so; the basic penis design has not changed much in several thousand years. Its functions are the same. The AAP should have left it at 1971's "absolutely no medical indication for circumcision in the neonatal period". That first pronouncement summed it up fine.
The obvious answer is that over time it has become not an anatomical or medical question, but a political question. I hate that. I hate that children's bodies have become a social experiment and a tug-of-war.
It will probably be 6 months or more before any new statement about circumcision comes out of the AAP or CDC, so I don't think anyone needs to panic or jump to conclusions. Nevertheless, all signs point to the fact that this may be the AAP's most political statement yet on circumcision, and it certainly will be the CDC's first time venturing an opinion on male infant circumcision.
I don't expect an out-and-out recommendation to circumcise. Why? Because it creates legal liability. Saying "don't cut" is OK, because the design is nature's, but saying "do cut" leads to lawsuits if parents rely on it and their son is badly damaged. That's why both the AAP and CDC are going all-out between now and Valentine's Day to "study" complications and show that they are extremely rare. It's a CYA move. Yes, they already know the answer they want (need) before the studies start.
In case anyone still doubts that these 2 groups are going to insist that parents have a very momentous decision to make, just have a look at the first 2 sentences of the "Background" section of this abstract near the bottom of this post. When will American doctors and researchers give it a rest and stop pestering parents about circumcision? It is only an issue in the US because doctors keep insisting it's an issue. If you shut up and hand parents back a whole baby, most are quite happy with that.
The 'several countries' the CDC refers to must mean the handful of African countries that have rolled over and let the WHO set their circumcision agenda. And how the heck did they make the leap from the first sentence (adults, Africa) to the second sentence (neonates, USA)? By the way, '50% protection' as they use it doesn't mean half are immune... it means 50% of those destined to seroconvert will get HIV later than the intact group and the other half of the circumcised group. Their wording is intentionally misleading.
"Three African randomized controlled trials recently showed that adult male circumcision (MC) conferred approximately 50% protection against HIV acquisition. Several countries, including the United States, are updating their HIV prevention recommendations to include adult and neonatal MC."
They make it sound like a given, but it doesn't have to be. There will be a public comment period announced in the Federal Register in coming months, and folks can register their official opinions of the CDC's proposed guidelines.
The obvious answer is that over time it has become not an anatomical or medical question, but a political question. I hate that. I hate that children's bodies have become a social experiment and a tug-of-war.
It will probably be 6 months or more before any new statement about circumcision comes out of the AAP or CDC, so I don't think anyone needs to panic or jump to conclusions. Nevertheless, all signs point to the fact that this may be the AAP's most political statement yet on circumcision, and it certainly will be the CDC's first time venturing an opinion on male infant circumcision.
I don't expect an out-and-out recommendation to circumcise. Why? Because it creates legal liability. Saying "don't cut" is OK, because the design is nature's, but saying "do cut" leads to lawsuits if parents rely on it and their son is badly damaged. That's why both the AAP and CDC are going all-out between now and Valentine's Day to "study" complications and show that they are extremely rare. It's a CYA move. Yes, they already know the answer they want (need) before the studies start.
In case anyone still doubts that these 2 groups are going to insist that parents have a very momentous decision to make, just have a look at the first 2 sentences of the "Background" section of this abstract near the bottom of this post. When will American doctors and researchers give it a rest and stop pestering parents about circumcision? It is only an issue in the US because doctors keep insisting it's an issue. If you shut up and hand parents back a whole baby, most are quite happy with that.
The 'several countries' the CDC refers to must mean the handful of African countries that have rolled over and let the WHO set their circumcision agenda. And how the heck did they make the leap from the first sentence (adults, Africa) to the second sentence (neonates, USA)? By the way, '50% protection' as they use it doesn't mean half are immune... it means 50% of those destined to seroconvert will get HIV later than the intact group and the other half of the circumcised group. Their wording is intentionally misleading.
"Three African randomized controlled trials recently showed that adult male circumcision (MC) conferred approximately 50% protection against HIV acquisition. Several countries, including the United States, are updating their HIV prevention recommendations to include adult and neonatal MC."
They make it sound like a given, but it doesn't have to be. There will be a public comment period announced in the Federal Register in coming months, and folks can register their official opinions of the CDC's proposed guidelines.
over how on earth circumcision will lead to later sexual behavior in terms of the use of protection, etc. I'm just really really baffled at the research here. I would say being worried about HIV infection earlier or later would definitely NOT be one of my decision-making factors in whether to circumcise. huh? Am I missing something?
