OMG - AAP says circumcision benefits outweigh the risks?!?!!!

[thegoodearth]

For the first time since 1999, the AAP is stating that the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks. I just read this and couldn't believe what I was reading. Is anyone else as shocked as I am? I cannot believe they are actually putting forward the idea that routine circumcision is a good idea. Wow. I thought we were moving away from routine circumcision... wonder where we'll be headed now.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/27/health/aap-circumcision-recommendation/index.html

[tammylsmith]

That is so... upsetting. What a huge step backwards. To think of all of the ignorant articles and regurgitated half-truths that are about to be spewed, chewed up and re-spewed. I have a pit in my stomach :(

[emma1325]

I just saw this and came here to post about it.

  All the poor babies who will suffer because of this.  Please someone say that there is hope of this being overturned...I remember a couple of years ago when the AAP tried to soften the official language used to describe female circumcision, there was an outcry from the public, and the academy quickly retracted their statements.  I wish something like that would happen to save the poor boys.  :(
 

[bugmenot]

It's financially motivated.

Who are the AAP? A bunch of doctors who get paid to circumcise. A lot of their kids are probably circumcised, and I think we can safely assume the AAP members are probably circumcised.

As we know, the doctors/hospitals get a huge payday off circumcisions.


Read this:
http://www.circumcision.org/aap.htm

[nia82]

As I said before, despicable. Docs against circumcision have a great analysis how this is utterly financially motivated. So sad. 

[tropicana]

it hit the AOL news today. haven't seen it on local TV news yet though. 

[pek64]

The best way to fight fire is with fire. LLL did breastfeeding studies to prove the benefits of breastfeeding. There needs to be an organization that can raise money and prove or disprove these and other claims.

[C is for Cookie]

I read a blog about this yesterday who agreed to the change. I was like "SAY whaaaaattt???"  It got me flustered for sure. 

[emma1325]

I was so excited when I read about the AAP's recent policy changes on breastfeeding in which they express interest in distancing themselves from pharmaceutical/formula companies.  I even considered spending a little time looking around for a pediatrician for my 3 children.

Now this. 

I guess we'll continue boycotting this profession since their own leaders cannot get their sh** together and continue abusing the innocent members of society to pad their bottom lines.

[philomom]

Originally Posted by tammylsmith 

That is so... upsetting. What a huge step backwards. To think of all of the ignorant articles and regurgitated half-truths that are about to be spewed, chewed up and re-spewed. I have a pit in my stomach

I know, right. So hurtful all around.

[briannas auntie]

No way on earth would I ever have a baby boy circumcised!  After hearing an infant screaming bloody murder at my urologists office while getting circumcised, I would never put a baby though that kind of sick torture.  I don't understand why cooporations are starting to go back to the pro-circ stuff again.  Doctor's can afford to lose a bit of money if it will mean that a baby boy can stay intact, because they don't need to be circumcised.

You know, I have always wondered why so many people get freaked out by female circumcision, but could care less about male circumcision.  Males should be able to stay intact, just like females.

Jessie

[nudnik]

Ya know, it's kinda like the whole "breech birth is deadly" argument. MISMANAGED breeches are dangerous. Same here. MISMANAGED intact boys (forced retractions for starters, anyone?) leads to greater risk of (admittedly mostly minor) problems. Maybe if peds were actually educated with evidence-based practices, they'd realize that the so-called "benefits" are in reality just trying to make up for their incompetence.

[crayfishgirl]

Originally Posted by pek64 

The best way to fight fire is with fire. LLL did breastfeeding studies to prove the benefits of breastfeeding. There needs to be an organization that can raise money and prove or disprove these and other claims.

I don't think that it would even take that much....just highlighting the relative risk to put these "findings" into context. 

Our son is intact, but if I were a new or soon-to-be mama on the fence and not one to do much research, the "reduced penile cancer" would likely resonate with me.  However, without numbers, "reduced" means nothing.  The risks associated with circumcising are hard to find.  However, the American Cancer Society cites penile cancer rates of 1/100,000, and according to the CDC, even states with the lowest breast cancer rates are 100 times higher than that (101.9-117.7/100,00).  Despite that, no one is advocating preventative mastectomies for our daughters (and I suspect no one in their right mind would do so). 

Aside from the fact that hacking off part of your baby isn't the most intuitive way to prevent STDs and a disease commonly associated with having one, putting numbers beside this recommendation would certainly highlight the lunacy behind it.

[pek64]

I think the fact that it (LLL) is a name known organization ans they published their own studies carried much more weight than if the subject had been handled differently.

[mama24-7]

Originally Posted by pek64 

I think the fact that it (LLL) is a name known organization ans they published their own studies carried much more weight than if the subject had been handled differently.

As far as I know, LLL has never commissioned their own studies on breastfeeding.  I've been going to meetings for 10 years (since the month before my first was born in 2002).  If I'm mistaken, please link to them.

I think what you are *trying* to say is that LLL has made it known that there are studies that show that breastfeeding has benefits.  I've never liked this language though, as it sets breastfeedng up as special, etc.  It's not; it's just normal & all else isn't.  Much the same as there are not benefits to being intact; it's all normal.  There are risks to being circumcised.

Sus

[tipslady]

I am so upset about this! I JUST convinced DH to keep DS-to-be intact I hope he doesn't hear about this and change his mind.

[pek64]

Sorry. Can't provide links because I read it on paper. Not sure if I still have that stuff. This goes back longer, to 1998. Or maybe 99. I still have some boxes from those days. Not even sure I remember where I read it. I could give you all the info I remember, but that would sidetrack the discussion even more.

Of course it's natural, but they're saying the artificial way is better, so someone needs to prove the natural way is actually better. That is, I believe, the best way to get those near the fence to come on over. Those *on* the fence would need less persuasion, most likely.

[tammylsmith]

Hey Tips... Just don't bring it up. If he does (which is unlikely, since he'd probably just rather not talk about it if he's anything like my dh), you know the facts. be nonchalant about it and poke holes in the argument. Don't even leave the doorway open :-)
 

[Adaline'sMama]

Boo :( Shame on them.

[erinsuzy]

One of the comments says "I have a question for the anti-circumcision fanatics: If they truly oppose removing a healthy body part without the consent of the child, why aren't they protesting the removal of the umbilical cord?"    wow    Can you say ANALOGY FAIL?... lol   As depressing as the article is- that gave me a good laugh.