OMG - AAP says circumcision benefits outweigh the risks?!?!!! - Page 3

[erinsuzy]

Originally Posted by jessjgh1 

Intact America campaign
http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5922/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=11529

I signed this petition....  thank you for posting

[hlg1212]

I completely agree with you. My husband is an MD, and he was downplaying the financial profit. He thinks that the new statement is mostly motivated by religion and culture, so we have been debating this with each other. Anyway, it is clear that it is not about the health and human rights of baby boys. The most egregious aspect to me (more so even than basing the decision on the African studies, which have no bearing on infants in the U.S. regardless of the results) is the fact that they admit that they have not investigated the rate of complications or other adverse outcomes, but still state that the "benefits outweigh the risks". But you just admitted that you have no quantifiable information on the risks. Just because the data is absent does not make it zero. "Well, we have no clue, so let's just assume there are no risks."

[Greg B]

Oops, sorry, you're right, tennisdude23. I went and read the statement on their page, and it does say they don't recommend it. But I still don't get why they'd say, "there are benefits... but we don't recommend you do this to your newborn son..." And I get that the benefits are teeny tiny, as are the risks. It seems like semantics to me.

Here's what they say on the AAP page, just for reference:

After a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence, the American Academy of Pediatrics found the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision. The AAP policy statement published Monday, August 27, says the final decision should still be left to parents to make in the context of their religious, ethical and cultural beliefs.

They may not be stating that it is recommended, but they are passively agressively promoting it big time.  That is why you thought they were...

Regards

[mambera]

I think the medical risk/benefit issue is a red herring.  It could be a reasonable statement that the medical benefits balance or outweigh the risks (although IMO it's impossible to compare effectively the value to the individual of a healthy normal sex life vs the value to society of reduced STD transmission and infant UTIs).  Railing against the supposed 'profit motives' of the AAP or insisting that 'their studies are flawed' just looks shrill and uneducated.

The bottom line is that it is unethical to remove a healthy, functional body part from a human being who is unable to provide consent.  It doesn't matter what the medical benefits may or may not be. 

[DJay]

http://www.vancouversun.com/health/endorsement+male+circumcision+undercut/7178838/story.html

Good take on the new statement, or should I say against the new statement.

[tennisdude23]

Best take so far I think is written by Brian Earp, a research fellow at Oxford and a Yale grad. Check out his blog here and spread it far and wide: http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/08/the-aap-report-on-circumcision-bad-science-bad-ethics-bad-medicine/

My view of this is that the AAP statement is not about aggressively pushing the procedure.  After all, theirs is "slight benefits vs. slight risk calculus.  But the statement was most certainly influenced by people who have made big careers of their "pro-circ" research in Africa and is reflective of this bias in American medical culture that circumcision is an "benign if not slightly beneficial medical procedure" and that this is something that is "ok" for health professionals to engage in.  So, there is a confusion here between cultural motivation and medical need for amputating healthy, normal tissue.  The key (which gets utterly lost in the medical debate) is to point out that most men do not choose to get circumcised later in life because they find their foreskins to be functional, beneficial, non-optional parts of their genitalia.  As such, there is an ethical problem to remove this at birth if the vast majority of men later in life choose not to.  

[crayfishgirl]

Originally Posted by tennisdude23 

Best take so far I think is written by Brian Earp, a research fellow at Oxford and a Yale grad. Check out his blog here and spread it far and wide: http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/08/the-aap-report-on-circumcision-bad-science-bad-ethics-bad-medicine/

My view of this is that the AAP statement is not about aggressively pushing the procedure.  After all, theirs is "slight benefits vs. slight risk calculus.  But the statement was most certainly influenced by people who have made big careers of their "pro-circ" research in Africa and is reflective of this bias in American medical culture that circumcision is an "benign if not slightly beneficial medical procedure" and that this is something that is "ok" for health professionals to engage in.  So, there is a confusion here between cultural motivation and medical need for amputating healthy, normal tissue.  The key (which gets utterly lost in the medical debate) is to point out that most men do not choose to get circumcised later in life because they find their foreskins to be functional, beneficial, non-optional parts of their genitalia.  As such, there is an ethical problem to remove this at birth if the vast majority of men later in life choose not to.  

This was, by far, the most excellent summary about the AAP's recent statement.  Thanks for posting it.

[Goodmom2008]

I'm not surprised.  The AAP has always been wishy washy.  There are no medical benefits to removing a perfectly normal part of the human body. 

[Richard Scalper]

It will be up to merciful mothers to spare their sons this humiliation. With a few exceptions, most circumcised men are so defensive they'll never own up to their loss.

~Dick-Scalper

[SweetMamaKaty]

This is so sad.  You would not believe (or maybe you would) the number of people completely uneducated on the subject.  I think different areas of the country have different rates, and I know where I live, it's practically unheard of to leave a boy intact.  So we're swimming against the current here, but had hoped things would be getting better, this sure doesn't help!

[briannas auntie]

I recently had my boyfriend read two books on circumcision: "Say No To Circumcision" and "Circumcision Exposed".  After he read these two books, he agreed with me 100% to not circumcise our future baby.  I also had him watch an online video of a baby getting circumcised, and he couldn't watch it all the way, because he said it was so sad hearing that newborn screaming.

If anyone has trouble convincing their husbands not to circumcise, have them read these two books and watch an online video of a baby getting circumcised.  It most likely will change their mind.

[ChristmasLover]

Funny, I know a pediatric urologist who, presumably knowing all of this "research," didn't have any of his sons circumcised...

[brant31]

Originally Posted by ChristmasLover 

Funny, I know a pediatric urologist who, presumably knowing all of this "research," didn't have any of his sons circumcised...

As has been noted here on the board before, doctors are less likely to have their sons circumcised than are parents in the general population. This has been true for many decades. The likely reason is that although doctors wish to "honor" the wishes of all parents, per their medical training they instinctively understand that there is no medical reason to circumcise.

[brant31]

As Tennisdude23 points out, the new AAP statement on circumcision is highly nuanced. It is worth reading each line in it 3 times, and reflecting on the various potential meanings. There's an awful lot of spin in there, possibly even a lot of outright deception and dishonesty.

But mostly, it's riddled with contradictions to reach an awkward pre-determined conclusion. I've read through the document numerous times; here's what I have finally come away with:

Quote:

Circumcision is not necessary for optimal health or hygiene. Circumcision is advantageous. Circumcision is optional. Circumcision is low risk, but the risks are unknown. Parents make a correct choice either way. Circumcision reduces disease, maybe. But it can be important collectively or if the parents merely think it is. It's horrible to be poor and intact because your parents couldn't afford it, but it's fine to be poor and intact if that's what your parents wanted. It's always OK to be rich and intact or rich and circumcised. The benefits don't warrant recommending circumcision to the public, but circumcision is on balance better. Except not necessarily better as a parental choice. Better as a state of being. Except intact can be fine, too, and is a perfectly valid family choice. The benefits don't warrant endorsing circumcision, per se, as that would imply that intact boys are worse off. Which they're not, in an individual sense; only collectively, particularly if poor. Circumcision is important for the public health of America! Circumcision is not entirely useless, but it's technically unneeded. Any reason for circumcision is valid, medical or otherwise. All boys are fine.

There, now is that clearer?

[gcgirl]

Haven't read all replies, but here is my take: doctors and researchers all over the world looked at exactly the same data these doctors did and came to the opposite conclusion - that circ should NOT be performed routinely. Some countries are even taking steps to ban the practice (I'll refrain from discussing the cultural implications of that).

My main argument has been and continues to be that if 80% of the world doesn't circ and they aren't having constant foreskin problems or skyrocketing rates of penile cancer, then there is NO reason to think pre-emptive circ is a good idea.

[sarafi]

Originally Posted by 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.

I know this is a few weeks old, but when I had my last child in America her nurse and I were talking about circumcision. I mentioned that both our boys were intact and she was vaguely supportive. THEN I mentioned that in Japan (where both boys were born) it is customary to completely remove the umbilical cord shortly after birth. I have no idea what they do, but my boys both had fairly normal looking belly buttons from day one. They preserve them as a memory of babies connection to Mama. This nurse just went nuts about how dangerous that was, they could bleed out, why in the world would they do that, etc.? 

I just looked at her and said, I am sure that is how most of the world thinks about America, and at least in Japan they aren't removing something that was supposed to stay with the child throughout their lives.

[mama24-7]

Originally Posted by sarafi 

I know this is a few weeks old, but when I had my last child in America her nurse and I were talking about circumcision. I mentioned that both our boys were intact and she was vaguely supportive. THEN I mentioned that in Japan (where both boys were born) it is customary to completely remove the umbilical cord shortly after birth. I have no idea what they do, but my boys both had fairly normal looking belly buttons from day one. They preserve them as a memory of babies connection to Mama. This nurse just went nuts about how dangerous that was, they could bleed out, why in the world would they do that, etc.? 

I just looked at her and said, I am sure that is how most of the world thinks about America, and at least in Japan they aren't removing something that was supposed to stay with the child throughout their lives.

Don't leave us hanging!  What was her response to this???

Sus

[sarafi]

Originally Posted by mama24-7 

Don't leave us hanging!  What was her response to this???

Sus

 i believe it was a blank stare

[QueenOfTheMeadow]

Richard-

I have removed your post regarding American men.  We do not allow negative characterization of groups of people. 

 

User Agreement

Hate Speech

 

We do not tolerate hate speech in any form. This includes but is not limited to racist slang terms, hateful comments based on skin color or background, religious bashing or intolerance, gay or trans bashing, sexist material, sizeism, ableism, faith-based prejudicial statements, derogatory remarks, and all jokes in poor taste.

I would also like to draw your attantion to The Case AGainst Circumcision Guidlines:

 This is not a space to bash others. In an effort to minimize language which might alienate those seeking information, we are cautious about using pejorative terms such as abuse, barbarism, mutilation, etc. when routinely discussing circumcision. Let the facts speak for themselves.
 

Please keep this guidlines in mind when posting in the future. 

[studentDr]

circumcision may decrease the rate of stds, but you would expect that , well you would hope that guys didn't put themselves in such situations, eg use of condoms. I think it is more of a thing advocated in developing countries to reduce the rate of stds especially HIV.

certainly as a guy becomes an old man if he is uncircumcised he is much more likely to get recurrent urinary tract infections.

mothers having their boys circumcised are obviously unaware of the things that occupy a boys mind and time, and how could they be, they are females and just trying to do the best for their child.