Parents Magazine...OH NO! - Page 3

[glongley]

This is what I sent them:

As a Registered Nurse with with a background in HIV testing and counseling, as well as newborn nursery, I am writing to express my profound dismay at the irresponsible and biased article on circumcision and HIV by Karen Bilich which you published today. On what authority are you touting circumcision of babies as a preventative for HIV, when no medical organization in the world recommends routine circumcision for this, or any other, medical reason? Ms. Bilich's article is seriously unbalanced in its analysis of the African studies and their practically non-existent relationship to male infant circumcision in the United States.

Circumcision is no magic bullet. Circumcised men can and do become infected with HIV. In fact, the United States, which has probably the world’s highest
percentage of non-religiously circumcised men in the sexually active age range, also has the highest rate of HIV in the developed world. Evidently, in real life, circumcision is not necessarily the great preventative it has been made out to be.

Behavior, not anatomy, is the key factor in reducing the rate of acquisition of HIV. All men, circumcised or not, still must be taught and must practice safe
sex behaviors: abstinence, delaying onset of sexual of activity, reducing numbers of partners, use of condoms, testing, and monogamy. (This also goes for their partners.) Ms. Bilich's article does not mention that circumcision is not guaranteed to protect an individual from sexually transmitted diseases, and does not take the place of parents teaching their
children the importance of condom use and other safe sex behaviors.

An uncircumcised man who consistently uses condoms or practices monogamy in a tested relationship will be at infinitely less risk for acquiring HIV than a circumcised man having unprotected sex, especially with multiple partners. This uncircumcised man will, furthermore, still have all the benefits and sexual sensitivity of his normal, intact penis. Circumcision permanently alters and diminishes the normal sexual sensations and dynamics of the penis, a fact that expectant parents should seriously consider, but which Ms. Bilich completely fails to discuss.

It is of significance that the African circumcision studies were conducted on consenting adults. Unfortunately, most of the circumcised males in the
world did not consent to this alteration of their sexual organs. It is clear from an ethical point of view that any circumcision program should be strictly
voluntary, another crucial point completely ignored by Ms. Bilich. When a male is old enough to weigh whether he considers circumcision as a preventative for HIV to be a rational or desirable choice, he can makes a
fully informed decision for himself. A procedure as irrerversible and damaging as circumcision should only be done when absolutely medically necessary or when an adult gives fully informed consent.

Please take steps to correct the serious misconceptions that Ms. Bilich's article has put forth, for the sake of your readers' right to complete
information about circumcision and the normal intact penis, and the sake of their sons' right to a whole body and to make their own decisions about how much of it they want to keep.

Gillian

[TigerTail]

Damn, you rock, Gillian.

[moonfirefaery]

I will be writing with the article I wrote for AC addressing the HIV/HPV mythology soon. The AAP feels the studies are flawed and that hte data is inconclusive. It is highly irresponsible for them to publish something that several major medical organizations state is possible misinformation.

[trmpetplaya]

Originally Posted by TigerTail

Damn, you rock, Gillian.

:

love and peace.

[eepster]

I want to write something but find myself at a loss for words : . It's just so stupid. When you look at these studies they are so obviously flawwed. Why does the media not see what is so clear.

[trmpetplaya]

Originally Posted by eepster

I want to write something but find myself at a loss for words : . It's just so stupid. When you look at these studies they are so obviously flawwed. Why does the media not see what is so clear.

They only see what they want to see and report what they want to report... Buffet-style reporting :

love and peace.

[Daisyuk]

Well, we knew this kind of idiocy was going to happen, anyone looking at the evidence and what was going on in the pro-circing research community could see years ago what they were working towards.

Daniel Halperin, Robert Bailey, Bertrand Auvert, Alan Brody, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation(who funded the second two studies), Peter Piot, and all the other promoters of this atrocity are going to have the blood of many many men on their hands, because they have effectively told them that they aren't going to get HIV if they have their penises cut up. And they are lying.

How to commit the perfect mass-murder.

Is there any way that the AAP could get involved in this? Even they have got to realise that this kind of misinformation and media attention is going to set back sexual health in the US years, and lead to many deaths.

[Ivan's Mom]

Beautiful letters! You all really have a way with words and really know your stuff!

[box_of_rain]

Oh that makes me *so* angry!

I wrote a letter. A very strongly worded letter.

Shame on them.

[guestmama9908]

I got my letter off this morning! I wrote it from a point of view that I thought the editors might understand.

To whom it may concern,

I am a Registered Pediatric Nurse. I am writing to inform you of my extreme disappointment in the article presented on your website in regards to circumcision and HIV transmission. This article was a biased one sided argument in favor of the routine circumcision of young boys. I feel that you owe it to your readers to present them with the facts from both sides before making such a generalized statement.

I fear that your article will give parents the impression that their little boy will be protected from HIV transmission simply because he is circumcised. No circumcision will prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS without proper use of condoms or the practice of monogamy.

I am also the mother of a circumcised little boy. I regret the decision to have my son circumcised every day.

Do you realize that in the United States most mothers are not even given true informed consent when it relates to the procedure of circumcision? If a Physician truly explained to a mother what the function of a normal intact foreskin was and if said Physician fully explained to a mother what the procedure entails I doubt very seriously that circumcision rates would remain as high as they are.

Unfortunately, most parents’s considering circumcision are given only one side of the story. They are led to believe that by circumcising their little boy they are giving him the opportunity to have a cleaner, healthier penis with a lower rate of Sexually transmitted diseases and Urinary Tract Infections. They are also led to believe that the procedure will be done using proper anesthesia and that it is simply a “little snip”.

This is simply untrue.

My own son has suffered terribly because of my decision to have him circumcised. He suffers from severe Penile adhesions. According to a study conducted by the JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, Volume 164, Number 2: Pages 495-496, August 2000. the rate of penile adhesions in circumcised boys younger than 12 months of age was 71%. Most Physicians are unaware or under-educated in the care of Penile Adhesions. For months our Pediatrician insisted on manually releasing my own son’s adhesions causing him great pain and re-opening a raw wound on his penis multiple times. This is an unnecessary procedure. Most Penile adhesions as a result of circumcision will resolve on their own. However, multiple parents I have spoken with have told me of their little boys being made to suffer the manual release of their adhesions at the hands of Pediatricians.

The article you presented simply mentioned only that parents should take into account the cultural, religious and health benefits of circumcision.

I would ask that you print an article in which you also allow parent’s to see both sides of the argument in an unbiased light. Present parent’s with the opportunity to learn about potential complications of Infant circumcision instead of only hearing of its benefits. Give new parent’s the information about the high rate of penile adhesions, the risk for infection, the risk of meatal stenosis, and the risk for bleeding as well as the numerous other complications that can arise.

I think that parent’s who are considering the procedure also deserve the right to know what it entails.

If I had been given true informed consent and had known the risks I was exposing my own son to by having him circumcised and if I had known what the procedure entailed I never would have made the decision to have the procedure performed.

Parents deserve to know both sides of the story. I hope that you will give them the chance to be properly educated on the subject prior to making such an important decision for their child.

Thank You,
Molly XXXXX R.N.

[LittleLlama]

Wow, there are some great letters here!!! Makes mine seem inadequate

Oh well, at least I let my voice be heard Here it is:

Regarding your online article “Circumcising Your Baby May Help Protect Him from AIDS in Adulthood” I wish to comment that if the same faulty study proved that women should be circumcised, the entirety of the West would brush off the article and the findings listed in it as antiquated and assume some sort of religious bias. There is no way we would allow our baby girls to go under the knife for something so painful as circumcision. Additionally, the circumcised African men in the study probably had regular access to doctors or some sort of healthcare, thus dramatically reducing their risk of AIDS due to both treatment and awareness in prevention.

There is no reason to go removing our children’s body parts against their will. If a girl grows up in a family prone to breast cancer, let it be HER decision to have a mastectomy. If someone fears their appendix may rupture, let it be their PERSONAL decision to have it removed rather than taking a scalpel to an infant and removing the choice from them. If a boy grows up and decides he is at risk of AIDS, let it be HIS decision to alter his penis.

Really, I’m just appalled that your magazine would run such a biased and misinformed article. I hope you will make amends and distribute more complete and informed pieces about circumcision in the future.

Sarah

[Fyrestorm]

Sent my letter...

Dear Parents Magazine,
I am absolutely appalled that you would promote circumcision based on an article that has been found to be so full of holes that no reputable peer reviewed journal is willing to print it.

Why on earth would you promote this disfiguring cosmetic surgery which is preformed on non consenting infants with inadequate pain relief when common sense alone will tell you that your logic is nonsensical. The US has one of the highest circumcision rates in the world and also one of the highest HIV/AIDS transmission rates in the world. It just does not hold water.

Did your editor just regurgitate this information from some lobbyist in the cosmetics industry (you are aware that male male infant foreskins are worth a fortune to them for testing and use in their products - See no animal testing and Oprah's favorite skin cream) or did they just fail to do even one iota of research.

I am proud that I do not subscribe to your garbage piece of pharmaceutical advertisement - I mean magazine, and I'll never be back to your website. I will also tell all my mommy friends in our playgroups and parent-tot classes about the lies your are spreading as truth.

You should be ashamed,
A very concerned & angry parent

[mntnmom]

if anyone is going to count on circumcision to keep their boy safe from AIDS, instead of educating him about safer sex, they will be HIGHLY dissapointed!!
I understand that African governments are grasping at ANYTHING that MIGHT help, but it is irresponsible to suggest it for people in the industrialised world whoo have so many better options.

[trmpetplaya]

Originally Posted by mntnmom

if anyone is going to count on circumcision to keep their boy safe from AIDS, instead of educating him about safer sex, they will be HIGHLY dissapointed!!
I understand that African governments are grasping at ANYTHING that MIGHT help, but it is irresponsible to suggest it for people in the industrialised world whoo have so many better options.

IMO it's irresponsible to suggest it for ANYONE regardless of where they live.. especially given the real-life experiment of the US's high circumcision and AIDS rate. Whatever the studies say, and even if they were actually well-done respectable studies, it obviously doesn't work that way in real-life.

I think that these studies may help convince some Christians not to circumcise though... since they certainly don't want to be giving their children the idea that they can go off and be promiscuous with lessened physical risks.

love and peace.

[midwestmeg]

Hey 'yall! I noticed that article when I picked up 'parents' at my SIL's.... Sure am glad to see that I'm not the only one who got pissed off by that CRAP!

Keep on rockin' mamas!

[13Sandals]

i wrote last night. Since when is parent's magazine a medical authority advising a practice that the AAP hasn't even gotten behind? is the author a medical expert? and what a moron. we already have the majority of sexually active men circumcised in this country and we have the highest HIV infection rate among industrialized countries. seems like there might be other factors going on in Africa. ughhhh - there is no consequence to this irresponsible reporting - it makes me

[Cassandra M.]

To Whom It May Concern:

Your article re: African AIDS and circ studies, advocating Routine Infant Circumcision, is a stark disregard for baby boys right to be whole, until they themselves choose otherwise, and I am disappointed, especially since all major pediatric authorities do not advocate the procedure.

The thought that circumcision is going to prevent STDs or AIDS is not withstanding evidence to continue with this procedure…we need to teach our children to protect themselves with abstinence or condoms, NOT circumcision, if they make the choice on their own to circumcise themselves at an older age, it is just that, THEIR OWN CHOICE. There are many reasons to leave the penis intact, it is more than a piece of skin and is a functioning and protective part of the penile system.


Please do some research on how much this routine hospital procedure is done without proper anesthetic and please attend a circumcision and watch the baby boys pain as the procedure is done. See if you can then still advocate this crime against our boys.

[baybee]

I have created a post from the OP info and several of the excellent letters from this forum and sent it out to all the pro-intact people in my address book. I hope others will do the same. A deluge of letters to this magazine may tweak their interest in
a) doing their research properly before running half-baked articles
b) running a more boy-friendly piece
c) letting them know there is a growing interest in this subject
Baybee

[buckeyedoc]

Anyone get a response back from Parents? I didn't yet.

[A&A]

Originally Posted by TigerTail

Damn, you rock, Gillian.

:

And a question, could we get Dr. Fleiss to write to Parents Magazine?

ETA: I'm going to email Dr. Fleiss and Marilyn Milos.