Washington Post article provides glimpse of new AAP statement - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 20 Old 08-13-2012, 10:22 PM - Thread Starter
 
brant31's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 255
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

A health section article published in the Washington Post yesterday (13 Aug 2012) discusses various angles of the circumcision controversy in a generally fair and accurate light. The American Academy of Pediatrics signaled last week that its new statement on infant circumcision would be released in the September 1 issue of Pediatrics magazine. This WaPo article contains a few sentences that serve as a guide to what is coming.

 

Quote:

According to its 2005 position statement, which reaffirmed its 1999 stance, “existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits” of newborn circumcision but not enough to “recommend routine neonatal circumcision.”

That position is poised to change, though, as the AAP is expected to release an updated statement and report reflecting recent research later this month.

While details are not yet available, the new position concludes that the health benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks, said Michael Brady, a pediatric expert at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, and a member of the AAP’s task force on circumcision.

The AAP’s new position falls short of a routine recommendation, Brady said, adding that parents should continue to take into account their own cultural, religious or social views. “But from a public health perspective, I think it [circumcision] is a good decision and a lot of children will benefit.”

 

 

So, there it is in a nutshell. Instead of previous statements dating back to 1971 saying either that the risks/detriments outweigh potential benefits or the present oddly-stated policy that potential benefits are about evenly matched with known risks and disadvantages, the AAP is poised to announce that the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks. To get to this point, they almost certainly are going to have to downplay the complication rate and ignore entirely the functions of the foreskin and the human rights angle.

 

My best guess is that the AAP will conclude that circumcision is "beneficial" and should be actively discussed with all parents so they are clear on the "advantages". The risks, not so much. The AAP won't use the words "recommend" or "endorse", unless they are prepared to recommend both circumcising and not circumcising, which is pretty much what they do today.

 

The rest of the article is pretty good, although I have a big issue near the end where the journalist implies that neonatal circumcision is safer than adult circumcision. She even labels a section with that claim, but her only apparent source is a mom in Northern Virginia who had her 2 sons circumcised and "thinks" earlier circumcision is safer and less memorable. In reality, infant circumcision has about 20 times the complication rate of adult circumcision. Also, there have been no recorded adult deaths from circumcision in the United States, while more than a thousand baby boys per decade die directly or indirectly from their circumcisions in the US alone. It is tragic and inexcusable.

 

Lawyers are champing at the bit. If the AAP announces that circumcision is desirable and safe, then lawsuits arising from complications will soar.

brant31 is offline  
#2 of 20 Old 08-14-2012, 11:14 AM
A&A
 
A&A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,853
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)

It really upsets me that the AAP is considering a change.


"Our task is not to see the future, but to enable it."
A&A is offline  
#3 of 20 Old 08-14-2012, 12:10 PM
 
anne1140's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 928
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Tell that to all the healthy boys and men in most of the world who are intact. eyesroll.gif

 

Why the change? Is it because of all that AIDS/HIV nonsense? I thought that was disproven, or at least the study was found faulty?


Mama to learning.gifJulian Matthew, born 5/10/2011 nocirc.gif  

Hopeful vbac.gif for the next!

 

anne1140 is offline  
#4 of 20 Old 08-14-2012, 12:13 PM
 
tropicana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 503
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by anne1140 View Post

Tell that to all the healthy boys and men in most of the world who are intact. eyesroll.gif

 

Why the change? Is it because of all that AIDS/HIV nonsense? I thought that was disproven, or at least the study was found faulty?

just a guess as to why... but the american academy of pediatrics is a doctors' organization. by and for pediatricians. do they not have a vested financial interest in circumcision continuing??

tropicana is offline  
#5 of 20 Old 08-14-2012, 01:13 PM
 
philomom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 9,427
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Sigh. I get so tired of this Bs. I have several dear friends married to intact men who were born in other parts of the world. All these women practically purr about how great foreskin feels in bed. I wish my hubby had been left intact and I worry that other baby boys will continue to be harmed by this nonsense. Thank goodness our son is whole.joy.gif
philomom is offline  
#6 of 20 Old 08-14-2012, 03:12 PM
 
tonttu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 489
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Just out of curiosity , how did the babies die as a result of circumsition ? 

Did their wound get infected or what ? 


vbac.gifafter 3 cs fambedsingle1.gifbfinfant.gifHappily single Momteapot2.GIFknit.gif

tonttu is offline  
#7 of 20 Old 08-15-2012, 10:40 AM
 
rondloper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Could have been infection, excessive bleeding etc. A lot depends on the method or clamp used as well.

rondloper is offline  
#8 of 20 Old 08-15-2012, 10:44 AM
 
tonttu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 489
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Oh my God , those poor babies mecry.gif

makes you wonder , why the lobby against it , is not much stronger !


vbac.gifafter 3 cs fambedsingle1.gifbfinfant.gifHappily single Momteapot2.GIFknit.gif

tonttu is offline  
#9 of 20 Old 08-15-2012, 04:04 PM
 
puddle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 910
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

What can we do about the AAP statement?

This makes me feel ill.

puddle is offline  
#10 of 20 Old 08-15-2012, 04:39 PM
 
DJay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 76
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Well, maybe I'm too crunchy, but I don't trust any recommendations of the FDA, USDA, or almost any other government or trade association when it comes to health and nutrition. All seems to be heavily bought out by those who stand to profit financially from what is being approved, recommended, etc.  And the most natural of choices (which usually minimize the profit), are the ones that are pooh-pooed and put down. 

 

You are in charge of your health. Let your doctor be a subcontractor, not the dictator of your health choices.
 

Treece likes this.
DJay is offline  
#11 of 20 Old 08-15-2012, 05:19 PM
 
philomom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 9,427
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddle View Post

What can we do about the AAP statement?
This makes me feel ill.

I know, right?
philomom is offline  
#12 of 20 Old 08-15-2012, 08:00 PM
 
purplerose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 899
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

i DO NOT get why if disease, infection, etc. are lower risk when circumcised, why aren't boys and men in the whole rest of the world suffering from them? where is the logic? european boys have more uti's? european men have std's at a higher rate than the US? how can this be pushed and recommended? what is wrong with this country? argh!


drowning in hormones with 4 daughters and an understanding, loving hubby. also some dogs. my life is crazy and we are always learning.

purplerose is offline  
#13 of 20 Old 08-15-2012, 08:12 PM
 
rubidoux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,731
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJay View Post

Well, maybe I'm too crunchy, but I don't trust any recommendations of the FDA, USDA, or almost any other government or trade association when it comes to health and nutrition. All seems to be heavily bought out by those who stand to profit financially from what is being approved, recommended, etc.  And the most natural of choices (which usually minimize the profit), are the ones that are pooh-pooed and put down. 

 

You are in charge of your health. Let your doctor be a subcontractor, not the dictator of your health choices.
 

 

That's all well and good for "too crunchy" types, but what of the young women who have never spent a moment of their lives thinking about circumcision and show up at the hospital to deliver a baby boy just assuming that it has to be done?  When I had my sons at a totally mainstream hospital nobody even asked if we wanted it done, it was just not brought up.  Of course, I knew exactly what I wanted, but if I had been that young woman who just assumed it was always done, I would also have gone home with an intact son.  If these are the new recs, those babies are much more likely to be circ'ed.

 

I think it's got to be the HIV thing.  I generally don't trust doctors as far as I could throw them, but I can't believe they'd manage to pass on something like this just so they could make a little more on the circs.  Whatever it is, it makes me feel ill, too, Puddle.


Jayne, sewing up a storm mama to ds1 9/03, ds2 2/09, and 2 sweet furbabies.

rubidoux is offline  
#14 of 20 Old 08-15-2012, 09:03 PM
 
tropicana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 503
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubidoux View Post

I generally don't trust doctors as far as I could throw them, but I can't believe they'd manage to pass on something like this just so they could make a little more on the circs. 

believe it. 

and the HIV thing will be trumped up as a "reason." just like the STD thing, the hygine thing, the masturbation thing, etc. etc. 

circumcision is a condition in need of a justification, or however the saying goes. it's in need of a medical reason.

 

what's not to believe of the simple simple logic in "follow the money"??

tropicana is offline  
#15 of 20 Old 08-15-2012, 09:15 PM
 
erigeron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,345
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I don't get that circumcision to protect from HIV thing in parts of the world where condoms are available/used regularly/not regarded as an affront to traditional masculinity. Condoms protect way more, and do not involve permanent changes to anyone's body. headscratch.gif


WOHM to a girl jog.gif (6-11) and a new baby boy stork-boy.gif (2-14) and adjusting to the full-time life and husband being a SAHD. 
erigeron is offline  
#16 of 20 Old 08-25-2012, 09:55 AM
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,954
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

It's a terrible step backwards. And they never mention how the rest of the world is intact and happy. And even if the UTI rate was so high, I'd rather treat it with antibiotics than cutting off a vital part of my child's genitals. Since I grew up in Europe, I know how bologna all those arguments are. Never have I heard moms saying oh my son needs to be circed cause he has had so many UTIs or man we better circ to prevent all those STDs. The AAP is so full of it; it's all about money grabbing, not a single bit about children's health. It's sickening. All those medical organizations in the US have 0% credibility with me.

nia82 is offline  
#17 of 20 Old 08-26-2012, 01:43 AM
 
japonica's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Canada-->Australia
Posts: 985
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)

That is disturbing. I wonder why the AAP is willing to put itself out there as so out of step with the majority of the other developed, western nations who have been going in the opposite direction for years. Do they not feel conspicuous? What does it say about a country when an organization like the AAP starts moving in the direction of recommending circ because it feels it offers benefits, in stark contrast to the other nations, who have looked at the same data and said no. Strange.

 

And, as many PPs pointed out, is that parents to be who haven't given it a thought will say, "Hey, the AAP says the benefits outweigh any risks," and will dutifully agree to it, because obviously the AAP says those risks are minor.

 

I think this statement by Brady is absurd:

 

“But from a public health perspective, I think it [circumcision] is a good decision and a lot of children will benefit.”

 

How many newborns and children are having sex and thus supposedly be doing a great service to public health? Because I can't see any other logic to that statement. Even if it supposedly lowers the risk of UTIs, then how is one kid getting treatment for that a risk to public health? 

 

I have encountered mothers who say that they did circ their sons to lower their risk of contracting HIV. No, not in Africa. In the US. I would hope that they advise them to use condoms first.


Mother to DD#1  s/b @40w 2003 for unknown reasons; DD#2   9.5 years old; DS  6 years old 
  Why are daughters protected but not sons?
 
 
 
  
japonica is offline  
#18 of 20 Old 08-26-2012, 05:18 AM
 
mama24-7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: with the dust bunnies
Posts: 2,436
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by japonica View Post

 

I have encountered mothers who say that they did circ their sons to lower their risk of contracting HIV. No, not in Africa. In the US. I would hope that they advise them to use condoms first.

There was a mother who posted here about 2 years ago, who proudly proclaimed that she had her twin sons circ'd so it would keep them from getting HIV.  I gently responded that she was duped.  I don't recall her ever coming back here. :-(

 

If only people in America would THINK first about this.  How is it possible that circ would prevent HIV when we have a largely circ'd male population & a high industrialized country (not sure how to word this, I may not be syaing it correctly) HIV rate?  Are circ's performed today some how different than all those performed on the HIV positive circ'd males?  Of course, we know the answers to these questions.

 

Sus


Baby the babies while they're babies so they don't need babying for a lifetime.
mama24-7 is online now  
#19 of 20 Old 08-27-2012, 11:38 AM
 
kythe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 608
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I'm also upset at the new statement.  I just read about it on Yahoo Answers where there are several thread debates going on now over it.

 

However, in the long run, I don't think circumcision rates will ever be as high as they once were.  It's been 12 years now since the last time the AAP recommended circumcision, and during that time circ rates have been dropping steadily.  In my area its only 30%.  Basically, both boys and girls in this generation are growing up to perceive intact penises as a norm.  I don't think the attitude instilled in them will just magically disappear with the new AAP stance.  They will grow up to question circumcision with their children as well.  Some of the arguments for circ that were prevalent in our generation no longer apply, like that boys will be made fun of in the locker room.  And if parents want their boys to look like dad, well, many of these boys are growing up to be intact dads.  There are enough intact boys with no problems to dispel some of the hygiene and disease myths - we're talking about a real population, not just "theories" or "stories" about what it would be like to be intact.

 

I'm sure circ rates will start increasing again, especially if insurances catch on and start paying for it again.  But the intact movement still has a strong foothold in culture today.

kythe is offline  
#20 of 20 Old 08-27-2012, 12:17 PM
 
~adorkable~'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: State Of Bliss
Posts: 4,418
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

my worry is that medcaid and other insurances systems will be more likely to pay for it based on this, that is where the fight needs to be, since those that dont bother to think about , will bother to think about the money it cost. if it does not cost them anything, then they really dont care. 

sad, really censored.gif sad


partners.gif 2twins.gif  So what if I don't fit cleanly into a defined parenting style, my kids don't fit into a personality archetype either!

 
~adorkable~ is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off