CDC wants US circ program - Page 4 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#91 of 112 Old 08-27-2009, 01:12 AM
 
~RememberToForget~'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 31
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Does anyone have a link to that poll that was on the today show website? I couldn't find it on there.
~RememberToForget~ is offline  
#92 of 112 Old 08-27-2009, 01:50 AM
 
Papai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,478
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ~RememberToForget~ View Post
Does anyone have a link to that poll that was on the today show website? I couldn't find it on there.
http://www.newsvine.com/_question/20...et-circumcised
Papai is offline  
#93 of 112 Old 08-27-2009, 02:36 PM
 
elanorh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 2,266
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I told our anti-circ Pediatrician that I'd heard rumors that the AAP and CDC were considering changing their stances, this past spring, and she said she hadn't heard anything about it, and couldn't believe it would be true.

I guess I'll be bringing it up again at dd2's 3 year appointment. The more vocal our knowledgeable, intactivist HCPs can be in this instance, I think the better. But while our Ped does her best to keep up on recent research etc. in all areas - she's got a lot on her plate! So it's up to us to make sure those we know support this cause, have a heads-up to try to counter this.

I just can't believe that they're going to make this recommendation (or want to). It's awful. I certainly hope that it doesn't go through, and that those of us opposed to circ aren't going to end up having to come up with a 'religious exemption' argument against it, just as some are having to use against vaccinations.

Not all who wander are lost.
elanorh is offline  
#94 of 112 Old 08-27-2009, 02:41 PM
 
glongley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 1,072
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
They're not talking about it being mandatory, but floating the idea (leaning in favor) of making an official recommendation in favor of newborn circumcision, and making it a legal requirement that Medicaid (or presumably any public health reform plan) would have to pay for it.
glongley is offline  
#95 of 112 Old 08-27-2009, 03:00 PM
 
aran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Luckville
Posts: 1,397
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by glongley View Post
They're not talking about it being mandatory, but floating the idea (leaning in favor) of making an official recommendation in favor of newborn circumcision, and making it a legal requirement that Medicaid (or presumably any public health reform plan) would have to pay for it.
I am not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying it's no big deal because it wouldn't be mandatory? Because that's what it sounds like to me.... just thinking other people might interpret that way too.

aran .......... Mr. aran .......... DS1 .......... DS2
BIL Oct. 1961 - Jun. 2009 taken by cancer
aran is offline  
#96 of 112 Old 08-27-2009, 03:14 PM
 
minkajane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 5,282
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by aran View Post
I am not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying it's no big deal because it wouldn't be mandatory? Because that's what it sounds like to me.... just thinking other people might interpret that way too.
She's just saying we won't have to come up with exemptions or anything like that, since it won't be required like vaccines. She never said it was no big deal, just that it's not as bad as some people are making it out to be. A recommendation is not as difficult to fight as a requirement.

Mandy, )O(  Proud mommy of Taylor (1/6/05) jammin.gifand Abigail (4/21/11) slinggirl.gif
Loving wife of my gamer boy Michael. modifiedartist.gifBlog link in my profile! ribboncesarean.gif
minkajane is offline  
#97 of 112 Old 08-27-2009, 03:20 PM
 
glongley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 1,072
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by minkajane View Post
She's just saying we won't have to come up with exemptions or anything like that, since it won't be required like vaccines. She never said it was no big deal, just that it's not as bad as some people are making it out to be. A recommendation is not as difficult to fight as a requirement.
This is the more correct interpretation of my post. It's still a big deal, it's still bad But just trying to clarify what has been said by the CDC so far, as stated in the NYT article. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

Gillian
glongley is offline  
#98 of 112 Old 08-27-2009, 03:42 PM
 
hparsh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 432
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quirky View Post
FGM is Female Genital Mutilation. I prefer to call it FGC -- Female Genital Cutting. Less of a loaded term (and easier to call it MGC and not close people's ears right away when they hear the term "mutilation").

Link is here: http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138
That link didn't work for me.
hparsh is offline  
#99 of 112 Old 08-27-2009, 04:07 PM
 
SleeplessMommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,421
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by readytobedone View Post
sorry if this has already been discussed, but the article says:

"But they acknowledge that a circumcision drive in the United States would be unlikely to have a drastic impact: the procedure does not seem to protect those at greatest risk here, men who have sex with men."

how is it that circ protects straight, but not gay, men? does your foreskin know whether you're having sex with a man or a woman? REALLY?
The "receptive partner" (male or female) of an infected male receives a viral load in the ejaculate. Of course if a condom is used correctly, risk is very close to zero. The anus, apparently, is 5 times more likely to be infected per act than the vagina. HIV grew so rapidly in the gay community because of unprotected intercourse, multiple partners and IV drug use *in a small portion of the gay community.* The "insertive partner" (male) is at risk for infection if there is an open wound or sore on the penis, allowing an entry point for the virus. (allegedly, the foreskin itself acts as an open door to the virus.) The "pro circ" movement claims to slightly reduce the 5 per 10,000 risk for the insertive male, and no reduction for the receptive partner. (I have not seen any exact number on what the new risk is claimed to be.) In fact, I believe one study suggested infection was more likely for the receptive partner of a circed male - intercourse is less gentle.

Infection risk for non-condom protected activity (source: wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS)
Receptive anal intercourse 50 out of 10,000
Insertive anal intercourse6.5 out of 10,000
Receptive penile-vaginal intercourse 10 out of 10,000
Insertive penile-vaginal intercourse 5 out of 10,000

non-sexual transmission
Needle-sharing injection drug use 67 out of 10,000
Blood Transfusion 9,000 out of 10,000

There are several huge problems with the circumcision craze in Africa (and proposed circ craze in the USA)
* Needle sharing and "receptive" intercourse are currently major sources of transmission - these will not be fixed by circ. Women receive only (alleged) "indirect" protection.
* The suggestion of (self) protection for the circed partner will make them less likely to use condoms for their partner's protection
* A circed male, not yet healed, has an increased risk of infecting his partner.
* A circed infant won't be sexually active for 12-18 years - any "benefit" is delayed.

Anyway, the "fix" offered by circ is pretty lame compared to the know risk reduction provided by needle sharing programs, condom usage and eduction. I am really disappointed that the CDC is even considering this.
SleeplessMommy is offline  
#100 of 112 Old 08-27-2009, 05:50 PM
 
vachi73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I have been academically interested in the press (internet) coverage of this debate. The day that it actually was being discussed (Monday, I think? or Tuesday?), it was a "lead" story on the Today show, and one of the lead links off of msnbc.com. Then, all of the sudden, it was pulled off ... and replaced by the Michael Jackson coroner's report story. The next day, there was a link to an article discussing the fact that circ is of no benefit for AIDS transmission in gay men ... but buried halfway down the page under "Health".

I can't figure out what happened. Is it a simple case of "more interesting news" cropping up, or is it a deliberate attempt to hide the fact that even the discussion of recommending RIC is ridiculous?! I guess I am sounding a little like a conspiracy theorist.

I wish that there were equal billing on these mainstream media internet sites to BOTH sides of the argument ... it was all about CDC recommending circ, complete with a video link and photo of baby ... but only for one day. Then *poof* not much there, except a buried link to some of the drawbacks to the current discussion.

Sorry to get off topic. The CDC drives me absolutely, positively CRAZY and I wish they would zip it. Or at least provide a BALANCED PERSPECTIVE on the true risks and benefits, not just get a bunch of pro-circ doctors/activists who are searching for a reason to alter baby boys to look for reasons to justify their biases.

ARGH. I need to be less fired up about this!! I am gestating twins and should try to be less stressed. :
vachi73 is offline  
#101 of 112 Old 08-27-2009, 08:51 PM
 
tennisdude23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 415
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
quote removed by administrator for defamation concerns
Uhm, no. In this country as in all of the other industrialized countries you need to sign a consent form for any surgery, no matter how small or benign. Otherwise the hospital, clinic, etc faces serious legal issues. I believe what you are referring to was a statement from a physician in one St. Louis hospital. That statement represented her disgusting, biased opinion. However, the issue of consent is central to any procedure no matter the personal preferences of the secondary parties. You also have the legal right to refuse any procedure. If any health care professional ever tries to force you to sign a consent using tactics and behavior that you may find uncomfortable or distressing, you have every right to file a complaint and change services. Because of the very real and serious fear of litigation, proper consent, either direct or by proxy, is always necessary for any procedure. I believe this has been the case since the early 70s. Of course, the legality and ethics of proxy consent in such a context as that of circumcision is highly questionable, which is why people can file lawsuits when they reach legal age.
tennisdude23 is offline  
#102 of 112 Old 08-27-2009, 09:11 PM
 
PuppyFluffer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: East Coast, USA
Posts: 9,177
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tennisdude23 View Post
Uhm, no. In this country as in all of the other industrialized countries you need to sign a consent form for any surgery, no matter how small or benign. Otherwise the hospital, clinic, etc faces serious legal issues. I believe what you are referring to was a statement from a physician in one St. Louis hospital. That statement represented her disgusting, biased opinion. However, the issue of consent is central to any procedure no matter the personal preferences of the secondary parties. You also have the legal right to refuse any procedure. If any health care professional ever tries to force you to sign a consent using tactics and behavior that you may find uncomfortable or distressing, you have every right to file a complaint and change services. Because of the very real and serious fear of litigation, proper consent, either direct or by proxy, is always necessary for any procedure. I believe this has been the case since the early 70s. Of course, the legality and ethics of proxy consent in such a context as that of circumcision is highly questionable, which is why people can file lawsuits when they reach legal age.
I do not want to derail this thread but I do want to explain an exception to the bolded statement. You have the right to refuse medical intervention until "the system" decides it's in the best interest of the child to force treatment or testing and they invoke the legal action available to force you to consent or remove your power to consent. There have certainly been situations where this has happened to parents. I was almost there myself recently. I'll be happy to explain via PM my particular situation.

I don't foresee this happening with circumcision but I did want to make the above clarification (since this is a recent personal issue with my family.)

"To err is human, to forgive, canine." - Unknown
PuppyFluffer is offline  
#103 of 112 Old 08-27-2009, 09:58 PM
 
tennisdude23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 415
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by PuppyFluffer View Post
I do not want to derail this thread but I do want to explain an exception to the bolded statement. You have the right to refuse medical intervention until "the system" decides it's in the best interest of the child to force treatment or testing and they invoke the legal action available to force you to consent or remove your power to consent. There have certainly been situations where this has happened to parents. I was almost there myself recently. I'll be happy to explain via PM my particular situation.

I don't foresee this happening with circumcision but I did want to make the above clarification (since this is a recent personal issue with my family.)
Oh yes, naturally. Proxy consent is a murky area from a legal perspective. For example, we pretty much allow parents to do as they please with their children unless of course they are charged with abuse or something. Then the courts step in. The courts can also step in and overrule parental proxy when they try to determine the best interests of a child. But that's done only on a case by case basis. So, for example, if a child needs a life saving blood transfusion but the parents object then the state will step in and give that child the transfusion, meaning that the state can curb parental rights in order to protect the child's interests. This is why circumcision remains such a thorny issue. While it's impossible to prove medically that circumcision is in a child's best interest, it is certainly feasible to say that operating on healthy tissue without warranted and urgent medical cause is by our current moral and legal standards unethical and illegal. We have already made that determination for girls, without taking into consideration the possible "benefits" of female circumcision. So, why should we have a legal differentiation for boys if everyone is created equal under the constitution. That's the central question to this debate and one that most people won't touch with a ten foot pole because of religious and cultural sensitivities. So, perhaps, one can only conclude that in many instances justice depends only on political correctness as determined by society. The quest for justice always has and will remain illusive in the realm of controversy until someone steps up and grabs the mantle.

PS: Puppyfluffer, I hope everything worked out well in your personal situation.
tennisdude23 is offline  
#104 of 112 Old 08-27-2009, 10:55 PM
 
Fyrestorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 4,102
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by PuppyFluffer View Post
I do not want to derail this thread but I do want to explain an exception to the bolded statement. You have the right to refuse medical intervention until "the system" decides it's in the best interest of the child to force treatment or testing and they invoke the legal action available to force you to consent or remove your power to consent. There have certainly been situations where this has happened to parents. I was almost there myself recently. I'll be happy to explain via PM my particular situation.

I don't foresee this happening with circumcision but I did want to make the above clarification (since this is a recent personal issue with my family.)
:

Can you say "forced c section" after threat of a court order and CPS?

Victim of Birth Rape & Coerced ribboncesarean.gifUnnecesareanribboncesarean.gif What makes people think they can cut up someone else's genitals? nocirc.gif
Fyrestorm is offline  
#105 of 112 Old 08-28-2009, 12:16 PM
 
georgia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: tl;dr
Posts: 25,918
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Hello, posts have been removed that were in violation of the User Agreement and Forum Guidelines. We do not host namecalling. Please do not use pejorative terms to discuss circumcision or the thread will be removed. Members of the community are expected to be able to post respectfully, even when we are upset. If you can't post something within the UA, don't post.

Please also be mindful that we do not host reference to or discussion of religion per the forum guidelines. We also do not host discussion of other site's comments nor do we host posts asking others to go comment at another site:

Quote:
Do not post to invite MDC members to other communities, blogs or message boards for adversarial purposes or link to discussion about MDC at another site. Do not negatively discuss other communities or discussions elsewhere (this includes blog comments), regardless of whether or not you link to that discussion or community. This is to maintain and respect the integrity of our own and other communities.
Further User Agreement violations will result in this thread's removal, and I doubt anyone wants this to happen as it is a very important topic. If you have a question about the appropriateness of a post, please utilize the report button or PM a forum moderator. Thank you!

I have retired from administration work, so if you have a question about anything MDC-related, please contact Cynthia Mosher. Thanks!
 
georgia is offline  
#106 of 112 Old 08-29-2009, 09:16 PM
 
georgia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: tl;dr
Posts: 25,918
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Hi, more posts removed. Please note what I posted above:

Quote:
Do not negatively discuss other communities or discussions elsewhere (this includes blog comments), regardless of whether or not you link to that discussion or community. This is to maintain and respect the integrity of our own and other communities.
This includes Facebook. Please keep the discussion on-topic to CDC conference, thanks! Please take questions or comments regarding our forum policies to me via our Private Messaging system rather than posting here on the thread. Thanks!

I have retired from administration work, so if you have a question about anything MDC-related, please contact Cynthia Mosher. Thanks!
 
georgia is offline  
#107 of 112 Old 08-30-2009, 09:49 AM
 
serendipity22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 469
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Reading the CDC website there seem to be some people there who are very biased towards circ.

IMO the CDC is jumping on the African bandwagon.
serendipity22 is offline  
#108 of 112 Old 08-30-2009, 05:09 PM
 
Minarai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 215
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serendipity22 View Post
Reading the CDC website there seem to be some people there who are very biased towards circ.

IMO the CDC is jumping on the African bandwagon.
More like they OWN that bandwagon. :
Minarai is offline  
#109 of 112 Old 08-30-2009, 05:14 PM
 
Fyrestorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 4,102
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Wanna bet the panel was crowded with Peds that make $$$ off cutting baby genitals?

They are merely trying to preserve their income levels. If circ rates continue to fall at the rate that they have been, who is going to leep them in the style to which they've become accustomed?

Circumcision has always been a cure in search of a disease to keep up the revenue stream.

Victim of Birth Rape & Coerced ribboncesarean.gifUnnecesareanribboncesarean.gif What makes people think they can cut up someone else's genitals? nocirc.gif
Fyrestorm is offline  
#110 of 112 Old 08-30-2009, 05:23 PM
 
Minarai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 215
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fyrestorm View Post
Wanna bet the panel was crowded with Peds that make $$$ off cutting baby genitals?
You've already won; no need to bet on it.

Quote:
They are merely trying to preserve their income levels. If circ rates continue to fall at the rate that they have been, who is going to leep them in the style to which they've become accustomed?
Easy: they convince the highest medical authority in the US (the CDC) to make a "recommendation" in favor of circ and before we know it, that "recommendation" becomes law. Anyone who attempts to opt out will be prosecuted and/or have CPS take their children away. All in the name of profit.

Quote:
Circumcision has always been a cure in search of a disease to keep up the revenue stream.

There's no other logical explanation.
Minarai is offline  
#111 of 112 Old 08-30-2009, 05:57 PM
 
K703's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 94
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minarai View Post
Easy: they convince the highest medical authority in the US (the CDC) to make a "recommendation" in favor of circ and before we know it, that "recommendation" becomes law. Anyone who attempts to opt out will be prosecuted and/or have CPS take their children away. All in the name of profit.
Do you seriously think that would happen? I think if they made it illegal to not circumcise there would be a lot of outcry.

Kelly, a man who is proud to be intact!
K703 is online now  
#112 of 112 Old 08-30-2009, 06:47 PM
 
Fyrestorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 4,102
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by K703 View Post
Do you seriously think that would happen? I think if they made it illegal to not circumcise there would be a lot of outcry.
I doubt it...but scare enough people and it won't be an issue. Most people don't realize that there is no law that that you have to vaccinate...they just think there is because of all the misinformation and scaremongering. How many mamas here are worried about CPS being called because they do the perfectly legal thing and don't vaccinate. I can see them trying to get the same mindset going about genital cutting.

Take my parents generation...My MIL just told me that she didn't even know she had a choice not to cut my DH...even though her DH was happily intact.

Victim of Birth Rape & Coerced ribboncesarean.gifUnnecesareanribboncesarean.gif What makes people think they can cut up someone else's genitals? nocirc.gif
Fyrestorm is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
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