Remember that, re: sensitivity, the AAP's current statement refers to "anecdotal reports" of decreased penile sensitivity, then goes on to cite Masters & Johnson.
|There are anecdotal reports that penile sensation and sexual satisfaction are decreased for circumcised males. Masters and Johnson noted no difference in exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination on the ventral or dorsal surfaces of the glans penis between circumcised and uncircumcised men.
Given their willingness to cite that study reference as an "answer" to the anecdotal reports, I think they should be bound to reporting the findings of the newly published study in the British Journal of Urology.
In fact, my first thought when learning about the sensitivity study and reading the abstract was: "It's time for a revision of the AAP policy statement." When I heard last month that it was happening (at least, the review was happening), it was a no-brainer. Then I read that the impetus supposedly was the HIV studies. Argh!! I'm still hoping that's incomplete reporting. But I believe my letter (and others) are in order, just in case!! Watch Dogs, to say "this info exists and we know it exists and it's a scientific study and you need to review it."
In fact, looking back at the current statement, I think I'll need to comment (in my letter) on the factors that make Masters & Johnson's findings specious. (I was shocked to find it casually referenced in the AAP's policy statement, given all the problems with the study.) Just to help ensure that Masters & Johnson doesn't end up getting placed right next to the newer study as two equal and opposing viewpoints, cancelling each other out.
The current policy statement also references keratinization as a known (and inevitable) result of circumcising.
|Epidermal keratinization occurs on the skin of the penile shaft but not on the mucosal surface of the foreskin. One study suggests that there may be a concentration of specialized sensory cells in specific ridged areas of the foreskin but not in the skin of the penile shaft.
Dude. I've always said (well, "always" being as long as I've been aware and even a teensy bit informed about this issue) that I could totally decide not to circumcise based only on the AAP's policy statement. (That being based on knowing what "keratinization" means, though!) It's basically saying if you remove the mucousal membrane, the skin of the penis will become keratinized. Not "may," not "could," but it will. Add that to the next sentence and the "one study" suggesting the concentration of sensory cells? Right there is enough info to let me know it's too risky to circumcise my baby!!