2
US Circ Rate Drops
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
2
Quote:
I know, I read the AP article in the Boston Globe online this morning and that jumped out at me.
Actually, I had seen articles mentioning that the AAP is reviewing its policy statement in light of "recent studies" and the HIV/AIDS study was mentioned, but I had assumed that the penile sensitivity study published in the British Journal of Urology, in Spring 2007, would be one of those "recent studies" reviewed, too. Especially since the current AAP policy statement DOES reference the issue of differences in sensitivity (limiting the comment to mentioning "anecdotal reports," then going right on to mention the Masters & Johnson study noting "no difference in exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination on the ventral or dorsal surfaces of the glans penis between circumcised and uncircumcised men.")
In another portion of the existing policy statement, they do acknowledge that keratinization (which is going to affect sensitivity, no matter what) 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." Of course, they stop short of spelling it out any further, but that's there.
I had assumed, when I heard about the plans to review the statement, that the results of the recent sensitivity study would be considered and would be part of the new statement (especially since the current one already drops the "Masters & Johnson" name, and the results of the new study are verifiable and can be duplicated...) And I'd assumed that the flaws in the study in Africa would be sufficient for them not to claim that the results are somehow compelling.
For that matter, I'd thought that the now certain and quantified loss would necessarily trump ANY of the potential benefits suggested by circumcision, especially when the very slight rate of "potential protection" is considered. (As in penile cancer, UTIs, etc.) I mean, in the face of "do no harm," it would SEEM obvious that the reviewing physicians would (whatever their personal wishes or preferences are) realize that. Of course, I guess there's no guarantee that they're going to consider the BJU's published study. Maybe some letter-writing to the AAP's task force on circumcision is in order for people who care?
Originally Posted by carriebft Just when you thought the news was good today: http://www.examiner.com/a-786802~Ame...cumcision.html The AAP is reconsidering their stance on circumcision in light of HIV studies...and will release it in 6-12 months. There has to be something we can do!!! |
Actually, I had seen articles mentioning that the AAP is reviewing its policy statement in light of "recent studies" and the HIV/AIDS study was mentioned, but I had assumed that the penile sensitivity study published in the British Journal of Urology, in Spring 2007, would be one of those "recent studies" reviewed, too. Especially since the current AAP policy statement DOES reference the issue of differences in sensitivity (limiting the comment to mentioning "anecdotal reports," then going right on to mention the Masters & Johnson study noting "no difference in exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination on the ventral or dorsal surfaces of the glans penis between circumcised and uncircumcised men.")
In another portion of the existing policy statement, they do acknowledge that keratinization (which is going to affect sensitivity, no matter what) 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." Of course, they stop short of spelling it out any further, but that's there.
I had assumed, when I heard about the plans to review the statement, that the results of the recent sensitivity study would be considered and would be part of the new statement (especially since the current one already drops the "Masters & Johnson" name, and the results of the new study are verifiable and can be duplicated...) And I'd assumed that the flaws in the study in Africa would be sufficient for them not to claim that the results are somehow compelling.
For that matter, I'd thought that the now certain and quantified loss would necessarily trump ANY of the potential benefits suggested by circumcision, especially when the very slight rate of "potential protection" is considered. (As in penile cancer, UTIs, etc.) I mean, in the face of "do no harm," it would SEEM obvious that the reviewing physicians would (whatever their personal wishes or preferences are) realize that. Of course, I guess there's no guarantee that they're going to consider the BJU's published study. Maybe some letter-writing to the AAP's task force on circumcision is in order for people who care?
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
