August 29, 2012
Doctors back circumcision
From Nature:
Expectant parents face many anxieties in preparing for a child. For those who have a son, there is an extra complication: deciding whether to keep his foreskin or have it snipped off.
On 27 August, a report by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) concludes for the first time that, overall, boys will be healthier if circumcised1. The report says that although the choice is ultimately up to parents, medical insurance should pay for the procedure. The recommendation, coming from such an influential body, could boost US circumcision rates, which, at 55%, are already higher than much of the developed world (see ‘Cuts by country’). “This time around, we could say that the medical benefits outweigh the risks of the procedure,” says Douglas Diekema, a paediatrician and ethicist at the University of Washington, Seattle, who served on the circumcision task force for the AAP, headquartered in Elk Grove Village, Illinois. The recommendation is also sure to stir up debate. The practice of circumcision cuts deeper than the body, tapping into religious rituals and cultural identities. What is a harmless snip to some signifies mutilation to others. And in the developing world, many see it as an essential life-saving measure. Condoms are more effective at preventing disease, but are not used consistently.
More here.
Posted by Azra Raza at 06:36 AM | Permalink
Comments
Wow, $313 over a lifetime is quite a steal. Parents would be stupid NOT to chop off parts of their little boys' wee-wees.
Posted by: billy | Aug 29, 2012 10:46:13 AM
this is getting a lot of criticism. The arguments are really a stretch. But science is not free of cultural influences. In a country where circumcision has been highly prevalent for a century and where many Jews (and Muslims, but the Jews are far more influential in this debate) consider it a religious requirement, this statement is not a big surprise.
see for a fairly neutral view http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/08/a-circumcision-compromise/
and this for a contrary view http://www.udonet.com/circumcision/vincent/science_of_circumcision.html
and http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/10/19/ritualized-child-abuse-circumc/
My own guess is that this latest policy statement will face a lot of flak, so in a couple of years the AAP will come out with a more neutral statement. Meanwhile, most of the Western world will gradually move away from this procedure but Jews and Muslims will remain predominantly circumcized.
These are not my desires. Just my predictions.
Posted by: omar | Aug 29, 2012 11:32:35 AM
http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2012/08/chabad-rabbis-endorse-dangerous-penis-sucking-ritual-345.html
Posted by: Louise Gordon | Aug 29, 2012 12:25:23 PM
Paraphimosis could be avoided by early circumcision. And it can be a surgical emergency if untreated.
Let’s ask ourselves about the idiocies of Mother Nature.
H. s. sapiens: too big of a head for his mom’s pelvis. Knees too weak to maintain bipedal locomotion, etc.
And now we must contend with the preservation or elimination of babies’ foreskin, without adaptive, but enormous religious value see: http://www.ask.com/wiki/Holy_Prepuce.
While we are at it, let’s do away with the hymen, membrane that, besides being imperforated in some cases --- causing much distress --- it’s destined to disappear in the majority of healthy women.
How someone thought of circumcising babies is beyond babies’ best judgment.
See more at:
http://historyofcircumcision.net/
My point is: first let’s ask the baby and his prospective sexual partner and then let’s ask the rabbi or mullah.
Posted by: Félix E. F. Larocca, MD | Aug 29, 2012 1:04:29 PM
I now believe the American Academy of Pediatrics, a driving force behind health policy in the country, has lost ALL credibility. And physicians around the world will soon wonder what corruption causes the AAP to FUDGE facts to promote neonatal circumcision
I am sure that this intellectually dishonest and self-serving report is nothing but backlash stemming from recent criticism of circumcision as being unnecessary, traumatic, and affecting sexual satisfaction later in life. I imagine the ruling from Cologne, Germany last June which said that infant circumcision ‘constitutes bodily harm’ was a factor in their deliberations as well.
Let us please get some facts straight:
1. There is no respected U.S. based medical board which recommends circumcision for U.S. infants, not even in the name of HIV prevention. The trend of opinion on routine male circumcision is so overwhelmingly negative in industrialized nations. The U.S. is the only country in the world where it is common to circumcise baby boys for non-religious reasons.
2. Male genitalia are no more prone to infection than female genitalia (less so, in fact), circumcized or not. If the foreskin were really such a liability, men would likely have evolved out of it long ago after we all routinely died of foreskin infections. By saying that foreskin is a risk, it perpetuates the notion that it is a disease carrier that should be destroyed. There is no scientific evidence that having a foreskin, in and of itself, will lead to health problems, with or without daily hygiene. I really wish people would stop relying on an argument that implies having a foreskin is a risk if you don't have running water.
3. To those defending circumcision on STD grounds, well they are either claiming that infants are sexually active and must be protected, or that parents may make preemptive, invasive decisions about the future, adult sexual lives of their infant children. Either proposition is RIDICULOUS on its face. And why are we assuming that the child is going to be a promiscuous man who won't ever learn to use a condom, which, even given the science, would supersede circumcision? Keep in mind also that the US has one of the HIGHEST if not the highest rate of STDs in the rich world, and yet the US has the highest rate of circumcision in the rich world(!)
4. Half or more of circumcisions in the USA are still done without effective pain reduction. This is blatantly unethical. If anesthesia is unsafe at that age, delay circumcision until anesthesia is safe. Better yet, forego it entirely until the boy reaches the age of consent.
5. There has been no honest attempt to measure the possible long term adverse effects of infant circumcision on adult sexual pleasure and functionality. Until such an assessment is carried out on a large stratified sample of American and Canadian adult men, American doctors cannot honor the ethical duty of "first do no harm."
6. The African clinical trials that were used to spearhead the claim that the circumcised penis is less prone to infection, were horrendously flawed and conducted in a scandalously dishonest manner. For a critical analysis of those trials, see: www.salem-news.com/fms/pdf/2011-12_JLM-Boyle-Hill.pdf
The authority of parents over the life of their child DOES NOT extend to making permanent and unnecessary changes to their child’s anatomy based solely on their own whims (even if those whims are based in religious beliefs)
Circumcision in the United States in the year 2012 is a testament to the stupidity and gullibility of Americans. And this recent pro-circumcision turn of a small number of USA medical schools and public health professors is a complete & utter disgrace.
Posted by: Mark | Aug 29, 2012 1:11:15 PM
It's really easy to find circumcised doctors who are against circumcision, but surprisingly difficult to find male doctors in favor who weren't circumcised themselves as children.
The AAP are way out of line with other national medical organizations, and it's very disappointing that they say this:
"Parents are entitled to factually correct, nonbiased information about circumcision"
but they provide information that is both biased and highly selective. They simply don't seem to consider that the foreskin might actually be valuable.
How strange that all the health benefits the AAP claim don't seem to exist in Europe, where almost no-one circumcises unless they're Jewish or Muslim.
The AAP is the same organization that changed its policy on female cutting in 2010 btw saying "It might be more effective if federal and state laws enabled pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a ritual [clitoral] nick as a possible compromise to avoid greater harm."
They were forced to retract this about six weeks later.
Dr Diekema, the chair of the committee said "We're talking about something far less extensive than the removal of foreskin in a male".
I suppose it's a good thing they didn't look at operating on girls to prevent breast cancer. 11% of women get breast cancer, and 3% die of it, so the health benefits to the girls would massively outweigh the risks.
Meanwhile, other national health organizations including the Canadian Paediatric Society and the Dutch Medical Association continue to recommend *against* circumcising newborns.
Posted by: Mark Lyndon | Aug 29, 2012 1:51:19 PM
The prevalence of non-religious male circumcision in the US has more to do with politics than health. Leonard Glick's excellent book "Marked In Your Flesh" explains why. Glick is Jewish, so his opposition is not based on anti-Semitic sentiments.
Posted by: Ruchira | Aug 29, 2012 4:40:21 PM
A poor justification for barbarism. STDs and HIV AIDS must be rampant in Europe, Australia, Japan & China where circumcision rates are low, not! In this country, quacks like Kelloggs (of the cornflakes fame) and Graham (crakers) promoted this as means to prevent masturbation. The AAP lost all credibility when it offered the clitoral nick as its sanctioned version of female genital mutilation.
Posted by: Sam | Aug 30, 2012 2:07:00 AM
Never take advice about the foreskin from people who never had one. As in the case of AAP.
I am intact and knows this is B.S. I am never going to trust any healthcare organization based in the U.S.
Thanks to them we are now an obese nation downing viagra and cialis.
Posted by: KL | Feb 15, 2013 2:30:26 PM
Post a comment