Worried about son's circumcision

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
thanks for posting this, end of discussion here.

Cute that you quote the opinion of one medical organization and leave out the others, stating your source as scientific proof of the bolded when other sources disagree. You are clearly not a scientist. Have you read any critiques of this policy?
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/131/4/796.full.pdf


Australia:
"After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand."
Circumcision of Male Infants. Sydney: Royal Australasian College of Physicians, 2010.

Canada:
The CPS recommends that "Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely (i.e.,in the absence of medical indication) performed."
Fetus and Newborn Committee, Canadian Paediatric Society. Neonatal circumcision revisited. (CPS) Canadian Medical Association Journal


And frankly, the line about it making it simpler to wash the penis is ridiculous and shows ignorance, perhaps excluding an elderly population. Many parents who have washed a circumcised boy know about the difficulty that can accompany adhesions and the care needed to prevent them with the way circumcisions are done now, to leave more skin for the boy's growth as he ages. An uncircumcised penis is washed like a finger.

Did you read the first line of the publication you just provided the link to? Here, let me cut and paste it for you:
The American Academy of Pediatrics recently released its new Technical Report and Policy Statement on male circumcision, concluding that current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks. You can follow whatever guidance you want, but the AAP holds more weight for me than an Australian board.

I'm not the PP, but you are moving in circles here. Why do you refuse to read the AAP's whole statement?

Here is the link for you:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/585.full

The crucial quote is this:

"Although health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns, the benefits of circumcision are sufficient to justify access to this procedure for families choosing it and to warrant third-party payment for circumcision of male newborns."

Not even AAP recommends it as a routine procedure.

If the AAP says the benefits outweigh the risks then that's an endorsement.

I agree that their statement is inconsistent. They somehow want to have it both ways, and they have rightfully been criticized for that by their peers in the rest of the developed world. It seems like they really want to endorse circumcision due to their cultural bias, but as medical professionals have to admit that in reality, the benefits aren't great enough to warrant recommending it as routine. They want to have the cake and eat it, too, and it really undermines their credibility.

Science is important
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/new-aap-policy-on-circumcision/

There is no cultural bias, in fact many of the researchers are from europe. Nice try though I give you a C for effort.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/131/4/801.full

Thank you for providing the link to the publication that I just provided above. Now that's an A for effort!

As for the science, you clearly don't understand it. And whether any scientists who did any of the studies are from Europe or not is irrelevant, as the cultural bias is not primarily in the studies themselves, but in their interpretation and application to the US context.

The intact or whatever they call themselves paid troll are taking over. Time to lock this thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
thanks for posting this, end of discussion here.

Cute that you quote the opinion of one medical organization and leave out the others, stating your source as scientific proof of the bolded when other sources disagree. You are clearly not a scientist. Have you read any critiques of this policy?
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/131/4/796.full.pdf


Australia:
"After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand."
Circumcision of Male Infants. Sydney: Royal Australasian College of Physicians, 2010.

Canada:
The CPS recommends that "Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely (i.e.,in the absence of medical indication) performed."
Fetus and Newborn Committee, Canadian Paediatric Society. Neonatal circumcision revisited. (CPS) Canadian Medical Association Journal


And frankly, the line about it making it simpler to wash the penis is ridiculous and shows ignorance, perhaps excluding an elderly population. Many parents who have washed a circumcised boy know about the difficulty that can accompany adhesions and the care needed to prevent them with the way circumcisions are done now, to leave more skin for the boy's growth as he ages. An uncircumcised penis is washed like a finger.

Did you read the first line of the publication you just provided the link to? Here, let me cut and paste it for you:
The American Academy of Pediatrics recently released its new Technical Report and Policy Statement on male circumcision, concluding that current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks. You can follow whatever guidance you want, but the AAP holds more weight for me than an Australian board.

I'm not the PP, but you are moving in circles here. Why do you refuse to read the AAP's whole statement?

Here is the link for you:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/585.full

The crucial quote is this:

"Although health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns, the benefits of circumcision are sufficient to justify access to this procedure for families choosing it and to warrant third-party payment for circumcision of male newborns."

Not even AAP recommends it as a routine procedure.

If the AAP says the benefits outweigh the risks then that's an endorsement.

I agree that their statement is inconsistent. They somehow want to have it both ways, and they have rightfully been criticized for that by their peers in the rest of the developed world. It seems like they really want to endorse circumcision due to their cultural bias, but as medical professionals have to admit that in reality, the benefits aren't great enough to warrant recommending it as routine. They want to have the cake and eat it, too, and it really undermines their credibility.

Science is important
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/new-aap-policy-on-circumcision/

There is no cultural bias, in fact many of the researchers are from europe. Nice try though I give you a C for effort.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/131/4/801.full

Thank you for providing the link to the publication that I just provided above. Now that's an A for effort!

As for the science, you clearly don't understand it. And whether any scientists who did any of the studies are from Europe or not is irrelevant, as the cultural bias is not primarily in the studies themselves, but in their interpretation and application to the US context.

The 2012 AAP statement is based on a study led by Dr. Aaron Tobian at Johns Hopkins. Not by Europeans.

[jsteele]

It looks like this thread has drifted pretty far from the original topic. I have to say that I am shocked that I have to lock a thread about circumcision. Normally such threads are so polite with broad areas of agreement. Strange.