According to American Academy of Pediatrics Benefits of Circumcision Outweigh Risks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Although this certainly isn't a good reason to circumcise, as a mom that didn't, my son's doc hasn't really been helpful in providing info on how to clean/care for my son's penis, and hasn't been helpful or responsive to questions re the same. Yes, I know, just clean with soap and water on the outside till the foreskin seems to be retracting, but now it sort of seems to be, but isn't completely, and when I asked her what to do, she stared at me blankly.

Get a new pediatrician. This would concern me about the doctor regardless of my views on circumcision. If she can't take the time to read up on and learn about what 60 percent of Americans are doing with their male children, she should be fired.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Allow me to break it down for you.

This is not a sea change in AAP recommendations. They went from saying that the risks outweigh the benefits to saying that the risks do NOT outweigh the benefits. They based this off of no real new information. This was done because medicaid in several states was refusing to cover the procedure, calling it cosmetic. While this redefines the procedure as medical in nature (and not cosmetic) in no place does the AAP say it is necessary for all boys. In fact, the AAP makes explicit that the benefits are not so great as to recommend it routinely. So how are you all telling us "anti-circ" nuts that we're anti-science? Are you also calling the AAP anti-science because it DOES NOT RECOMMEND this procedure "routinely?"

I don't really blame anyone for feeling confused. The AAP's language is wobbly and waffling, stopping short of defining a clear, compelling benefit that would spark routine recommendation, but saying basically, that there are sufficient benefits that they think parents, who make the decisions for their own boys, should be able to get coverage for the procedure.

We started off pretty neutral on circing. I felt somewhat opposed but not vehemently. It was our OB, who performed thousands of them (without incident) who ultimately discouraged us. He said "any procedure introduces risk, and I do not find the benefits compelling in any way." I asked him if he used a numbing agent and he said yes, he did, but that in his view it was not sufficient and that the procedure was still incredibly painful for babies. After hearing that, my husband, who was leaning circ (he is) became the more vocal parent opposing it. My dad, who is a doctor also (though not a pediatrician) was initially surprised that we did not circumcise, but became interested in the issue after hearing our views. He did research, and concluded that he now thinks the procedure is unnecessary and potentially ill-advised. He's hardly anti-science!

What the AAP seems to be saying is that there are scenarios there might be a good reason, but that ROUTINELY, this is not the case. Therefore, no blanket recommendation to circ routinely.

So, the bottom line is that nothing has really changed. The AAP has tweaked, very slightly, its recommendation from "we don't recommend it" to "we don't recommend it routinely, but parents can still choose, and yes, there are legitimate health reasons that persons can cite when asking insurance to pay for it" But people, this is not at all the same thing as the AAP suggesting that parents SHOULD do this routinely. They've explicitly said they still do not recommend that. So those of you who are so pleased with yourself for doing all along what the AAP is now "recommending" need to realize that the AAP is still not "recommending" it. They are simply saying it is a legitimate option, if you want to do it.

I think what's happening here is that a lot of pro-circ posters on this forum are really pleased that the AAP finally caught up with what they have "just known" all along was right. It's ironic that they're castigating the non-circ people as anti-science when they, themselves, have been outside the recommendation for the past decade.

FWIW, we vaccinated fully, including the optional vaxes (flu, H1n1, etc). And had some extra vaccinations when we traveled. Seems like most of the posters on this forum are similar.

You are lying or your OB is an idiot. Is he top 100 in Washington Magazine.

Says who? You, She Who Hath Annointed herself the Grand Authority of Idiots and Liars? Please, cite your credentials and why you're in a position to call my OB an idiot, or me a liar. As for the Washingtonian top docs, yes, he is. He's also highly, highly, highly recommended on these boards. Good luck to you in life with your outlook and your inability to grasp that reasonable people can disagree on things without being idiots. I'm sure you'll do well with that attitude!

What's the doctor's name? What is his opinion of the AAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Allow me to break it down for you.

This is not a sea change in AAP recommendations. They went from saying that the risks outweigh the benefits to saying that the risks do NOT outweigh the benefits. They based this off of no real new information. This was done because medicaid in several states was refusing to cover the procedure, calling it cosmetic. While this redefines the procedure as medical in nature (and not cosmetic) in no place does the AAP say it is necessary for all boys. In fact, the AAP makes explicit that the benefits are not so great as to recommend it routinely. So how are you all telling us "anti-circ" nuts that we're anti-science? Are you also calling the AAP anti-science because it DOES NOT RECOMMEND this procedure "routinely?"

I don't really blame anyone for feeling confused. The AAP's language is wobbly and waffling, stopping short of defining a clear, compelling benefit that would spark routine recommendation, but saying basically, that there are sufficient benefits that they think parents, who make the decisions for their own boys, should be able to get coverage for the procedure.

We started off pretty neutral on circing. I felt somewhat opposed but not vehemently. It was our OB, who performed thousands of them (without incident) who ultimately discouraged us. He said "any procedure introduces risk, and I do not find the benefits compelling in any way." I asked him if he used a numbing agent and he said yes, he did, but that in his view it was not sufficient and that the procedure was still incredibly painful for babies. After hearing that, my husband, who was leaning circ (he is) became the more vocal parent opposing it. My dad, who is a doctor also (though not a pediatrician) was initially surprised that we did not circumcise, but became interested in the issue after hearing our views. He did research, and concluded that he now thinks the procedure is unnecessary and potentially ill-advised. He's hardly anti-science!

What the AAP seems to be saying is that there are scenarios there might be a good reason, but that ROUTINELY, this is not the case. Therefore, no blanket recommendation to circ routinely.

So, the bottom line is that nothing has really changed. The AAP has tweaked, very slightly, its recommendation from "we don't recommend it" to "we don't recommend it routinely, but parents can still choose, and yes, there are legitimate health reasons that persons can cite when asking insurance to pay for it" But people, this is not at all the same thing as the AAP suggesting that parents SHOULD do this routinely. They've explicitly said they still do not recommend that. So those of you who are so pleased with yourself for doing all along what the AAP is now "recommending" need to realize that the AAP is still not "recommending" it. They are simply saying it is a legitimate option, if you want to do it.

I think what's happening here is that a lot of pro-circ posters on this forum are really pleased that the AAP finally caught up with what they have "just known" all along was right. It's ironic that they're castigating the non-circ people as anti-science when they, themselves, have been outside the recommendation for the past decade.

FWIW, we vaccinated fully, including the optional vaxes (flu, H1n1, etc). And had some extra vaccinations when we traveled. Seems like most of the posters on this forum are similar.

You are lying or your OB is an idiot. Is he top 100 in Washington Magazine.

Says who? You, She Who Hath Annointed herself the Grand Authority of Idiots and Liars? Please, cite your credentials and why you're in a position to call my OB an idiot, or me a liar. As for the Washingtonian top docs, yes, he is. He's also highly, highly, highly recommended on these boards. Good luck to you in life with your outlook and your inability to grasp that reasonable people can disagree on things without being idiots. I'm sure you'll do well with that attitude!

Your idiocy probably rubbed off onto the doctor. If you go in saying "I AM NOT CIRCING TELL ME WHY, NAAHAHAHAHAHAH not listening" of course he's going to tell you what you want to hear.

[Anonymous]

Why is that doctor an idiot? A procedure does introduce risks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Although this certainly isn't a good reason to circumcise, as a mom that didn't, my son's doc hasn't really been helpful in providing info on how to clean/care for my son's penis, and hasn't been helpful or responsive to questions re the same. Yes, I know, just clean with soap and water on the outside till the foreskin seems to be retracting, but now it sort of seems to be, but isn't completely, and when I asked her what to do, she stared at me blankly.

I agree it is sad that many doctors don't seem to know what to do re: uncircumcised boys. My pediatrician is Trinidadian and she pulled my son's foreskin back on one visit . Luckily, though uncomfortable, it wasn't painful for him. But, she believes that the foreskin should be pulled back and the area cleaned routinely. I ignore everything related to this advice. Otherwise, she is a good pediatrician so I still use her for my children (minus the foreskin pull-back).

*BTW, you don't need to do anything to your son's foreskin. As long as he's cleaning his genitals with soap and water (including the "tip" of the foreskin area), you're good. The foreskin will start to retract on its own at puberty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If allowing my son to make his OWN decision about a permanent alteration to his body makes me an abnormal Mom, I'm okay with that. You, on the other hand, sound very insecure about your decision.

My husband did it when he was a teenager. He suffered a lot before he was circumcised. So our son was circumcised at birth.

My DH was circ'ed as a teenager too. In his case it was to Americanize him not because he was having any issues. He didn't ever want to subject any future son to this procedure because he knew how truly painful it was. Please, don't tell me it doesn't hurt the baby, because I have been with a newly circ'ed baby. I wouldn't say the baby looked betrayed, or abused, but he was in a lot pain. He didn't want to be picked up, or fed, he just wanted to be left alone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's absolutely necessary for some people to believe that. The physical reality is too much to acknowledge.

So the aap is claiming that the benefits outweigh the risks, but you believe that a reasonable parent who comes to the same conclusion as the aap is just refusing to acknowledge reality?

The post referred to the belief that it doesn't hurt. Parents who haven't seen the procedure, or whose sons zoned out in shock, often do believe this. That pain issue is documented, but some people need to kid themselves about it. The foreskin is as sensitive as the lips, fingertips, earlobes. Of course it hurts to cut it off.

[Anonymous]

My parents didn't circ after the first one because they sent away a calm, happy baby and he came back jumpy, miserable and obviously in a lot of pain. No problems with any of their three intact sons.

[Anonymous]

30 seconds of unremembered pain for a lifetime of medical benefits , sounds ok to me

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:30 seconds of unremembered pain for a lifetime of medical benefits , sounds ok to me

Except it isn't just 30 seconds.

The thing that really grosses me out is the urine and fecal matter in a diaper with a wound. Gross! Gross! Gross!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's absolutely necessary for some people to believe that. The physical reality is too much to acknowledge.

So the aap is claiming that the benefits outweigh the risks, but you believe that a reasonable parent who comes to the same conclusion as the aap is just refusing to acknowledge reality?

The post referred to the belief that it doesn't hurt. Parents who haven't seen the procedure, or whose sons zoned out in shock, often do believe this. That pain issue is documented, but some people need to kid themselves about it. The foreskin is as sensitive as the lips, fingertips, earlobes. Of course it hurts to cut it off.

I was there for both my sons circumcisions. It was not bad. They both got locals and sugar.

[Anonymous]

Here's the thing. The medical benefits would have to be absolutely massive, overwhelming and essentially guaranteed to directly affect my individual kid before I agreed to cut off a perfectly healthy body part off of a baby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:30 seconds of unremembered pain for a lifetime of medical benefits , sounds ok to me

Have you been paying attention at all? The benefits are marginal at best. Otherwise not only would American doctors still advocate routine circumcision (which they haven't for decades) but developed countries where it is not part of a cultural tradition would have started recommending it by now.

And why is it that the only studies used in support of circumcision were done in Africa? Surely given the decreasing rate of the procedure in the US, doctors should by now have enough of a sample size to be able to say what effect infant circumcision has on health outcomes of American males, or even specifically white American middle class males.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:30 seconds of unremembered pain for a lifetime of medical benefits , sounds ok to me

The idiocy... it's not just 30 seconds of pain. It's days of pain. There's a whole healing process involved.

[Anonymous]

My son didn't seem to have any serious pain afterwards, nor did he seem at all uncomfortable in the days afterwards. the whole thing healed perfectly well, without a peep from him. Just my 2 cents on the effect on the child.

I'm also a ped and have seen about 100 of these in my training. Some kids cried in pain and some fell asleep (all had sucrose, pacifiers, and/or pain meds). all were pretty much fine when they went back to their moms.