According to American Academy of Pediatrics Benefits of Circumcision Outweigh Risks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What's your name, kookoobird?

[Anonymous]

I've seen many circs of older boys and men at the hospital and compare it to circs of newborns. It's definitely a more complicated procedure in older boys/ men (about 100 times harder, involving many stitches, pain etc.) whereas in newborns it is relatively easy. Don't have any boys myself but would probably circ if I did because of the health benefits and small risks involved, and even the pain if it lasted days is always forgotten.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Is this just a troll I'm falling for or are you for real with this goofy stuff? Did you read? We were inclined to circumcise because I was leaning against but not totally and my husband was initially all for it. We went in to discuss it, told my OB (No idea what his opinion is of AAP, I'm sure he respects his colleagues, who agreed with him at that time btw!) we were weighing the options, and he volunteered his opinion. You are a rude person and I have no idea why you're calling me names. I think you are way overinvested in what other people are doing with their kids penises.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Thank you. This is how I feel, exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There ARE studies. The anti-circ audience dismisses them because they are observational and not randomized control studies. But it's impossible to randomly assign people in the us to get circumcised or to be in a control. Only really possible in places like Africa.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Quiet does not equal fine. "Falling asleep" can be shock.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Quiet does not equal fine. "Falling asleep" can be shock.

I'm wondering where this Pediatrician works. So I can avoid that office.

Circ don't circ but don't tell me that shit doesn't hurt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

My boys' dicks were healed in a day or so and isn't fuss at all--even when unknowing friend baby wiped fresh wound.

I was there too--very quick and one didn't cry. The other just a few seconds.

Anti-circ like to make a big deal where there isn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

My boys' dicks were healed in a day or so and isn't fuss at all--even when unknowing friend baby wiped fresh wound.

I was there too--very quick and one didn't cry. The other just a few seconds.

Anti-circ like to make a big deal where there isn't.

I find it disturbing that you are using the work "dick" to describe a child's penis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've seen many circs of older boys and men at the hospital and compare it to circs of newborns. It's definitely a more complicated procedure in older boys/ men (about 100 times harder, involving many stitches, pain etc.) whereas in newborns it is relatively easy. Don't have any boys myself but would probably circ if I did because of the health benefits and small risks involved, and even the pain if it lasted days is always forgotten.

Exactly--which is why the argument of leaving it to a kid to do it when he's adult is ridiculous. Either do it as a newborn or forget about it.

After 30 years of strep infections there is a reason I didnt get my tonsils out as an adult. The procedure is much less complicated and less painful as a young child. This is proven given the anstomy and changes as you grow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

My boys' dicks were healed in a day or so and isn't fuss at all--even when unknowing friend baby wiped fresh wound.

I was there too--very quick and one didn't cry. The other just a few seconds.

Anti-circ like to make a big deal where there isn't.

I find it disturbing that you are using the work "dick" to describe a child's penis.

Blow me.

[Anonymous]

I have been following this thread for a while (when I should have been working) and even posted once, but some of the rhetoric coming from both camps reminds me of this one time a few years ago when I was walking on the National Mall. Right next to the Reflecting Pool there was this group of protesters holding signs saying things like "Cicumcision is child abuse". So I walk up to them and I say: "Look, I agree with you. It is a painful procedure with unproven medical benefits and performing it routinely on all newborns makes about as much sense as cutting everyone's tonsils out. But there is a war going on (Iraq). There is an idiot (G.W. Bush) in office. You managed to get a permit to be in this place, in the middle of the Cherry Blossom Festival, where you will be seen by millions upon millions of people, and this is what you are choosing to protest?" "Ah, but ask yourself, " said the man holding the sign, " who is waging wars in the world right now? USA, Israel, and the Arab nations. All of them circumcised! What better proof do you need that it causes permanent psychological damage?"

[Anonymous]

An adult can:
a) choose to have it done
b) understand what is going on and why
c) have more complete pain relief both during and after
d) have the "correct" amount of foreskin amputated -- in infants it is really guesswork as to how much foreskin they'll need as an adult for an erection. Thus the change where they remove less these days. No guesswork with an adult.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Quiet does not equal fine. "Falling asleep" can be shock.

Oh yes, so when babies are sleeping they are in shock. I was in the hospital when both of my nephews were circumcized years ago. They went out of the room for no longer than 15-20 minutes, came back all swaddled, looked around and were calm as can be. They are both about middle school now and are amazing kids, well adjusted, well liked, great atheletes and awesome in school. Sorry, as much as you want to believe they were "in shock" they just weren't. Don't make up stuff that isn't so. And this is coming from someone who isn't pro or con circumcision. I believe each family should do what's best for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've seen many circs of older boys and men at the hospital and compare it to circs of newborns. It's definitely a more complicated procedure in older boys/ men (about 100 times harder, involving many stitches, pain etc.) whereas in newborns it is relatively easy. Don't have any boys myself but would probably circ if I did because of the health benefits and small risks involved, and even the pain if it lasted days is always forgotten.

Exactly--which is why the argument of leaving it to a kid to do it when he's adult is ridiculous. Either do it as a newborn or forget about it.

After 30 years of strep infections there is a reason I didnt get my tonsils out as an adult. The procedure is much less complicated and less painful as a young child. This is proven given the anstomy and changes as you grow.

It's ridiculous to say the argument is ridiculous.
In most cultures of the world that practice male circumcision, it is done in teenagers/ young adults.
An ex had it done as an adult (no medical problems, just encouraged by well-meaning RN sister), and there were no complications, he wasn't traumatized. But it was his choice.

I'd rather that DS make that decision for himself, than resent me for authorizing an irreversible circumcision. These men do: "Mom, Why Did You Circumcise Me?" http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/mom-why-did-you-circumcise-me/