Honestly, why don't people circumcise their sons in D.C.?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. American with a circ'd husband. We decided not to circ our son based on advice of our doctor, pediatrician and friends who are doctors & pediatricians. We just couldn't justify it given the lack of evidence that it provided any strong medical benefits. Other friends of ours have made the same decision.

Yah it's confusing, the medical recommendations recently changed to favor circumcision and doctors have stated to adopt the new findings.

I am the PP you are quoting. I never said it was confusing & the "medical recommendations" did not recently change - circumcision is STILL not recommended as a routine procedure. None of the medical professionals we asked in 2011 when my son was born have changed their mind... Also, we definitely considered the extremely low circ rates throughout the rest of the world (Muslim majority countries aside) and took that into consideration too. The U.S. is an outlier. And not in a good way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judging from the above unhinged posts it proves that the anticirc movement is quite nuts. BTW, whether you circ or not it doesn't really matter to someone who circs, we just don't go all up in your business screaming that you did something wrong and destroyed lives. God damn, calm down and do something else with your life like read a book or jog a mile.

Well, except that the OP started this thread by getting all up in the business of people who choose not to circ. There's batshit crazy on both sides of this. I'm on the side of thinking my son was born perfect, and why mess with that? Certainly there could be complications from being uncircumcised, as there can be complications from circumcision. I know 2 parents who have had to have their sons' circumcisions revised.

Very uncommon, you must have had to search them out. There are many things that we intervene, we cut the cord, do you think we should leave it on because they were born like that? Should we not wash them? Just cause the child comes out a certain way doesn't mean we should just not do anything. Do you let your child search for his own food?

I didn't - both are colleagues that I talk to because we have kids roughly the same age. Both revisions went fine but caused the parents a lot of stress. There are risks to any surgery, and the only way to eliminate those risks is to not have the surgery. In this case, the surgery is cosmetic, so the risks do not seem worth it.

Again, you're sounding crazy. Feeding an infant =/= cutting off a body part.

The majority of people consider it skin rather than a body part like a thumb. Anyways I doubt logic and reason help at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judging from the above unhinged posts it proves that the anticirc movement is quite nuts. BTW, whether you circ or not it doesn't really matter to someone who circs, we just don't go all up in your business screaming that you did something wrong and destroyed lives. God damn, calm down and do something else with your life like read a book or jog a mile.

Well, except that the OP started this thread by getting all up in the business of people who choose not to circ. There's batshit crazy on both sides of this. I'm on the side of thinking my son was born perfect, and why mess with that? Certainly there could be complications from being uncircumcised, as there can be complications from circumcision. I know 2 parents who have had to have their sons' circumcisions revised.

Very uncommon, you must have had to search them out. There are many things that we intervene, we cut the cord, do you think we should leave it on because they were born like that? Should we not wash them? Just cause the child comes out a certain way doesn't mean we should just not do anything. Do you let your child search for his own food?

I didn't - both are colleagues that I talk to because we have kids roughly the same age. Both revisions went fine but caused the parents a lot of stress. There are risks to any surgery, and the only way to eliminate those risks is to not have the surgery. In this case, the surgery is cosmetic, so the risks do not seem worth it.

Again, you're sounding crazy. Feeding an infant =/= cutting off a body part.

The majority of people consider it skin rather than a body part like a thumb. Anyways I doubt logic and reason help at this point.

Yes, but I wouldn't want to cut off my skin, either, nor on my newborn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. American with a circ'd husband. We decided not to circ our son based on advice of our doctor, pediatrician and friends who are doctors & pediatricians. We just couldn't justify it given the lack of evidence that it provided any strong medical benefits. Other friends of ours have made the same decision.

Yah it's confusing, the medical recommendations recently changed to favor circumcision and doctors have stated to adopt the new findings.

I am the PP you are quoting. I never said it was confusing & the "medical recommendations" did not recently change - circumcision is STILL not recommended as a routine procedure. None of the medical professionals we asked in 2011 when my son was born have changed their mind... Also, we definitely considered the extremely low circ rates throughout the rest of the world (Muslim majority countries aside) and took that into consideration too. The U.S. is an outlier. And not in a good way.

I think what the PP said is that the AAP recommendation to circumcise was changed in 2012 so in 2011 the recommendations were against it.

"The policy statement and accompanying technical report from the AAP will be published in the September 2012 issue of Pediatrics (published online Monday, Aug. 27). The documents update the previous policy that the AAP published in 1999 and reaffirmed in 2005"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. American with a circ'd husband. We decided not to circ our son based on advice of our doctor, pediatrician and friends who are doctors & pediatricians. We just couldn't justify it given the lack of evidence that it provided any strong medical benefits. Other friends of ours have made the same decision.

Yah it's confusing, the medical recommendations recently changed to favor circumcision and doctors have stated to adopt the new findings.

I am the PP you are quoting. I never said it was confusing & the "medical recommendations" did not recently change - circumcision is STILL not recommended as a routine procedure. None of the medical professionals we asked in 2011 when my son was born have changed their mind... Also, we definitely considered the extremely low circ rates throughout the rest of the world (Muslim majority countries aside) and took that into consideration too. The U.S. is an outlier. And not in a good way.

I think what the PP said is that the AAP recommendation to circumcise was changed in 2012 so in 2011 the recommendations were against it.

"The policy statement and accompanying technical report from the AAP will be published in the September 2012 issue of Pediatrics (published online Monday, Aug. 27). The documents update the previous policy that the AAP published in 1999 and reaffirmed in 2005"

Right, but it was based on no new information-- no studies that had not been available at the time of the previous recommendation. It was moderated purely in an attempt to get insurance to start covering it again, as many parents still want it and, though unnecessary, it is not typically an "extremely" injurious procedure with zero "benefits." That doesn't make it the best choice as a routine procedure, but many people still want it, and it is perhaps not the worst. It was a political decision. The AAP is a trade organization.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. American with a circ'd husband. We decided not to circ our son based on advice of our doctor, pediatrician and friends who are doctors & pediatricians. We just couldn't justify it given the lack of evidence that it provided any strong medical benefits. Other friends of ours have made the same decision.

Yah it's confusing, the medical recommendations recently changed to favor circumcision and doctors have stated to adopt the new findings.

I am the PP you are quoting. I never said it was confusing & the "medical recommendations" did not recently change - circumcision is STILL not recommended as a routine procedure. None of the medical professionals we asked in 2011 when my son was born have changed their mind... Also, we definitely considered the extremely low circ rates throughout the rest of the world (Muslim majority countries aside) and took that into consideration too. The U.S. is an outlier. And not in a good way.

I think what the PP said is that the AAP recommendation to circumcise was changed in 2012 so in 2011 the recommendations were against it.

"The policy statement and accompanying technical report from the AAP will be published in the September 2012 issue of Pediatrics (published online Monday, Aug. 27). The documents update the previous policy that the AAP published in 1999 and reaffirmed in 2005"

Right, but it was based on no new information-- no studies that had not been available at the time of the previous recommendation. It was moderated purely in an attempt to get insurance to start covering it again, as many parents still want it and, though unnecessary, it is not typically an "extremely" injurious procedure with zero "benefits." That doesn't make it the best choice as a routine procedure, but many people still want it, and it is perhaps not the worst. It was a political decision. The AAP is a trade organization.

The AAP policy is based on a fair evaluation of the scientific evidence for and against circumcision. Ethical, religious, legal, and cultural issues are outside the sphere of science, and the AAP rightfully leaves those issues for parents and society to decide.

[Anonymous]

I feel sorry for all the folks here who seriously believe that the new advice policy on circumcision has any medical reasons whatsoever. I really, honestly, feel sorry for how naive you must be. It's a huge money making market in the US and even most doctors are misinformed about risks, side effects and actual use or necessity of circumcision. Sad how little so many parents care about something as dramatic as mutilating their baby sons penises. So. Unbelievably. Sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel sorry for all the folks here who seriously believe that the new advice policy on circumcision has any medical reasons whatsoever. I really, honestly, feel sorry for how naive you must be. It's a huge money making market in the US and even most doctors are misinformed about risks, side effects and actual use or necessity of circumcision. Sad how little so many parents care about something as dramatic as mutilating their baby sons penises. So. Unbelievably. Sad.

Yes doctors are getting rich off of a 150 dollar procedure!!! I predict the next IPO is ticker CIRC corporation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel sorry for all the folks here who seriously believe that the new advice policy on circumcision has any medical reasons whatsoever. I really, honestly, feel sorry for how naive you must be. It's a huge money making market in the US and even most doctors are misinformed about risks, side effects and actual use or necessity of circumcision. Sad how little so many parents care about something as dramatic as mutilating their baby sons penises. So. Unbelievably. Sad.

The intensity of this poster makes me laugh. Man, if people only channeled this sort of thing in to something that matters.

[Anonymous]

What the hell does some 4 year old penis have to do with you? Do you do a penis check on every little boy you see to see if they are circumcised? Then do you rape the little boys who are not circumcised?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel sorry for all the folks here who seriously believe that the new advice policy on circumcision has any medical reasons whatsoever. I really, honestly, feel sorry for how naive you must be. It's a huge money making market in the US and even most doctors are misinformed about risks, side effects and actual use or necessity of circumcision. Sad how little so many parents care about something as dramatic as mutilating their baby sons penises. So. Unbelievably. Sad.

The intensity of this poster makes me laugh. Man, if people only channeled this sort of thing in to something that matters.

It's almost troll but sadly maybe not

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What the hell does some 4 year old penis have to do with you? Do you do a penis check on every little boy you see to see if they are circumcised? Then do you rape the little boys who are not circumcised?

Wtf

[Anonymous]

Honestly, OP, why do you care. I guarantee that unless you are a smokin' hot cougar willing to wait 15 years or so, you will never have the opptortunity to peek at, judge and shame my toddler child's genitals. Sorry, but I find it very odd that you ponder this. You seem repressed.

I also take issue with your use of "SAFE" as in your original post. Circ is relatively safe but the procedure is not risk-free. Ask these parents:


http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2012/05/couple_sues_miami_doctor_over.php

http://www.myfoxmemphis.com/story/23912521/mother-upset-over-botched-circumcision

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/12/30/pittsburgh-rabbi-sued-for-botched-circumcision/


Stories are from 2012 and 2013, so there's at least three botched circs in the past two years for you, all here in the good old US of A.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, OP, why do you care. I guarantee that unless you are a smokin' hot cougar willing to wait 15 years or so, you will never have the opptortunity to peek at, judge and shame my toddler child's genitals. Sorry, but I find it very odd that you ponder this. You seem repressed.

I also take issue with your use of "SAFE" as in your original post. Circ is relatively safe but the procedure is not risk-free. Ask these parents:


http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2012/05/couple_sues_miami_doctor_over.php

http://www.myfoxmemphis.com/story/23912521/mother-upset-over-botched-circumcision

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/12/30/pittsburgh-rabbi-sued-for-botched-circumcision/


Stories are from 2012 and 2013, so there's at least three botched circs in the past two years for you, all here in the good old US of A.

Something doesn't have to be "risk free" to be safe. Circumcision is safe. The benefits outweigh the risks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, OP, why do you care. I guarantee that unless you are a smokin' hot cougar willing to wait 15 years or so, you will never have the opptortunity to peek at, judge and shame my toddler child's genitals. Sorry, but I find it very odd that you ponder this. You seem repressed.

I also take issue with your use of "SAFE" as in your original post. Circ is relatively safe but the procedure is not risk-free. Ask these parents:


http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2012/05/couple_sues_miami_doctor_over.php

http://www.myfoxmemphis.com/story/23912521/mother-upset-over-botched-circumcision

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/12/30/pittsburgh-rabbi-sued-for-botched-circumcision/


Stories are from 2012 and 2013, so there's at least three botched circs in the past two years for you, all here in the good old US of A.

Something doesn't have to be "risk free" to be safe. Circumcision is safe. The benefits outweigh the risks.

So somewhere in between being "SAFE" and being accidentally emasculated.