Worried about son's circumcision

[Anonymous]

US government is giving out free circumcisions in third world countries to prevent the spread of AIDS and other STDs. If this isn't proof then I don't know what is. Your tax dollars fund this so it has to be proven.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More similarities exist between circumcision and vaccines than you might think. Just as vocal anti-vaccine groups exist, so do anti-circumcision groups. Both factions tend to be extremely passionate about their beliefs. The CDC has stirred up the anti-circumcision groups with its recent draft recommendations, which suggest that health care providers counsel parents and uncircumcised older males on the health benefits of the procedure. The CDC did, however, stop short of saying all babies should routinely be circumcised Some arguments against routine vaccinations and circumcision overlap: “forcing something on an infant who can't decide for himself,”. . . “it's only being done so doctors/vaccine companies can make money,” and . . . “it's not natural” are comments of both the “Anti” camps.

This has got to be one of the dumbest posts of this thread. Just because there are some perceived similarities between some of the arguments from groups opposing either doesn't make them similar. Unlike vaccines, which are supported by all reputable doctors and scientists around the world, circumcision is rejected as a routine procedure by the vast majority of those same doctors and scientists around the world. The positive attitude (I'm glad you recognize it's not a recommendation) of US medical professionals is an anomaly that's due to cultural factors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we just end this? Clearly there are people on both sides and there always will be. It's your son and only you, as his mother, are entitled to make the decision.

No, you really are not entitled to that decision. It's your son's penis, not yours. This is about your newborn's rights to bodily integrity, and that is why people who realize this won't shut up. If the medical reasons were truly compelling, it might be a different story, but they aren't. Otherwise the US wouldn't be the only developed country that promotes circumcision.

If there was even the slightest medical benefit to doing it -- WHICH THERE IS, then you can justify it as a parent doing what you think is best for your child. Especially given that you DON'T NEED FORESKIN. You can't say there isn't any benefit when the science tell us there is. Are you anti-vaccination too because it hurts to get a needle? Would you not advise your son to get his wisdom teeth taken out to prevent impaction and nerve damage down the road?

Tell us more about the science which has been thoroughly criticized for being based on African realities and not the realities of public health in the US.

Also, even a simple understanding of physiology tells us that it's very likely that sex is more pleasurable for intact men.

You bold your points as if they are strong ones. They are not.

Umm, did you see this?




Here. I hope this ends the conversation on whether there are medical benefits to circumcision. THERE ARE:

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks, and they leave the final decision to the parents.

BENEFITS:
Easier hygiene. Circumcision makes it simpler to wash the penis.
Decreased risk of urinary tract infections. The overall risk of urinary tract infections in males is low, but these infections are more common in uncircumcised males. Severe infections early in life can lead to kidney problems later on.
Decreased risk of sexually transmitted infections. Circumcised men might have a lower risk of certain sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. Still, safe sexual practices remain essential.
Prevention of penile problems. Occasionally, the foreskin on an uncircumcised penis can be difficult or impossible to retract (phimosis). This can lead to inflammation of the foreskin or head of the penis.
Decreased risk of penile cancer. Although cancer of the penis is rare, it's less common in circumcised men. In addition, cervical cancer is less common in the female sexual partners of circumcised men.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/circumc...sics/why-its-done/prc-20013585

[Anonymous]

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 Journa


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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we just end this? Clearly there are people on both sides and there always will be. It's your son and only you, as his mother, are entitled to make the decision.

No, you really are not entitled to that decision. It's your son's penis, not yours. This is about your newborn's rights to bodily integrity, and that is why people who realize this won't shut up. If the medical reasons were truly compelling, it might be a different story, but they aren't. Otherwise the US wouldn't be the only developed country that promotes circumcision.

If there was even the slightest medical benefit to doing it -- WHICH THERE IS, then you can justify it as a parent doing what you think is best for your child. Especially given that you DON'T NEED FORESKIN. You can't say there isn't any benefit when the science tell us there is. Are you anti-vaccination too because it hurts to get a needle? Would you not advise your son to get his wisdom teeth taken out to prevent impaction and nerve damage down the road?

Tell us more about the science which has been thoroughly criticized for being based on African realities and not the realities of public health in the US.

Also, even a simple understanding of physiology tells us that it's very likely that sex is more pleasurable for intact men.

You bold your points as if they are strong ones. They are not.

Umm, did you see this?




Here. I hope this ends the conversation on whether there are medical benefits to circumcision. THERE ARE:

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks, and they leave the final decision to the parents.

BENEFITS:
Easier hygiene. Circumcision makes it simpler to wash the penis.
Decreased risk of urinary tract infections. The overall risk of urinary tract infections in males is low, but these infections are more common in uncircumcised males. Severe infections early in life can lead to kidney problems later on.
Decreased risk of sexually transmitted infections. Circumcised men might have a lower risk of certain sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. Still, safe sexual practices remain essential.
Prevention of penile problems. Occasionally, the foreskin on an uncircumcised penis can be difficult or impossible to retract (phimosis). This can lead to inflammation of the foreskin or head of the penis.
Decreased risk of penile cancer. Although cancer of the penis is rare, it's less common in circumcised men. In addition, cervical cancer is less common in the female sexual partners of circumcised men.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/circumc...sics/why-its-done/prc-20013585

Are you the same poster posting this again?

No, this doesn't end the discussion. See the discussion above that explains why. Or simply start by reading the AAP's full statement, which clearly states that while there are benefits, they are not great enough to recommend circumcision as a routine procedure for all newborn boys. And if you really want to get informed and actually look at the studies that have been done, you will see that the benefits are in fact very small and have not been demonstrated to be relevant at all for males living in a developed country such as the US.

Just admit that you do this out of cultural habit, and use the very tiny medical benefits to justify it.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: You can follow whatever guidance you want, but the AAP holds more weight for me than an Australian board.

Why?

Seriously, why?

AAP is making decisions in consideration of a culture in which parents want to circ but want their private insurers to pay for it, and a panel of circ'd men gave them the cover they needed.

It's strange to me that you don't trust Australian or European pediatricians' policy positions, but decisions based on data from sub-Saharan populations seem totally applicable to babies in the U.S.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: You can follow whatever guidance you want, but the AAP holds more weight for me than an Australian board.

Why?

Seriously, why?

AAP is making decisions in consideration of a culture in which parents want to circ but want their private insurers to pay for it, and a panel of circ'd men gave them the cover they needed.

It's strange to me that you don't trust Australian or European pediatricians' policy positions, but decisions based on data from sub-Saharan populations seem totally applicable to babies in the U.S.

Many people don't trust Socialized medicine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: You can follow whatever guidance you want, but the AAP holds more weight for me than an Australian board.

Why?

Seriously, why?

AAP is making decisions in consideration of a culture in which parents want to circ but want their private insurers to pay for it, and a panel of circ'd men gave them the cover they needed.

It's strange to me that you don't trust Australian or European pediatricians' policy positions, but decisions based on data from sub-Saharan populations seem totally applicable to babies in the U.S.

Many people don't trust Socialized medicine.

I believe in America.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: You can follow whatever guidance you want, but the AAP holds more weight for me than an Australian board.

Why?

Seriously, why?

AAP is making decisions in consideration of a culture in which parents want to circ but want their private insurers to pay for it, and a panel of circ'd men gave them the cover they needed.

It's strange to me that you don't trust Australian or European pediatricians' policy positions, but decisions based on data from sub-Saharan populations seem totally applicable to babies in the U.S.

Many people don't trust Socialized medicine.

You can't sink any lower in your argument. Did you know that most countries in Europe don't have socialized medicine?

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

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.