According to American Academy of Pediatrics Benefits of Circumcision Outweigh Risks

[Anonymous]

"Scientific research shows clearer health benefits to the procedure than had previously been demonstrated. According to a systematic and critical review of the scientific literature, the health benefits of circumcision include lower risks of acquiring HIV, genital herpes, human papilloma virus and syphilis. Circumcision also lowers the risk of penile cancer over a lifetime; reduces the risk of cervical cancer in sexual partners, and lowers the risk of urinary tract infections in the first year of life," the group said.

Johns Hopkins University researchers recently concluded that the rates of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases are likely to climb as American parents increasingly leave their baby boys uncircumcised.

"The medical benefits of male circumcision are quite clear," said Dr. Aaron Tobian, an assistant professor of pathology at Johns Hopkins and lead author of the study published in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine. "But while the medical evidence has been increasingly more positive, male circumcision rates in the U.S. have been decreasing." full article: http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/27/health/circumcision-policy/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We did not circumcise our son and the change in the AAP advice will not affect our decision to circumcise our next child if he's a boy. Our pediatrician told us he's seen many problems with circumcisions. Also, I don't follow all AAP guidelines. I take them into account but do my own research and make my own decisions.

But what are your sources? I bet you're one of those parents who refuses to vaccinate your child b/c some lame study that has been proven to be utterly bogus from a scientific standpoint suggested that vaccines cause autism, and then bitches ti get an exemption from the health authorities to let your child attend daycare/school.

So acoording to you Circumcision Pretty much equals vaccination. Get a grip.

No. But I think the illogical mindset of denying legitimate studies and the professional opinion of millions of trained doctors to be the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Scientific research shows clearer health benefits to the procedure than had previously been demonstrated. According to a systematic and critical review of the scientific literature, the health benefits of circumcision include lower risks of acquiring HIV, genital herpes, human papilloma virus and syphilis. Circumcision also lowers the risk of penile cancer over a lifetime; reduces the risk of cervical cancer in sexual partners, and lowers the risk of urinary tract infections in the first year of life," the group said.

Johns Hopkins University researchers recently concluded that the rates of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases are likely to climb as American parents increasingly leave their baby boys uncircumcised.

"The medical benefits of male circumcision are quite clear," said Dr. Aaron Tobian, an assistant professor of pathology at Johns Hopkins and lead author of the study published in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine. "But while the medical evidence has been increasingly more positive, male circumcision rates in the U.S. have been decreasing." full article: http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/27/health/circumcision-policy/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

YES. So all you decrying the normal among us as child abusing freaks can go stuff it.

[Anonymous]

Interesting article written by an opposing medical group:
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/2012-08-26A_Commentary.pdf

[Anonymous]

So we can conclude that Europeans have more diseases. Next time little sara studies abroad and meets Basilio while drunk in a club she should think twice.

[Anonymous]

I still wouldn't remove a piece of my child's genitals without his permission. I make plenty of other choices for my children but this is not one I feel I have the right to make. It is still not a necessary procedure for infants.

I am going to teach my child about safe sex. I knew the HIV status of all 3 men I had unprotected sex with and it was six months to a year into the relationship. It's not a matter of trusting the other person. It's a matter of respecting myself, and my life, enough to insist upon this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every male in my family is mutilated and none of remember it happening. Surprisingly, we are all fine, fully functioning men (and toddler).

Next subject please.

Many abused victims don't remember their molestations either. Does it excuse the wrong that happened to them? Is it only bad if the person can remember? When did the bar get set so low?

It's not just that. It's that millions and millions don't care at all that they were circumcised. Nobody except for a handful of intactivists seems to care when it comes to the ir own circumcisions. How do you call it a trauma if the "victims" don't call it a trauma?? I am tired of the anti circ posts at say I was mutilated but I just don't know it, that my sex life suffered but I just don't know it.

[Anonymous]

Wait, didn't the AAP go on to say the benefits were not great enough to recommend routine circumcision? So those of you saying you'll follow its advice, do you mean you will NOT circ your next?

[Anonymous]

Yes, there are numerous contradictions within the paper, including the statement that the benefits don't support routine circ.

Does anyone know what the absolute HIV risk difference is across the three big studies used to justify the statement?

It's 1.31%. They repeat 60% over and over again, and people are all "whoa, better cut," but that's relative risk. The absolute risk either way is very, very low, and that risk is based on an *entirely* different cultural landscape where there is a heterosexual epidemic, sex practices that increase transmission, and poor access to barrier methods. It. is. crazy. talk. to apply this to American infants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, there are numerous contradictions within the paper, including the statement that the benefits don't support routine circ.

Does anyone know what the absolute HIV risk difference is across the three big studies used to justify the statement?

It's 1.31%. They repeat 60% over and over again, and people are all "whoa, better cut," but that's relative risk. The absolute risk either way is very, very low, and that risk is based on an *entirely* different cultural landscape where there is a heterosexual epidemic, sex practices that increase transmission, and poor access to barrier methods. It. is. crazy. talk. to apply this to American infants.

+1. Certain African cultures have different sexual practices that are unheard of here in the US (the use of drying powders). It increase tearing and risk of HIV transmission. Those stats really cannot be used here in the US to justify reduced risk, since that risk isn't here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We did not circumcise our son and the change in the AAP advice will not affect our decision to circumcise our next child if he's a boy. Our pediatrician told us he's seen many problems with circumcisions. Also, I don't follow all AAP guidelines. I take them into account but do my own research and make my own decisions.

But what are your sources? I bet you're one of those parents who refuses to vaccinate your child b/c some lame study that has been proven to be utterly bogus from a scientific standpoint suggested that vaccines cause autism, and then bitches ti get an exemption from the health authorities to let your child attend daycare/school.

Well, we did a lot of internet research, including the then-current AAP recommendation that circumcision wasn't necessary, and looked at the rates in the rest of the world which are incredibly lower than here. There isn't a higher incident of AIDS in Europe despite circumcision rates being below 20% in many of the countries. I don't have the specific studies anymore since this was 4 years ago, but I will go through the process again if we have another boy, and also talk to our pediatrician about his view on the AAP stance. The only benefit we found was the AIDS research done in Africa and we felt that there were other possible factors that contributed to the rates besides just circumcision. Also a minute increase in penile cancer risk. In the end we felt that over his lifetime, not circumcising was the safer course for our son. It took a lot of soul-searching, but even my husband, who is circumcised and was very pro-circumcision when we started the discussion, was convinced by the research. To add to all of that, after we decided not to circumcise and made our decision clear in the hospital, every single nurse we worked with congratulated us on our decision. As well, our pediatrician was also happy with our decision and told us that the main problems he fixes on newborn boys have to do with complications from circumcisions. I'm sure that none of these people would have openly criticized us if we had circumcised our son, but we were happy to have the confirmation after the fact and it has strengthened our decision to not circumcise any subsequent boys unless new research is presented that makes us change our mind.

Also, please don't assume my other parenting choices. I did extended breastfeeding but only til 19 months, we vaccinated on the CDC schedule, my son is in a traditional military daycare, I let me kid watch tv before he was two, I use disposable diapers, and my son was in his crib at 8 weeks - no cosleeping for us!

[Anonymous]

One more question for those of you suggesting that anyone who doesn't believe in circumcising should now fall in line with the AAP - why did you ignore the former recommendation that circumcision was medically unnecessary and a cultural decision? Point being, we all make our own parenting decisions. I truly don't judge those who circumcise, but I just didn't feel items the right decision for us.

[Anonymous]

The AAP is still saying there are not enough benefits for it to be routine. I'm confused as to how this recommendation is all that different from their earlier one.

[Anonymous]

I don't believe in altering my baby. No ear piercings, no circ.

BUT keep in mind ladies, men have told me that a foreskin equals less oral sex for the guy. Some girls are just not into it. These men told me they circ'd for their sons' future with the ladies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The AAP is still saying there are not enough benefits for it to be routine. I'm confused as to how this recommendation is all that different from their earlier one.

Aap statement says they recommend circ as long as it doesn't conflict with the parents religious or personal views.

The reason its not mandatory like vaccines is because to cause harm or diseases its an active action where as airborne virus can be passively passed on with out much contact.