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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Great analogy!

Really? Comparing circ to molestation--you anti-circ people really are out of your frickin' minds.

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.

Anonymous wrote:I have a stupid question. Are condoms more difficult to use if a man is not circumcised?

I've never been with an uncircumcised partner. My question is genuine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those saying that the procedure doesn't really hurt infants

The AAP ALSO acknowledged the a sugar coated pacify is NOT adequate pain relief for infants undergoing the procedure. They recommend an injection to numb the area.

I really appreciate that they came out with that statement.

I also think people here need to read the actual statement and now poorly worded journalist interpretations.

I don't think anyone is doing these anymore without local anesthetic.

I don't think anyone is doing these anymore without local anesthetic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those saying that the procedure doesn't really hurt infants

The AAP ALSO acknowledged the a sugar coated pacify is NOT adequate pain relief for infants undergoing the procedure. They recommend an injection to numb the area.

I really appreciate that they came out with that statement.

I also think people here need to read the actual statement and now poorly worded journalist interpretations.

I don't think anyone is doing these anymore without local anesthetic.

Anonymous wrote:For those saying that the procedure doesn't really hurt infants

The AAP ALSO acknowledged the a sugar coated pacify is NOT adequate pain relief for infants undergoing the procedure. They recommend an injection to numb the area.

I really appreciate that they came out with that statement.

I also think people here need to read the actual statement and now poorly worded journalist interpretations.

Anonymous wrote:I have a stupid question. Are condoms more difficult to use if a man is not circumcised?

I've never been with an uncircumcised partner. My question is genuine.

Anonymous wrote:For those saying that the procedure doesn't really hurt infants

The AAP ALSO acknowledged the a sugar coated pacify is NOT adequate pain relief for infants undergoing the procedure. They recommend an injection to numb the area.

I really appreciate that they came out with that statement.

I also think people here need to read the actual statement and now poorly worded journalist interpretations.

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