Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank God I only have girls.

Not so sure about that...you know the saying:

When you have a boy, you only have one d*ck to worry about.
When you have a girl, you have all the d*cks to worry about.

Food for thought

Anonymous wrote:There's probably a succinct and pithy word that describes the concept of feeling unusually over concerned with the genitals of little boys and men, so much so that you rant for pages on blogs or websites about it, or carry sandwich boards on the mall to gain attention... It's probably a German word... They have lots of good words...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is nothing more than a "good ole boys" decision; men perpetuating something that was done to them. Currently, about 80-90% of all adult males are circumcised in the US. Since the rates have been plummeting for the past decade, in another 10-20 years, the majority of adults - including doctors and hospital administrators - will themselves be intact. Once the majority of pediatricians, OBs, and AAP policy makers are intact, there is no way they will continue to encourage this procedure to be performed.

What is especially interesting here is that there is no new study or research that influenced this updated policy. As others have mentioned, this is simply about getting Medicaid and private insurance companies to continue paying for it. Any willing parent can dig into the research and see that the scientific case for circumcision is extremely flimsy. Yes, cutting off an otherwise healthy body part can ensure that the body part will never have an infection later in life. But why the foreskin when there are so many other body parts that cause incurable disease? For example, men develop breast cancer at triple the rate they develop penile cancer. Why not remove all male newborn breast buds? Think of the medical benefits! Of course the difference is, so many adult males in this country have had their foreskin removed, that they simply do not understand that the foreskin could have any value, and they have a psychological need to justify their own circumcision by encouraging the continuation of the practice. Again, that is going to change as the younger generation of intact boys grows up.

In terms of circumcision, no other pediatric association in the developed world comes to the same conclusion that the AAP does; in fact many are now leaning towards prohibiting or outlawing the procedure in non-consenting newborns. The only reason this has continued to be acceptable here, is because the doctors themselves are cut. Oh, and because it is a multi-million dollar business for hospitals. Very difficult to undo that. I challenge any parent who is asking a pediatrician or OB for advice about this, to also ask the (yes, personal) question of whether the doctor is himself cut. I guarantee that those who are encouraging you to do it are cut themselves, and therefore can't actually understand from a personal perspective the benefits of having a foreskin.

This is a very, very weird way to frame this decision. I believe that male privilege and white privilege exist, but to assume that they made this decision based solely on a a "good old (circumcised) penises" club is to completely deny the science without being able to refute it. I've read both things: the science is not supportive and there are more studies coming out that will be even more supportive of circ.

Really what kind of conversations do you imagine took place?

Anonymous wrote:Thank God I only have girls.

Anonymous wrote:This is nothing more than a "good ole boys" decision; men perpetuating something that was done to them. Currently, about 80-90% of all adult males are circumcised in the US. Since the rates have been plummeting for the past decade, in another 10-20 years, the majority of adults - including doctors and hospital administrators - will themselves be intact. Once the majority of pediatricians, OBs, and AAP policy makers are intact, there is no way they will continue to encourage this procedure to be performed.

What is especially interesting here is that there is no new study or research that influenced this updated policy. As others have mentioned, this is simply about getting Medicaid and private insurance companies to continue paying for it. Any willing parent can dig into the research and see that the scientific case for circumcision is extremely flimsy. Yes, cutting off an otherwise healthy body part can ensure that the body part will never have an infection later in life. But why the foreskin when there are so many other body parts that cause incurable disease? For example, men develop breast cancer at triple the rate they develop penile cancer. Why not remove all male newborn breast buds? Think of the medical benefits! Of course the difference is, so many adult males in this country have had their foreskin removed, that they simply do not understand that the foreskin could have any value, and they have a psychological need to justify their own circumcision by encouraging the continuation of the practice. Again, that is going to change as the younger generation of intact boys grows up.

In terms of circumcision, no other pediatric association in the developed world comes to the same conclusion that the AAP does; in fact many are now leaning towards prohibiting or outlawing the procedure in non-consenting newborns. The only reason this has continued to be acceptable here, is because the doctors themselves are cut. Oh, and because it is a multi-million dollar business for hospitals. Very difficult to undo that. I challenge any parent who is asking a pediatrician or OB for advice about this, to also ask the (yes, personal) question of whether the doctor is himself cut. I guarantee that those who are encouraging you to do it are cut themselves, and therefore can't actually understand from a personal perspective the benefits of having a foreskin.

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.

As someone who did not circumcise her son, thanks for this reasonable post. I was conflicted about what to do beforehand and with most things, I wring my hands about it after the decision has been made. For a lot of women on this forum, seems to be an "I told you so" moment or they are taking it as such, anyway.

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.