Like anti vaccine phobia, Science wins against the crazies once again .

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, the UTI risk is only studied for the first year of life - just to clarify.

T look at it from a different point of view, no matter what side you are on, do you think the insurance industry had anything to do with the decision? I did hear that Medicaid isn't covering circumcision in a lot of states and this was to try to get them to. Actually, they basically said it in the AAP release. That would make me suspicious no matter which side I'm on.

I agree that there is a financial angle. There is also a cultural angle, possibly, given recent attacks on circumcision in Germany and San Francisco. For the average middle-class American family, circumcision has been, historically, a cultural and religious decision.

It's worth noting that the AAP said only that the benefits outweigh the risks (which one would hope is true, given the. Umber of boys who are circumcised, right?) The AAP does not recommend routine circumcision.

At Georgetown the give the newborns 'sugar-water"---no anesthesia when they perform it. My boys didn't even cry. That dose of sugar water is pure genius. Granted---the older the male---the more invasive/larger and the sugar water is no longer as useful.

Absolutely unethical. Studies have shown newborns to be in significant pain with the sugar water -- think logically here, of COURSE it hurts. Typically these infants go into shock and are indeed quiet for this reason. The AAP states sugar water is not sufficient for the pain.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, the UTI risk is only studied for the first year of life - just to clarify.

T look at it from a different point of view, no matter what side you are on, do you think the insurance industry had anything to do with the decision? I did hear that Medicaid isn't covering circumcision in a lot of states and this was to try to get them to. Actually, they basically said it in the AAP release. That would make me suspicious no matter which side I'm on.

I agree that there is a financial angle. There is also a cultural angle, possibly, given recent attacks on circumcision in Germany and San Francisco. For the average middle-class American family, circumcision has been, historically, a cultural and religious decision.

It's worth noting that the AAP said only that the benefits outweigh the risks (which one would hope is true, given the. Umber of boys who are circumcised, right?) The AAP does not recommend routine circumcision.

At Georgetown the give the newborns 'sugar-water"---no anesthesia when they perform it. My boys didn't even cry. That dose of sugar water is pure genius. Granted---the older the male---the more invasive/larger and the sugar water is no longer as useful.

That's when the good old Percocet comes in handy. I can't understand why we think men are too weak to handle this surgery. It's no wonder why we have so many useless husbands.

I just read the Johns Hopkins study and I found it interesting that it was predominantly analyzing the financial ramifications that the previous studies indicate. It did not include any new medical research that I could see. I don't see that there are new medical studies since the AAP's 2005 reiteration that circumcision should not be a routine procedure. I'm still wondering what new studies since then influenced this change. I'd love links if anyone has them.

I've posted several times on this thread as someone who chose not to circumcise her son. If this was a new medical study I'd be more interested. The change in the AAP stance, though, will make me talk to our pediatrician again about it if we end up having a boy. I will also go back to the research instead of basing my decision on what I found last time. Honestly, I'm starting to hope for a girl! Both sides seem to be very politically motivated and it's hard to see through the rhetoric.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, the UTI risk is only studied for the first year of life - just to clarify.

T look at it from a different point of view, no matter what side you are on, do you think the insurance industry had anything to do with the decision? I did hear that Medicaid isn't covering circumcision in a lot of states and this was to try to get them to. Actually, they basically said it in the AAP release. That would make me suspicious no matter which side I'm on.

I agree that there is a financial angle. There is also a cultural angle, possibly, given recent attacks on circumcision in Germany and San Francisco. For the average middle-class American family, circumcision has been, historically, a cultural and religious decision.

It's worth noting that the AAP said only that the benefits outweigh the risks (which one would hope is true, given the. Umber of boys who are circumcised, right?) The AAP does not recommend routine circumcision.

At Georgetown the give the newborns 'sugar-water"---no anesthesia when they perform it. My boys didn't even cry. That dose of sugar water is pure genius. Granted---the older the male---the more invasive/larger and the sugar water is no longer as useful.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:doctors often recommend removing cancer should we start a movement banning that?

I don't know any doctor who recommends circs. They leave it up to the parents and rarely argue.

The new AAP recommendations urge doctors to inform their patients of the health benefits of circs. So starting now it should happen.

Mine did in 2005 with my first son.

IT was a teaching hospital.

I am guessing they are so afraid of lawsuit or anything else to even bring up something that touches on religious beliefs, etc..

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, the UTI risk is only studied for the first year of life - just to clarify.

T look at it from a different point of view, no matter what side you are on, do you think the insurance industry had anything to do with the decision? I did hear that Medicaid isn't covering circumcision in a lot of states and this was to try to get them to. Actually, they basically said it in the AAP release. That would make me suspicious no matter which side I'm on.

I agree that there is a financial angle. There is also a cultural angle, possibly, given recent attacks on circumcision in Germany and San Francisco. For the average middle-class American family, circumcision has been, historically, a cultural and religious decision.

It's worth noting that the AAP said only that the benefits outweigh the risks (which one would hope is true, given the. Umber of boys who are circumcised, right?) The AAP does not recommend routine circumcision.

I think you need to learn how to read because the statement says it doesn't recommend for all males but most, meaning they recommend it.

Although health bene?ts are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns, the bene?ts of circumcision are suf?cient to justify access to this procedure for families choosing it and to warrant third-party payment for circumcision of male newborns. It is important that clinicians routinely inform parents of the health bene?ts and risks of male newborn circumcision in an unbiased and accurate manner. Parents ultimately should decide whether circumcision is in the
best interests of their male child.
Their stance since 1999 said “potential medical benefits were not sufficient to warrant recommending routinely circumcising newborn boys.”

Read the quote from the Tribune:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-08-27/lifestyle/sns-201208271300--tms--kidsdocctnkd-a20120827-20120827_1_circumcision-risk-of-penile-cancer-health-benefits

It says the AAP does not routinely recommend circumcision, but that "the benefits are enough to warrant access to the procedures for those families choosing it, and should be covered by insurance."

Anonymous wrote:Let's face it: American anti-semitism is behind anti-circ movement.

Jewish doctors with a religious agenda pushing circ.

Now pass me some of that popcorn....

Could you clarify your statement? Do you think anyone who opposes circumcision for their own child is antisemitic? Or do you mean it more broadly?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:let me break it down.

Uncircumcised penis has foreskin which acts like a pocket that can trap foreign bodies, sweat, dirt, dead skin, bacteria, virus etc... anything that can slip in there especially during friction of rubbing in sexual contact.

During sexual contact there is a high chance of the skin tearing and exposing an open wound inside of this pocket.

Think about it logically of course uncirced can trap diseases more easily and contract them with tearing.

Furthermore it is very difficult to clean out this pocket especially when the child is under the age of 9 and even up to 15 when the skin is not fully able to retract.

UTIs can also occur more often because of trapped urine in the pockets. etc...

You are also describing the labia on women. Should those be removed as well?

Also, the foreskin does not retract until puberty. Until then, there is no need to retract and there is no build-up of sweat, bacteria, etc.

male circumcision only affects the foreskin, while female circumcision affects the entire clitoris. The equivalent of female circumcision would be cutting off the entire penis head.

I didn't mention female circumcision. I mentioned the removal of the labia (labiaplasty).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:doctors often recommend removing cancer should we start a movement banning that?

I don't know any doctor who recommends circs. They leave it up to the parents and rarely argue.

The new AAP recommendations urge doctors to inform their patients of the health benefits of circs. So starting now it should happen.

Boys raised in families where eveyone is circumcised are not always taught how to deal with the foreskin. Proper hygeine should essentially bring the UTI rate to the same level as circumcised males.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, the UTI risk is only studied for the first year of life - just to clarify.

T look at it from a different point of view, no matter what side you are on, do you think the insurance industry had anything to do with the decision? I did hear that Medicaid isn't covering circumcision in a lot of states and this was to try to get them to. Actually, they basically said it in the AAP release. That would make me suspicious no matter which side I'm on.

I agree that there is a financial angle. There is also a cultural angle, possibly, given recent attacks on circumcision in Germany and San Francisco. For the average middle-class American family, circumcision has been, historically, a cultural and religious decision.

It's worth noting that the AAP said only that the benefits outweigh the risks (which one would hope is true, given the. Umber of boys who are circumcised, right?) The AAP does not recommend routine circumcision.

I think you need to learn how to read because the statement says it doesn't recommend for all males but most, meaning they recommend it.

Although health bene?ts are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns, the bene?ts of circumcision are suf?cient to justify access to this procedure for families choosing it and to warrant third-party payment for circumcision of male newborns. It is important that clinicians routinely inform parents of the health bene?ts and risks of male newborn circumcision in an unbiased and accurate manner. Parents ultimately should decide whether circumcision is in the
best interests of their male child.
Their stance since 1999 said “potential medical benefits were not sufficient to warrant recommending routinely circumcising newborn boys.”

Honey, I can read. But thanks.

Anonymous wrote:doctors often recommend removing cancer should we start a movement banning that?

I don't know any doctor who recommends circs. They leave it up to the parents and rarely argue.

doctors often recommend removing cancer should we start a movement banning that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, the UTI risk is only studied for the first year of life - just to clarify.

T look at it from a different point of view, no matter what side you are on, do you think the insurance industry had anything to do with the decision? I did hear that Medicaid isn't covering circumcision in a lot of states and this was to try to get them to. Actually, they basically said it in the AAP release. That would make me suspicious no matter which side I'm on.

I agree that there is a financial angle. There is also a cultural angle, possibly, given recent attacks on circumcision in Germany and San Francisco. For the average middle-class American family, circumcision has been, historically, a cultural and religious decision.

It's worth noting that the AAP said only that the benefits outweigh the risks (which one would hope is true, given the. Umber of boys who are circumcised, right?) The AAP does not recommend routine circumcision.

I think you need to learn how to read because the statement says it doesn't recommend for all males but most, meaning they recommend it.

Although health bene?ts are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns, the bene?ts of circumcision are suf?cient to justify access to this procedure for families choosing it and to warrant third-party payment for circumcision of male newborns. It is important that clinicians routinely inform parents of the health bene?ts and risks of male newborn circumcision in an unbiased and accurate manner. Parents ultimately should decide whether circumcision is in the
best interests of their male child.
Their stance since 1999 said “potential medical benefits were not sufficient to warrant recommending routinely circumcising newborn boys.”