American Pediatricians Group Claims Major Health Benefits Of Circumcision

[Jingthing]

This might be big news as the politics of MALE circumcision has been more visible lately internationally. People having non-Muslim baby boys in Thailand are probably mostly not going to do the procedure. But if there are lifetime health benefits, maybe that's a mistake?

Their old stance said potential medical benefits were not sufficient to warrant recommending routinely circumcising newborn boys. The new one says, "The benefits of newborn male circumcision justify access to this procedure for those families who choose it."

...

The new policy was published online Monday in Pediatrics. It comes amid ongoing debate over whether circumcision is medically necessary or a cosmetic procedure that critics say amounts to genital mutilation. Activists favoring a circumcision ban made headway in putting it to a vote last year in San Francisco but a judge later knocked the measure off the city ballot, ruling that regulating medical procedures is up to the state, not city officials.

In Germany, Jewish and Muslim leaders have protested a regional court ruling in June that said circumcision amounts to bodily harm.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz24mfjKYiE

Edited August 27, 2012 by Jingthing

[robblok]

In the Netherlands there are laws that might forbid it and i am happy about it. Those research's can be manipulated easy. Fact is your a lot less sensative during sex. If you live in a normal country and you wash yourself normally you don't need to cut it off.

[Sheryl]

This is not a new research finding, just a change in recommendation (based on already existing research). It responds to problems with health care coverage in the US and is aimed at ensuring that circumcision will be covered by state and federal health plans for the poor. The Academy has not made a recommendation that all infants should be circumcised, only stated that it makes sense in health financing terms terms for those plans to cover the procedure for families who opt for it. The whole issue is one of health care financing. there is no new information one way or the other regarding the effects of circumcision

"After a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence, the American Academy of Pediatrics found the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision. The AAP policy statement published Monday, August 27, says the final decision should still be left to parents to make in the context of their religious, ethical and cultural beliefs."

The full policy statement is here:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2012/08/22/peds.2012-1989

And the technical review of scientific evidence to date is here:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2012/08/22/peds.2012-1990

[Jingthing]

Yes, I see. Not new evidence. A new REVIEW of existing evidence.

But, you know, lots of people are not even aware of the existing evidence.

There are some good medical reasons to do the procedure and that shouldn't be allowed to be clouded by emotional rhetoric about brutality and that it should be the child's choice.

Circumcision has been shown to reduce the risk of sexually-transmitted infections including HIV, syphilis, HPV and genital herpes. Circumcision has also been shown to reduce the risk of penile cancer, as well as cervical cancer in sexual partners. Circumcision also reduces the risk of urinary tract infection in a baby's first year of life.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/sns-201208271300--tms--kidsdocctnkd-a20120827-20120827,0,2052917.story

[robblok]

Circumcision: Does This Brutal Procedure Cause Erectile Dysfunction?

Why did my loving parents do this to me many years ago? I'm sure their doctor told them it was the hygienic thing to do. But I'm equally sure I must have been screaming like hell while it was being done. Today, millions of circumcisions are still performed. But it's time to stop this shocking brutality and the complications associated with it.

Full story:http://www.theepocht...sion-32683.html

Edited August 28, 2012 by Rimmer
Please use FAIR USE only and credit the source when posting from newspapers

[robblok]

Jing ting you can find evidence it helps i can find evidence it does not help. So it should be the choice of a child when its old enough not forced upon it.

[Jingthing]

Jing ting you can find evidence it helps i can find evidence it does not help. So it should be the choice of a child when its old enough not forced upon it.

Well, that's your opinion. I agree with the American doctor's group -- it should be the choice of the PARENTS. Because you can't do a procedure on an infant, the ideal time to do this IF you are going to, on an adult. Yes they have the responsibility to become fully informed about the pros and cons. Edited August 28, 2012 by Jingthing

[robblok]

Jing ting you can find evidence it helps i can find evidence it does not help. So it should be the choice of a child when its old enough not forced upon it.

Well, that's your opinion. I agree with the American doctor's group -- it should be the choice of the PARENTS. Because you can't do a procedure on an infant, the ideal time to do this IF you are going to, on an adult. Yes they have the responsibility to become fully informed about the pros and cons.

It was done on my brother for medical reasons and it is regretted since then. Loss of sensitivity during sex ect. I hope they one day ban this whole procedure if there is no need for it. In my country there are parties that want it stopped and i hope they get enough votes. Once a child is old enough it can choose not before.

[Jingthing]

Jing ting you can find evidence it helps i can find evidence it does not help. So it should be the choice of a child when its old enough not forced upon it.

Well, that's your opinion. I agree with the American doctor's group -- it should be the choice of the PARENTS. Because you can't do a procedure on an infant, the ideal time to do this IF you are going to, on an adult. Yes they have the responsibility to become fully informed about the pros and cons.

It was done on my brother for medical reasons and it is regretted since then. Loss of sensitivity during sex ect. I hope they one day ban this whole procedure if there is no need for it. In my country there are parties that want it stopped and i hope they get enough votes. Once a child is old enough it can choose not before.

Unless we have full info on the medical reasons for your brother's surgery, how can we know whether he might have been worse off without the procedure. There are definitely cases where men get this done later in life for valid medical reasons. Medicine doesn't guarantee ideal results in all cases. It is a flawed, human endeavor.

You obviously have an emotional investment in this issue. That's normal. But such subjectivity shouldn't be applied to national policies which are about entire populations.

Edited August 28, 2012 by Jingthing

[robblok]

Jing ting you can find evidence it helps i can find evidence it does not help. So it should be the choice of a child when its old enough not forced upon it.

Well, that's your opinion. I agree with the American doctor's group -- it should be the choice of the PARENTS. Because you can't do a procedure on an infant, the ideal time to do this IF you are going to, on an adult. Yes they have the responsibility to become fully informed about the pros and cons.

It was done on my brother for medical reasons and it is regretted since then. Loss of sensitivity during sex ect. I hope they one day ban this whole procedure if there is no need for it. In my country there are parties that want it stopped and i hope they get enough votes. Once a child is old enough it can choose not before.

Unless we have full info on the medical reasons for your brother's surgery, how can we know whether he might have been worse off without the procedure. There are definitely cases where men get this done later in life for valid medical reasons. Medicine doesn't guarantee ideal results in all cases. It is a flawed, human endeavor.

You obviously have an emotional investment in this issue. That's normal. But such subjectivity shouldn't be applied to national policies which are about entire populations.

My reasoning is simpe and clear. Its not proven it has benefits so there is no reason to do it on young children. No reason to do it later in life. I just gave my bro as an example of what can go wrong and how it does influence sex for many people.

I counter your research.. and so there is no proof on your side and i cant prove it 100% either.. so when in doubt don't.

[Jingthing]

There actually is scientific evidence that is has some benefits.

There are also definitively individual cases where it needs to be done later in life for medical reasons. That isn't debatable; that's a fact.

I can understand people bringing this up as a child's rights issue. That is debatable. That's why it is a social issue that seems to be more on the radar now internationally.

[robblok]

There actually is scientific evidence that is has some benefits.

There are also definitively individual cases where it needs to be done later in life for medical reasons. That isn't debatable; that's a fact.

I can understand people bringing this up as a child's rights issue. That is debatable. That's why it is a social issue that seems to be more on the radar now internationally.

I just found research there are no benefits.. kinda depends who you listen too. To do a medical procedure just because there "may" be benefits and to risk all the complications is crazy.

But once they are old enough they can decide for themselves. But religious groups are scared as hell because their book dictates it.

[Jingthing]

Is that what you are on about? The rights of Jews and Muslims (or assorted tribal groups) to do this procedure is not seriously being attacked internationally. That isn't the bigger issue. The issue is about everyone else.

Seriously, Jews and Muslims are going to do this NO MATTER WHAT.

Medically people do all kinds of procedures that have benefits that are not guaranteed and that carry some risk. So that is not unusual. I agree the issue of consent of the children is a real social issue. Very much debatable. Do parents have the rights? Personally, I say yes they should. The other side has a point as well which is why this issue isn't going away anytime soon.

Edited August 28, 2012 by Jingthing

[robblok]

Is that what you are on about? The rights of Jews and Muslims (or assorted tribal groups) to do this procedure is not seriously being attacked internationally. That isn't the bigger issue. The issue is about everyone else.

In the Netherlands its being attacked, there are some political parties who want to prohibit it there for everyone. I understand you can't be informed about everything but these are the facts.

I just think that nobody should be putting a child at risk for something that is not proven or for religious reasons. Same as there are some religions where you cant help a child medically ect. Crazy too.

[Jingthing]

Is that what you are on about? The rights of Jews and Muslims (or assorted tribal groups) to do this procedure is not seriously being attacked internationally. That isn't the bigger issue. The issue is about everyone else.

In the Netherlands its being attacked, there are some political parties who want to prohibit it there for everyone. I understand you can't be informed about everything but these are the facts.

I just think that nobody should be putting a child at risk for something that is not proven or for religious reasons. Same as there are some religions where you cant help a child medically ect. Crazy too.

I didn't say it wasn't being attacked anywhere. I am aware of some places attacking the religious rights of Jews and Muslims. I don't consider this very significant because like I said Jews and Muslims will do this NO MATTER WHAT even if it means breaking the law.

This is now getting way off topic into religious freedom matters. I suggest this being the MEDICAL oriented forum, it's opening a can or worms in a place where it probably shouldn't be opened.

Edited August 28, 2012 by Jingthing

[robblok]

Is that what you are on about? The rights of Jews and Muslims (or assorted tribal groups) to do this procedure is not seriously being attacked internationally. That isn't the bigger issue. The issue is about everyone else.

In the Netherlands its being attacked, there are some political parties who want to prohibit it there for everyone. I understand you can't be informed about everything but these are the facts.

I just think that nobody should be putting a child at risk for something that is not proven or for religious reasons. Same as there are some religions where you cant help a child medically ect. Crazy too.

I didn't say it wasn't being attacked anywhere. I am aware of some places attacking the religious rights of Jews and Muslims. I don't consider this very significant because like I said Jews and Muslims will do this NO MATTER WHAT even if it means breaking the law.

Maybe, but it wont be done in a hospital then and they can be arrested for it. I for one would vote for this law. I believe that a child has to be protected from something that is not proven to have health benefits. Later in life they can make their own choices.

Now in the Netherlands if they find out that a girl has been cut for religious reasons the parents can be arrested even if it has happened in an other country. Doctors do check this when children go for health checkups. So its can be implemented and enforced for boys too.

Just let them do it later in life when they can make their own choice.

[Jingthing]

Male and female circumcision are not equivalent. Societies have the capability to make distinctions. Male circumcisions. OK. Honor killings. Not OK. Etc.

Anyway, we won't solve the controversy here. There will be more scientific evidence in future supporting or not supporting the benefits of male circumcision and the social issues will be dealt with on a localized basis. For now, as it is generally legal, parents generally do have the right to make this call for their infants.

Edited August 28, 2012 by Jingthing

[robblok]

Male and female circumcision are not equivalent. Societies have the capability to make distinctions. Male circumcisions. OK. Honor killings. Not OK. Etc.

Anyway, we won't solve the controversy here. There will be more scientific evidence in future supporting or not supporting the benefits of male circumcision and the social issues will be dealt with on a localized basis. For now, as it is generally legal, parents generally do have the right to make this call for their infants.

You are right we wont solve it and so far its still legal to do. This might change in the Netherlands (doubt it). I still feel its crazy to mutilate someone for religious purposes.

And yes female circumcisions are much worse then males.

[Jingthing]

Religions aren't selling rational thought ...

[Sheryl]

The female procedure you refer to is NOT circumcision, although it is often erroneously referred to as such.

Circumcision is the surgical removal of foreskin and only foreskin.

And it does indeed have proven health benefits, that is not a matter of opinion but one of clear scientific fact. However, many of these benefits (e.g. reduction in risk of HIV and other STIs, and reduction in other infections) can also be obtained through careful hygiene and safe sex, and other benefits, such as a reduced risk of penile cancer, affect only an extremely small number of people anyway. So while there are definitively health benefits -- sufficient to offset the cost of the procedure which was the original issue behind the thread -- these are not of sufficient magnitude to necessarily outweigh other considerations, except in populations where HIV prevalence is extremely high and hygienic conditions very poor.

Hence it becomes a matter of informed choice.

And please if you want to have a political or philisophical/ethical debate, take it somewhere other than the HEALTH forum.

[robblok]

Religions aren't selling rational thought ...

I agree, but this will always be a controversial subject. Who funds research often dictates the results.

[Jingthing]

...

So while there are definitively health benefits -- sufficient to offset the cost of the procedure which was the original issue behind the thread -- these are not of sufficient magnitude to necessarily outweigh other considerations, except in populations where HIV prevalence is extremely high and hygienic conditions very poor.

...

Now this is getting more interesting. Male circumcision is widely promoted in Africa, even for adults for HIV prevention reasons. Thailand can still be classed as a high risk HIV country, yes? Yet you don't really hear of this being promoted in Thailand as a way of stemming HIV in future. Why not? Also my understanding is that the HIV risk reducing aspects relate to heterosexual transmission, not homosexual transmission.

Edited August 28, 2012 by Jingthing

[Sheryl]

The HIV reduction would be the same for heteero and homosexual transmission, no reason to think otherwise.

Thailand just barely qualifies as having an HIV endemic with prevalence in the general population estimated at only 1.3% in 2009 (1% is the cut off for being considered an HIV epidemic). It borders on being what is termed a "concentrated epidemic" with significant prevalence in specific at risk populations (sex workers etc) but low prevalence in the general adult population. The countries where circumcision is being promoted have prevalence rates well over 10%.

in other words the number of infections in the general male population of Thailand does not warrant promoting circumcision as a means of HIV prevention.

[Jingthing]

The HIV reduction would be the same for heteero and homosexual transmission, no reason to think otherwise.

Thailand just barely qualifies as having an HIV endemic with prevalence in the general population estimated at only 1.3% in 2009 (1% is the cut off for being considered an HIV epidemic). It borders on being what is termed a "concentrated epidemic" with significant prevalence in specific at risk populations (sex workers etc) but low prevalence in the general adult population. The countries where circumcision is being promoted have prevalence rates well over 10%.

in other words the number of infections in the general male population of Thailand does not warrant promoting circumcision as a means of HIV prevention.

Thanks for that info.

That does make a lot of sense if the rate of infection isn't massively high, it doesn't make sense to promote widespread male circumcision as a national HIV prevention health policy. Clear enough, but I am pretty sure the ACTUAL rate of infection in Thailand is higher than the reported rate, but unlikely to be unreported by a factor of 10.

On the variance between the efficacy of circumcision for HIV prevention for heterosexual vs. homosexual sex, well, all one has to do is some casual googling and people will find the evidence for prevention that does exist is largely about heterosexual sex and when the question of homosexual sex comes up, there doesn't appear to be evidence as yet that circumcision is helpful. Of course quite obviously I am no doctor or scientist, but I am pretty certain that is the mainstream view in medical science these days.

ATLANTA — Circumcision, which has helped prevent AIDS among heterosexual men in Africa, doesn't help protect gay men from the virus, according to the largest U.S. study to look at the question.

The research, presented at a conference Tuesday, is expected to influence the government's first guidance on circumcision.

Circumcision "is not considered beneficial" in stopping the spread of HIV through gay sex, said Dr. Peter Kilmarx, of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

However, the CDC is still considering recommending it for other groups, including baby boys and high-risk heterosexual men.

http://www.msnbc.msn...n/#.UDz_V6Dhtic

Edited August 28, 2012 by Jingthing

[smokie36]

Aren't we already discussing the issue of ethics in OTB gents?

[Jingthing]

Aren't we already discussing the issue of ethics in OTB gents?

This is a medically oriented topic in the Health forum. Cheers.

[smokie36]

Aren't we already discussing the issue of ethics in OTB gents?

This is a medically oriented topic in the Health forum. Cheers.

[SOTIRIOS]

....any way to continue to make a buck....

....it used to be tonsils.....

..and for women, hysterectomies.....

.....and God forbid you eat healthy or take vitamins or minerals or herbs....

(...which the medical and pharmaceutical industries are trying to ban......)

....you could be arrested these days for growing your own vegetables, free of pesticides and whatnot...not to mention raw milk...

...try alternative viewpoints that don't have profit motives......www.naturalnews.com ....www.mercola.com....

Hippocrates said something to the effect of....treat yourself with food.....never heard anything about cutting anything off....

[how241]

This is not a new research finding, just a change in recommendation (based on already existing research). It responds to problems with health care coverage in the US and is aimed at ensuring that circumcision will be covered by state and federal health plans for the poor. The Academy has not made a recommendation that all infants should be circumcised, only stated that it makes sense in health financing terms terms for those plans to cover the procedure for families who opt for it. The whole issue is one of health care financing. there is no new information one way or the other regarding the effects of circumcision

"After a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence, the American Academy of Pediatrics found the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision. The AAP policy statement published Monday, August 27, says the final decision should still be left to parents to make in the context of their religious, ethical and cultural beliefs."

The full policy statement is here:

http://pediatrics.aa.../peds.2012-1989

And the technical review of scientific evidence to date is here:

http://pediatrics.aa.../peds.2012-1990

Good info - Thanks.

[belg]

if you do it for religious purpose: if god create you in his image, why you need to go cut out a piece of it right away an innocent baby is born and does not know concepts like religion...

religion = poisin of the mind

wars are fought, people get murdered all in the name of .... god

and who knows the real truth about this:

why they cut of the foreskin, is only an attempt that the boy will not play (so much) with his new toy ... so to prevent masturbation

that is the hypocrit society of the U ES OF A

Edited September 3, 2012 by belg