# CDC wants US circ program



## ursaminor (Mar 28, 2009)

This is what Intact America's news letter read today:

"
AUGUST 2009
ACT NOW
Next week, officials from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) will be chairing a conference in Atlanta that will include discussions on how to introduce "large scale neonatal and adult male circumcision programs" to the United States.

Intact America will be on the ground to make sure the ethical problems inherent in such programs are not swept under the rug and ignored. "

They provided this link: http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/...tition_KEY=472

I dont even know what to think about this, execpt - Horrifying.


----------



## Marnica (Oct 4, 2008)

Not surprised at all....it is the CDC afterall


----------



## Mama2Kayla (Feb 12, 2005)

OMG, they can't be serious?

WHY?????

This just made me want to puke


----------



## So-Called (Jun 2, 2005)

And to think I used to be proud to be an American. *sigh*


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Is there a link to somewhere that actually states that the CDC is doing this?

-Angela


----------



## ursaminor (Mar 28, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
Is there a link to somewhere that actually states that the CDC is doing this?

-Angela

They did not add a link to a direct source and I am not sure what conference it is. I am going to email IA and ask for one.


----------



## Oliver'sMom (Jul 17, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *So-Called* 
And to think I used to be proud to be an American. *sigh*


I have SO been feeling this way lately! Norway is looking better and better these days...


----------



## SleeplessMommy (Jul 16, 2005)

The USA HAD a "circ program" back in the 70's, when parental consent was not obtained and everyone got circed... HIV spread in the USA despite this.

The huge problem is, CDC support/endorsement of circ will put pressure on many undecided Moms ... the expectation of a medical benefit. it will also increase insurance coverage of circ.


----------



## TCA2008 (Nov 20, 2007)

The CDC has been working hard to "remove financial barriers" to circumcision (in other words, get all Medicaid programs to pay), and has been working on their official guidelines and recommendations.

You can learn more and find links to key contacts at the CDC from the www.circumcisionandhiv.com website (click on CDC/AAP project)

regarding specific links to CDC items of interest:

http://www.cdcnpin.org/scripts/Displ...p?FundNbr=3731
this link is about the male circumcision trials they are currently running in the US

They are co-hosting a conference next week on HIV prevention in the United States, and several sessions are devoted, at least in part, to the "benefits" of circumcision.

The most troubling session is:
http://www.2009nhpc.org/search_abstract.asp?fid=224
The Introduction of Circumcision for HIV Prevention in non-circumcising US communities
the abstract actually lists things like lobbying both the AAP and Medicaid to endorse circumcision, and a goal of increasing circumcision 30% in African American and Hispanic communities in the US

Here is their current summary statement, while drafting their formal recommendations, as you can see, it is heavily pro-circumcision, it completely discounts risks and harms, as well as ethics, and it actually takes studies on adult males in Africa as the primary basis of their current thinking:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/fac...rcumcision.htm

So, while the CDC is investing all of this time and money into promoting circumcision for HIV prevention (the experiment that has already failed in America considering we have the highest rate of HIV AND non-religous newborn circumcision in the developed world) the CDC is choosing to turn a blind eye on all of the risks and harms of circumcision.

If you do contact them, ask them how many newborns die from circumcision every year (they don't know because they won't study this). Ask them how many severe botches their are, and how many MRSA outbreaks are from circumcision - all important public health and safety issues they are ignoring. Earlier this year, a baby in the Atlanta area got a $2.3 million settlement because part of his penis was cut off - did the CDC investigate how common this was? NO

If you have supportive pediatricians, other medical professional in your life - PLEASE talk with them- urge them to contact the CDC about this frightening waste of taxpayer resources.


----------



## beru (Nov 19, 2007)

I just realized that if the CDC really does go through with these recommendations then they will basically lose all credibility with me. If they can be this asinine I don't see how I can trust anything they have to say about any disease prevention issues.


----------



## vegasgrl (Mar 19, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
Is there a link to somewhere that actually states that the CDC is doing this?

-Angela

I just checked out the CDC conference website (http://www.2009nhpc.org/) but didn't see anything referencing circ. That doesn't mean it's not buried somewhere (there are so many abstracts!) but I wish they had included a source.


----------



## vegasgrl (Mar 19, 2009)

I stand corrected...

Session Title: Introducing Male Circumcision for HIV Prevention in Non-Circumcising Communities in the U.S.
Location: Hyatt Regency Atlanta (Hanover C)
Date and Time: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 5:15PM-6:00PM

It's a 45-minute session out of a 4-day conference. While I wholeheartedly agree that it's maddening, counterproductive, and ridiculous, I'm glad it's not like a whole conference to force people to circ!


----------



## Fellow Traveler (Jan 8, 2008)

I'll only add that I think it's instructive to see how other Western countries are approaching this issue. For example, the Australian Federation of AIDS Organization published this briefing paper in February 09:

http://www.afao.org.au/library_docs/...rcumcision.pdf

Quote:

An Australian-born man is estimated to have a 0.02% (0.0002) risk of HIV acquisition if he does not inject drugs or have sex with men. This very low risk means that the population health benefit of an intervention like generalised circumcision programs would be negligible.


----------



## Minarai (Jul 26, 2009)

All this work for NOTHING!


----------



## listipton (Jun 26, 2008)

I'm reading this at work and am thoroughly saddened














:








....and





















:








argh!!!


----------



## fruitful womb (Nov 20, 2004)

This is so stupid. Newborns aren't sexually active. Don't they know this? Americans are already a laughing stalk to the rest of the world. It doesn't help us to implement a mass circ as a"solution". Especially since they said this approach only works for "under developed countries".


----------



## susienjay (Oct 20, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fruitful womb* 
This is so stupid. Newborns aren't sexually active. Don't they know this? Americans are already a laughing stalk to the rest of the world. It doesn't help us to implement a mass circ as a"solution". Especially since they said this approach only works for "under developed countries".

I know but this is the CDC. I'm sure they are figuring that it will be easier and cheaper to circumcise newborns than adults.







:

I hate that it seems to be targeted at minorities, immigrants, and the poor. I really find that disturbing.


----------



## Papai (Apr 9, 2007)

Who didn't see this coming? Once the HIV-circ trials in Africa were touted with acclaim and fanfare in the American media, it was only a matter of time. It doesn't matter if the data isn't applicable. It's "science" and if you argue AGAINST circ, you're now against "preventing disease".


----------



## Papai (Apr 9, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TCA2008* 
The CDC has been working hard to "remove financial barriers" to circumcision (in other words, get all Medicaid programs to pay), and has been working on their official guidelines and recommendations.

You can learn more and find links to key contacts at the CDC from the www.circumcisionandhiv.com website (click on CDC/AAP project)

regarding specific links to CDC items of interest:

http://www.cdcnpin.org/scripts/Displ...p?FundNbr=3731
this link is about the male circumcision trials they are currently running in the US

I see. The potentially positive thing is the data could come out showing circ is ineffective in the battle against HIV in the US. It wouldn't be the first study to prove so. The problem is that depending on who is conducting the study, the data can be tailored to the researcher's favor.

Quote:

They are co-hosting a conference next week on HIV prevention in the United States, and several sessions are devoted, at least in part, to the "benefits" of circumcision.

The most troubling session is:
http://www.2009nhpc.org/search_abstract.asp?fid=224
The Introduction of Circumcision for HIV Prevention in non-circumcising US communities
the abstract actually lists things like lobbying both the AAP and Medicaid to endorse circumcision, and a goal of increasing circumcision 30% in African American and Hispanic communities in the US
Here is their current summary statement, while drafting their formal recommendations, as you can see, it is heavily pro-circumcision, it completely discounts risks and harms, as well as ethics, and it actually takes studies on adult males in Africa as the primary basis of their current thinking:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/fac...rcumcision.htm

Wasn't this already reported? I saw this study in the news somewhere. It was said the study wasn't taken very seriously.


----------



## BlessedMommy2006 (Dec 7, 2007)

Yep, great idea CDC! Maybe you can come out with a female circumcision program next. Afterall, there is some correlation between FGM and lower rates of HIV....

Oh, wait, never mind, I'm using behavior to protect myself from HIV. I think that I'll pass on circ.









Craziness.


----------



## nia82 (May 6, 2008)

This is nuts. Being European, the whole circ-pushing thing is just something I so do not understand. Living in America with a baby/child is in so many ways annoying: the pushing of circs for boys, the push for vaccinations and non-acceptance of having a choice there, the CIO crap, the tough love crap.... Whenever I tell my parents what's considered normal here they are mortified and say that's how they were brought up post world war II. It's like they are one generation behind here (sorry don't wanna be offensive, but I am truly shocked by many practices).
My parents were totally horrified when they heard about circ - it is just that uncommon!!!
The CDC is not my favorite organization exactly. I wonder how many lobby groups and coops are involved in this crap (sorry for the swearing, but it makes me angry!). So many undecided and not well-informed parents will circ their poor little boys.


----------



## Minarai (Jul 26, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nia82* 
This is nuts. Being European, the whole circ-pushing thing is just something I so do not understand. Living in America with a baby/child is in so many ways annoying: the pushing of circs for boys, the push for vaccinations and non-acceptance of having a choice there, the CIO crap, the tough love crap.... Whenever I tell my parents what's considered normal here they are mortified and say that's how they were brought up post world war II. It's like they are one generation behind here (sorry don't wanna be offensive, but I am truly shocked by many practices).
My parents were totally horrified when they heard about circ - it is just that uncommon!!!

And people wonder why the rest of the world hates Americans...









Quote:

The CDC is not my favorite organization exactly. I wonder how many lobby groups and coops are involved in this crap (sorry for the swearing, but it makes me angry!). So many undecided and not well-informed parents will circ their poor little boys.
The CDC is, IME, a lobby group.
There is emerging evidence to prove that they have worked together with greedy doctors and Big Pharma to push costly and unneccessary procedures (i.e. circ) on the (purposefully) uneducated people.
Ever wonder why products like Viagra, KY jelly and Enzyte are so virally popular in the US? It's obvious- doctors intentionally cause problems (via circ, in this case) that they (or others) can profit from treating later. It all operates on the same principle as the whole H1N1 mess (slightly OT, sorry if you want to ban me).
Also, there's the pressing issue of the leftover cut-off foreskins being sold to biotech companies who then extract fibroblast cells and market them in anti-aging cosmetics. Dr. Patricia Wexler openly admitted to using foreskin byproducts in her cosmetic line (which is unfortunately available at Bath & Body Works) on Oprah.


----------



## ursaminor (Mar 28, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nia82* 
This is nuts. Being European, the whole circ-pushing thing is just something I so do not understand. Living in America with a baby/child is in so many ways annoying: the pushing of circs for boys, the push for vaccinations and non-acceptance of having a choice there, the CIO crap, the tough love crap.... Whenever I tell my parents what's considered normal here they are mortified and say that's how they were brought up post world war II. It's like they are one generation behind here (sorry don't wanna be offensive, but I am truly shocked by many practices).
My parents were totally horrified when they heard about circ - it is just that uncommon!!!
The CDC is not my favorite organization exactly. I wonder how many lobby groups and coops are involved in this crap (sorry for the swearing, but it makes me angry!). So many undecided and not well-informed parents will circ their poor little boys.

That's interesting.
My grandmother (or Oma) grew up during WWII. She married a man in US air force, my grandpa (how was interestingly enough, born at home and intact), but a large portion of my extended family still live in Bavaria. They do not understand why this is such a big cause for me. They have a hard time even believing RIC is commonplace in the US it just seems crazy to them.


----------



## Belle (Feb 6, 2005)

I didn't know at all that the CDC was pro circ. I thought there wasn't a medical organization in the world that endorsed RIC.


----------



## ColoradoMama (Nov 22, 2001)

I can't even articulate how angry this all makes me. Thanks for all the links - I will come back and study them when I have a little more time.


----------



## ursaminor (Mar 28, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Belle* 
I didn't know at all that the CDC was pro circ. I thought there wasn't a medical organization in the world that endorsed RIC.

Due to the highly publicized circ/HIV studies in Africa and their proclaimed success, I guess the CDC is now seeing circ as a means to reduce HIV in the US.

I have my own questions about this,...

1. Wasnt it stated that circ would only work to reduce HIV in developing countries not industrialized? Why then are they pushing it here?
2. What currently is the highest HIV/AIDs demographic in the USA? Those studies claimed circ only protected against Female to Male penile/vaginal transmission and later showed no protection from male to female transmission.
3. Wasnt the CDC in the process of creating a statement on circ (following the lead of the AAP)? Why are they already discussing a pretty clear position at this conference?


----------



## PuppyFluffer (Mar 18, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ursaminor* 
That's interesting.
My grandmother (or Oma) grew up during WWII. She married a man in US air force, my grandpa (how was interestingly enough, born at home and intact), but a large portion of my extended family still live in Bavaria. They do not understand why this is such a big cause for me. *They have a hard time even believing RIC is commonplace in the US it just seems crazy to them*.

I am commenting on the bolded portion. I've attended the Genital Integrity Awareness Week demonstration in Washington DC for the past several years. It is held at end of March/beginning of April to coincide with the anniversary of the federal female genital integrity law and the beginning of child abuse prevention week. It is also the start of the Cherry Blossom Festival, which brings many tourists to the city. Many of the foreigners who visit don't understand what we are there for. They think we are just pushing our right to free speech to outlandish topics just because we have the legal right to free speech in America. When you talk to them and get them to understand that this really happens in America, that well over 80% of babies born in the 7o's and 80's are circumcised and that it's now about 50/50, they are stunned. It really shatters their image of the USA as being progressive and intelligent. I've seen many a head shake on the shoulders of non US residents in utter disbelief that circumcision of newborn babies happens on a routine basis.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TCA2008* 
The CDC has been working hard to "remove financial barriers" to circumcision (in other words, get all Medicaid programs to pay), and has been working on their official guidelines and recommendations.

.

I don't see this happening in today's economy.


----------



## ursaminor (Mar 28, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PuppyFluffer* 
I am commenting on the bolded portion. I've attended the Genital Integrity Awareness Week demonstration in Washington DC for the past several years. It is held at end of March/beginning of April to coincide with the anniversary of the federal female genital integrity law and the beginning of child abuse prevention week. It is also the start of the Cherry Blossom Festival, which brings many tourists to the city. Many of the foreigners who visit don't understand what we are there for. They think we are just pushing our right to free speech to outlandish topics just because we have the legal right to free speech in America. When you talk to them and get them to understand that this really happens in America, that well over 80% of babies born in the 7o's and 80's are circumcised and that it's now about 50/50, they are stunned. It really shatters their image of the USA as being progressive and intelligent. I've seen many a head shake on the shoulders of non US residents in utter disbelief that circumcision of newborn babies happens on a routine basis.

Yeah totally know what you mean. I was at GIAW, in 2004 (if my memory serves me right), and one memorable conversation I had was with a South Korean man who was on a tour of DC. For all who dont know, South Korea adopted circumcision after US presence in their country and now nearly universally circ in early adolescence or adulthood. Anyway, the man spoke to me pretty candidly about how he really felt violated by the circumcision he endured in his early teen and that he would never want any future sons to go through that. It was just interesting talking with someone who expressed an intactivist view from a country with an even higher circ rate then our own.
I really hope to be able to get the GIAW next year.


----------



## Dave2GA (Jul 31, 2005)

I am attending the CDC HIV Prevention Conference. It began this evening. It seems plain to me that the CDC intends to recommend infants be circed to "prevent" HIV and other STDs. I will be asking hard questions. But I believe Dr. Kilmarx and others are very much in favor of circ. The NY Times just came out with an article on the conference. It indicates the AAP will find the benefits outweigh the risks. This is what Edgar Schoen has been pushing for. It is very important that everyone sign the Intact America CDC petition and it is very important that everyone write the AAP expressing dismay if ethics should be ignored and MGM should be essentially endorsed.


----------



## PuppyFluffer (Mar 18, 2002)

I feel sick in the pit of my stomach reading your update Dave! I've signed and will write letters....


----------



## Quirky (Jun 18, 2002)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/he...cision.html?hp

Horrifying.


----------



## Minarai (Jul 26, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PuppyFluffer* 
I feel sick in the pit of my stomach reading your update Dave! I've signed and will write letters....

I signed too, but my gut tells me it's not gonna work...







:

I'm so glad I decided to leave the USA when I graduate from college. I will NEVER give birth to or raise children in a country where MGM is required by law.


----------



## Jenivere (Aug 4, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Quirky* 
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/he...cision.html?hp

Horrifying.


That makes me very very angry.


----------



## lawmama1984 (Mar 17, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Quirky* 
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/he...cision.html?hp

Horrifying.

Wow,







I just posted that link to my FB wall with this caption:

"Condoms and safe sex practices, not routine infant circumcision, prevent the transmission of HIV. Babies are not having sex. To give the impression that being circumcised somehow gives extra protection against HIV is counterproductive and dangerous.

Signed,

Dr. Obvious"


----------



## Papai (Apr 9, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Quirky* 
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/he...cision.html?hp

Horrifying.

God.







:

To say this is disheartening would be too little. The lobbyists and policymakers in our country's health agencies make me sick.

The article itself was actual a little even-handed. Intact America's POV wasn't dismissed as "radical" for once.


----------



## Papai (Apr 9, 2007)

We need medical organizations from intact countries to stand up to this "research." So far, the only org that's been consistent has been the medical organization from Tasmania. But where's Britain? France? Spain? Italy? Brazil? Mexico? Japan? China??? Anybody?


----------



## tennisdude23 (Apr 2, 2008)

It's late at night; so, I will try to make this post short, lol. The news so far is not the best, but it's not bad either. The gist of this, to put into perspective, is nothing new. The basic message of the CDC/AAP seems to be that the benefits MAY outweigh the risk. All of us who have been following the HIV/circ. connection closely have known all along that something like this may come out from the CDC/AAP. What's interesting and very encouraging, however, is that the ethical considerations and problems with the medical science are given weight in this article, which I think is really important. In other words, the message of Intact America and its sister organizations is getting out. Furthermore, I see that people seem to be turning away from circumcision, at least that's the mood on the internet, which I think is great. To me it's clear that there are people out there who want federal money to back their research and programs, even if that research is highly questionable. The CDC, AAP, AMA, you name it, are political organizations, and their decisions have as much to do with politics and economics as they do with health care. I think we should examine such news within the greater health debate context that is happening right now. With an ailing economy and growing debt, it's clear that this nation needs to cut unnecessary spending and restructure current programs if we are serious about true health care reform. Obviously, doing away with cosmetic surgeries is a great start.


----------



## fruitful womb (Nov 20, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Papai* 
We need medical organizations from intact countries to stand up to this "research." So far, the only org that's been consistent has been the medical organization from Tasmania. But where's Britain? France? Spain? Italy? Brazil? Mexico? Japan? China??? Anybody?

That would be nice. Please help us.

My (momentarily paranoid nature) insecurities tell me that the countries who value the intact male are using this opportunity to sneer with great joy at the fact (thought) that we're being attacked. Knives are meeting the American newborn genitals. Violence at its very best.


----------



## paulamc (Jun 25, 2008)

Deleted post b/c just realized someone already posted the link to the NY Times article.


----------



## Livviesmom0207 (Mar 21, 2007)

Nancy Snyderman and Matt Lauer are discussing this right now. It's pretty disgusting.


----------



## ericaz (Jun 10, 2003)

Just read the NYT article. Can someone point me to threads or links that I can use as a counter-argument if my parents (undoubtedly) get wind of this. They haven't supported our choice not to circ my son (he's 16 months and I still have a bad taste in my mouth over how they treated us immediately following his birth) and I'd like to be prepared in case they throw this *research* in my face.


----------



## Eman'smom (Mar 19, 2002)

I just watched the Today Show, I think I'm going to be sick.


----------



## Pumpkinheadmommy (Nov 6, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Minarai* 
I signed too, but my gut tells me it's not gonna work...







:

I'm so glad I decided to leave the USA when I graduate from college. I will NEVER give birth to or raise children in a country where MGM is required by law.









The article doesn't say they intend to require it by law and I'm pretty sure that's not what the CDC is suggesting. They just want to recommend that parents do it, which of course is only a little better.


----------



## JohannaInDairyland (Mar 24, 2009)

Here's the link (I think) for the clip from the Today Show ...

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/261848...37110#32537110

I'm still not convinced that performing unnecessary surgery on an infant that cannot consent is the best wast to stop the spread of HIV in the US.


----------



## jtrt (Feb 25, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *JohannaInDairyland* 
Here's the link (I think) for the clip from the Today Show ...

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/261848...37110#32537110

I'm still not convinced that performing unnecessary surgery on an infant that cannot consent is the best wast to stop the spread of HIV in the US.









In the clip, Nancy Snyderman alludes that the reduction in the transmission of chlamydia and herpes through routine circumcision of all male infants is another benefit.

Why surgically alter people's genitals without their consent rather than teach them *many years after birth* to choose sex partners wisely and wear condoms? I just don't get it









Amy
Momma to 3 intact boys


----------



## Katerz2u (Jul 14, 2006)

I just saw the clip when I was checking my email.







: Man I'm so upset. Just disgusted.


----------



## tennisdude23 (Apr 2, 2008)

I just looked at the NBC clip, and I thought it was complete BS. It made me really mad.







"No doubt there is a 50% reduction rate." What utter BS. That lady made it sound as if uncircumcised men are a public health threat. I can guarantee you that she never looked at the HIV studies or their criticisms. I think that the way this story is being covered is also total BS. There won't be any recommendation for routine surgery. The science does not hold up. It says that pretty clearly in the NYT article two paragraphs in. This is a perfect example of disinformation and scare tactics. Forcing men to get circumcised? Am I living in a fanatical dictatorship or the United States of America? What kind of question is that? Again, this is an example of disinformation and scare tactics. I am so glad that Intact America is at the Atlanta conference, and I hope that Ms. Chapin and others will counter all this utterly ridiculous rubbish.


----------



## nia82 (May 6, 2008)

It makes my blood boil and makes me wanna puke. Sorry. I won't even look at that clip, I might throw the laptop against the wall as a reaction....
Ok I'm gonna out my DH as a Rush Limbaugh listener here. He called me down cause he was talking about it. And even he said: leave our penises alone!
Arrggghh I'm more and more inclined not to apply for citizenship this December, I'm so mad about the pressure to mutilate and change our children in the USA. Not saying there is no push for things in Europe, but circ isn't among them.


----------



## enstar780 (Jun 15, 2006)

I saw the news reports. I already have posted comments to many of them. Many of the news articles, which show pro-circ bias, also ignore the main reasons of pro-intact movement. They focus on the HIV argument, question as to the validity or effectiveness of HIV, whicha re important areas, but miss the fact that no matter if the studies are correct or not, no matter if circumcision prevents HIV or not, circumcision of children is still wrong. The main reason circumcision is wrong is that it violates bodily integrity rights of the person and is in violation of medical ethics since it is destruction of a healthy and normal body part of a child. It already qualifies to be illegal under law as an assualt for that reason.

We as a society cannot conviently exclude certain acts from assault laws because they are popular or we cant accept the fact we have been assaulting our boys for all these years. Basically some people judge acts by how popular it is, how long it has been done for, and whethe they have done it, not based on what it actually does to the victim or some consistent ethical principle. Assaults are defined as being a physical injury to a person, it could be a hitting of a person, or it could be a cutting them or destroying a body part. A constistent principle does not make rules arbitrarily. Unless we are to allow the possibility that anything can be permitted, including cutting of childrens arms and legs, as long as a doctor does it in a sanity environment and enough people do it, we need to place a boundary between what is valid medical procedure and an assault, this boundary is where there isa scientifically verifiable present and current medical abnormality on the part which is serious or life threatening and urgently requires the surgery, and where there is not. a consenting person can consent to optional surgeris but since children cannot always consent, first any amputation has to pass the medical necessity criteria being required to treat current and present medical conditions.

Because of the fact we cannot accept the hard reality of circumcision, abd people remain in ignorance and try to continue to promote the practice to try to avoid having to confront reality, the assault and crime continues to be amplified and worsened by its continueing infliction on children. The herd effect is similar, people simply think that if enough people do something, it must be okay. These repeater activity basically results in people not thinking for themselves but instead like a herd, letting others think for them. It often can result in terrible atrocities being propogated without people even thinking about and questioning what it is, atrocities which would be clearly wrong to an outsider who has not be subjected to cultural brainwashing and herd behaviours. One example is chinese foot binding. It was instantly recognisable to westerners that this was a horrific practice, but to the chinese, they had been so brainwashed by the cultural herd of programmed, mindless thinking, they thought it was normal.


----------



## JollyGG (Oct 1, 2008)

Here is my response to a friends post on facebook mentioning the CDCs probable new recommendation.

"0.7% of the population is effected by HIV in the United States. There is a 2-10% rate of complications resulting from routine circumcision. Therefore the risk/benefits ratio clearly does not favor routine circumcision.

An uncircumcised male will reap the benefits of being intact as well as avoiding any possible complications from circumcision.

If it is so effective at preventing HIV transmission why are we not recommending that the 40% of the US population of ADULT males who are uncircumcised go get the procedure? (You know the people who are actually having sex)"


----------



## childsplay (Sep 4, 2007)

Horrible, horrible, horrible....and they'll use the 'HIV threat' to terrorize new parents into doing it.
HIV is prevented through education, condoms, needle exchange programs, early safe sex education in our schools, and awareness, not through infant genital mutilation.


----------



## Narn (Nov 7, 2007)

I can't believe that lady said that circumcision is "tougher" on adult men than it is on newborns. Is being strapped down and screaming through the surgery easier? Did anyone ask a newborn how "tough" his circumcision was?

Did anyone ever do a study on HIV transmission amonge circumcised FEMALES? If that showed a decrease in HIV would the CDC be pushing for cicumcision of a American FEMALES? I'd love to see that outcry.


----------



## Minarai (Jul 26, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *childsplay* 
Horrible, horrible, horrible....and they'll use the 'HIV threat' to terrorize new parents into doing it.

Just like they did to my brother...









Quote:

HIV is prevented through education, condoms, needle exchange programs, early safe sex education in our schools, and awareness, not through infant genital mutilation.








*BUT!*
Conservative parents, churches and politicians (especially down here) have been fighting sex education in schools for a LONG time, claiming it's an introduction to sexual deviance and/or promiscuity. They argue in favor of parents talking it over with their kids or just not talking about it at all, since kids' minds are oh-so-fragile and we don't want them dabbling in any "taboo" subjects.


----------



## LianneM (May 26, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Narn* 
I can't believe that lady said that circumcision is "tougher" on adult men than it is on newborns. Is being strapped down and screaming through the surgery easier? Did anyone ask a newborn how "tough" his circumcision was?

Yeah, that was seriously out there. If you ask adult men, circ is tougher on adults. Well gee, makes sense to ramp up the surgery on the peope who can't talk then, huh?


----------



## HisBeautifulWife (Jun 18, 2008)

So what's the financial and or political benefit behind this?

I'm trying to connect the dots but it's not matching up. There's always a political or financial aspect when dealing with things like this. (Health care, maternity care, vaccinations, etc)

What's the connection? And what do they get out of this?


----------



## TCA2008 (Nov 20, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ericaz* 
Just read the NYT article. Can someone point me to threads or links that I can use as a counter-argument if my parents (undoubtedly) get wind of this. They haven't supported our choice not to circ my son (he's 16 months and I still have a bad taste in my mouth over how they treated us immediately following his birth) and I'd like to be prepared in case they throw this *research* in my face.

go to the intactamerica.org website and click on the "news" section - there is a recent article about the "myth of circumcision and HIV" - that will be good amunition.


----------



## TCA2008 (Nov 20, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HisBeautifulWife* 
So what's the financial and or political benefit behind this?

I'm trying to connect the dots but it's not matching up. There's always a political or financial aspect when dealing with things like this. (Health care, maternity care, vaccinations, etc)

What's the connection? And what do they get out of this?

well, a couple of things - first, if you think about every American boy being born with a $500 coupon on his foreskin - that shows physician and hospital motivation to continue the practice.

And second, and I really think this is the most important - recently there has been a lot more talk about ethics - there was a lawsuit a few years ago from an 18 year old that sued his doctor for circumcising him as a newborn (and won a settlement). I think this scared some doctors a lot. Keep in mind the American Academy of Pediatrics is a trade organization, with their first priority of protecting and benefitting their members. If there recommendations also benefit children, great, but if a choice must be made, this group must go for its members. I think the AAP is seeing the writing on the wall - either they must "prove" newborn circumcision offers "significant" medical benefit, or they must put down their knives. Legally, they cannot continue to remove healthy body parts for no medical reason - thing about what would happen - the floodgates of lawsuits would evantually open.
The CDC, is heavily political - it has been heavily lobbied by a few pro-circumcision people, and is clearly made up of people who are circumcised. Are they really in a position to acknowledge the harms?


----------



## Bm31 (Jun 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TCA2008* 
The CDC, is heavily political - it has been heavily lobbied by a few pro-circumcision people, and is clearly made up of people who are circumcised. Are they really in a position to acknowledge the harms?

And what I'd like to know is are they prepared to apologize for and compensate every boy who gets a life-long botched circ. thanks to their stance?? Every time I hear them saying benefits outweigh risks, I want to throw up. What they're saying to the 2-10 out of 100 that get the botch jobs is TOO BAD.....the other 90-98 went just FINE!







:


----------



## MissMommyNiceNice (May 1, 2007)

This is awful! I hope everyone took the poll at the todayshow.com. Bomb the board and let them know what people really think. Idiots!

I already voted, so it wouldn't let me go right to the page, but it's on the upper right hand side right under the pic of the baby.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/


----------



## annethcz (Apr 1, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MissMommyNiceNice* 
This is awful! I hope everyone took the poll at the todayshow.com. Bomb the board and let them know what people really think. Idiots!

I already voted, so it wouldn't let me go right to the page, but it's on the upper right hand side right under the pic of the baby.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/

Here's the direct link:
http://www.newsvine.com/_question/20...et-circumcised

Currently at 36% in favor of RIC, 60% opposed.


----------



## SleeplessMommy (Jul 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Narn* 

Did anyone ever do a study on HIV transmission amonge circumcised FEMALES? If that showed a decrease in HIV would the CDC be pushing for cicumcision of a American FEMALES? I'd love to see that outcry.

That study was done also (comparing women who had previously undergone FGM with intact women). The FGM group had lover HIV infection rates, though also different cultural/economic background. Fortunately, there is no pro-FGM lobby in the USA at this time.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Here's a NY Times article about it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/he...n.html?_r=1&em


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SleeplessMommy* 
That study was done also (comparing women who had previously undergone FGM with intact women). The FGM group had lover HIV infection rates, though also different cultural/economic background. Fortunately, there is no pro-FGM lobby in the USA at this time.









I've heard this before- does anyone have a link to this info? I would LOVE to post it around...

-Angela


----------



## Papai (Apr 9, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
I've heard this before- does anyone have a link to this info? I would LOVE to post it around...

-Angela

http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138


----------



## zebu (Sep 18, 2007)

here is an article that pokes holes in the Africa study:

http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV-SA.html

If only we could get people to bother reading it.


----------



## minkajane (Jun 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nmbutts* 
here is an article that pokes holes in the Africa study:

http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV-SA.html

If only we could get people to bother reading it.

I just posted this on Facebook. A lot of people I know are pregnant right now, including at least two with boys. Hopefully this will make a difference.


----------



## THBVsMommy (Mar 13, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annethcz* 
Here's the direct link:
http://www.newsvine.com/_question/20...et-circumcised

Currently at 36% in favor of RIC, 60% opposed.

I voted.


----------



## zensven42 (Oct 26, 2006)

OK, here is the abstract book for the conference:
http://www.2009nhpc.org/doc/2009_NHPC_Abstract_Book.pdf

On page 140 is the one you have been referring to: DR09 - Introducing Male Circumcision for HIV Prevention in Non-Circumcising Communities in the U.S.

Looks like they are going to be specifically targeting African-Americans and Hispanics

Also of interest page 221
Presentation Title: Elective Male Circumcision for the Prevention of HIV

and page 13
Presentation Title: Physicians' Knowledge of and Attitudes Toward Male Circumcision as a Means to Reduce HIV Acquisition

I think the big mistake they are making is that it makes no sense to circumcise infants as they do not have sex, but should instead just educate sexually active male adults that if they want to have repeated unprotected sex with partners of which they are not sure of their HIV status, circumcision can delay how long it takes for them to contract HIV


----------



## lovemybubus (Oct 2, 2007)

I'm happily surprised by the poll percentage rates against circ! Did MDC just blow it up or what?! Or better thought: is the US really changing?


----------



## chambom (Dec 11, 2007)

NPR was talking about the studies in Africa this morning. Actually everyone- the hosts and guests felt that the study couldn't really be translated to the US. We have the highest rate of circumcision of industrialized countries and also the highest rate of HIV.

The host really went after the idea that these studies mean every newborn boy should be circumcized. The one guest said that parents should present the pros and cons and he said- "what, to the baby?".


----------



## kiara7 (Feb 14, 2008)

The study that I would like to see is "HIV and STD transmission in Newborn Males". THAT ONE might get some attention, no?

CDC is a UAV.


----------



## NamastePlatypus (Jan 22, 2007)

I vomited when I heard yesterday, literaly. I am so mad and sad and pissed and every bad emotion there is!
I am going to post the video in the link here on my facebook who wants to join me, people have to see what they are doing, more than likely they are not! WHO WANTS TO JOIN ME!?


----------



## nia82 (May 6, 2008)

I'm ready for a bumper sticker. Usually, I keep opions to myself (IRL lol), but I really want an anti circ sticker. Where can I get one?


----------



## Fellow Traveler (Jan 8, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chambom* 
NPR was talking about the studies in Africa this morning. Actually everyone- the hosts and guests felt that the study couldn't really be translated to the US. We have the highest rate of circumcision of industrialized countries and also the highest rate of HIV.

The host really went after the idea that these studies mean every newborn boy should be circumcized. The one guest said that parents should present the pros and cons and he said- "what, to the baby?".

What show was that? I'd like to listen to the archive.


----------



## phatchristy (Jul 6, 2005)

It's rather obvious they don't approach this from a logical, scientific or ethical standpoint...and we have pretty clear evidence how in Europe we have really low rates of HIV with an intact culture. And here in the US, where the majority of men are already circ'd we have much higher rates.

Yes, the CDC and those making up this policy are all made up of circumcised men....I'm sure they wouldn't admit to any bias.

Mass cultural psychosis--that is what this whole phenomenon is. And, for those of us who have the ability to take a step back, to use logic and reason are pretty darn &*(^&* mad about what is going on. Now, with the tides turning the last 15 years or so, people are questioning and they medical community now making that mad dash to do something to increase the plummiting circumcision rates to ensure not only their steady source of income among other things...

It seems pretty flippin obvious that we shouldn't have a right to chop normal parts off of our children's genitals. How can people not see that?

What is with the double standard. Why? Don't my baby boys deserve protection as much as my baby girls?

(speaking as a mother of 2 boys and 2 girls all of this stuff freaks me out...what does it mean for future generations?)

Just when I thought people in this country were seeing the lunacy!

And, you know, they don't want to do a true study on circumcision death/complication rates in infants. Because if they did one they would likely find out it was like that study they did in Britain all those years ago, after which virtually circumcision stopped, because they discovered how risky it was.

Head beating against the wall...

how many baby boys/men are going to be suffering because of this?

They really need to have some non-biased pediatricians/MDs address these issues in the media.


----------



## phatchristy (Jul 6, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chambom* 
NPR was talking about the studies in Africa this morning. Actually everyone- the hosts and guests felt that the study couldn't really be translated to the US. We have the highest rate of circumcision of industrialized countries and also the highest rate of HIV.

The host really went after the idea that these studies mean every newborn boy should be circumcized. The one guest said that parents should present the pros and cons and he said- "what, to the baby?".

Yes...educated people GET THIS!


----------



## aran (Feb 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *JollyGG* 
If it is so effective at preventing HIV transmission why are we not recommending that the 40% of the US population of ADULT males who are uncircumcised go get the procedure? (You know the people who are actually having sex)"


Quote:


Originally Posted by *zensven42*
I think the big mistake they are making is that it makes no sense to circumcise infants as they do not have sex, but should instead just educate sexually active male adults that if they want to have repeated unprotected sex with partners of which they are not sure of their HIV status, circumcision can delay how long it takes for them to contract HIV


Quote:


Originally Posted by *kiara7*
The study that I would like to see is "HIV and STD transmission in Newborn Males". THAT ONE might get some attention, no?

ITA with these points raised by PPs. I see this as the same rationale CDC uses with the recommendation to give newborns - at only a few days old - a vaccination for hepatitis. Where, like this, the target population for the vaccination is promiscuous, illicit drug-using adults.

In both cases, the risk of CDC's "prevention" strategy (RIC) is borne by many many babies that grow up *not* to engage in the risky behavior that would make the "prevention" necessary in the first place. (And that generously assumes that circ actually would prevent some HIV transmissions, which I am not sure has actually been established). It's like punishing the many for the "sins" of the few. It isn't logical.


----------



## zoeyzoo (Jul 6, 2007)

This was recently on the Today show... they were saying that the AAP was planing on changing their position on circ too.


----------



## phatchristy (Jul 6, 2005)

http://www.healthnews.com/family-hea...-hiv-3469.html

You know, it's amazing that these researchers can't see their bias







:...they go out to prove one thing (circ decreases HIV for women for example) and then start a study, then stop the study--not because they find more women being infected by the circumcised partners (which was the case) but because their research not only didn't support their position but refuted it...

Circumcision in men appears to increase HIV transmission from men to women. I dont' think a lot of us women here are surprised about that. Because we know that the foreskin insures that a woman's natural lubrication stays in, and also ensures comfortable and less abrasive intercourse. Circumcision, allowed the natural lubrication to wick out, and decreased sensitivity often leads to men requiring rougher intercourse in order to climax.

The overwhelming majority of women I've talked to IRL and here on MDC agree with those...and scientifically the machanics are correct. If you look at animal studies where circumcision were performed on the males you see those same sort of issues with coitus. I took an animal physiology course in college and they had 'the purpose of the foreskin' on there (of course though I'm sure most of the men in the class wanted to just not consider themselves as having 'animal physiology' though it was indeed applicable to humans.

It's just so plain obvious what the plan here is...







. That is what bugs the *&(^ out of me. It defies logic, and just when I think for once the majority of the population is starting to question this routine genital alteration of boys this kind of stuff happens. Grrr....

And, of course in irony in this article the picture up there is a bunch of condoms. Which of course is the only proven way to prevent HIV transmission.

What are we telling our future generations of men here?

As a parent, logic tells me that I teach my children about safer sex practices. It is about education.

You don't chop off nerve dense tissue from their private parts because you think they might not wear condoms. You teach them to wear condoms, and you give the education to make the right decisions.

This is not sub saharan Africa either...if you look at the Australian PDF which has their stance, it is quite reasonable. The main mode of transmission is receptive anal intercourse--I believe that is the same here in the US. The heterosexual trasmission from a woman to a man is rather low as it is--and I think people forget that and start making blanket statements. I've already heard the US media here using the blanket statement "circumcision reduces the rate of HIV 60%" while in reality they have no clue what their saying and what it implies is completley different than what is accurate. That was one study in AFRICA which only studied heterosexual female to male transmission. That is not a common way for HIV to be transmitted in this country at all. So, no way in heck it would reduce HIV by 60%







...it's such a joke that the media is representing it this way because here we are, with the majority of US men circumcised and we've got the highest HIV rates in the developed world.
















:







:

I'm trying to not get upset, but it's really difficult not to. Because when you're not biased, and you read the facts and a scientist it's pretty darn obvious this should not be applied to newborn babies in this country!


----------



## karlugato (Sep 9, 2006)

I am so worn out. This is just ... beyond words how people can be so cruel for profit. And that is all it is. I just can not fathom why people don't understand that it is the WRONG thing to do.

I feel stuck. And tired. ANd I need to know this will get better. I need to work for this. Will it ever get better? Sorry.. a little rambly, I'm a little depressed...

Anyone have some ideas to stop this? It should be illegal. My new mission is to make this illegal. Ugh.


----------



## hparsh (Jun 12, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SleeplessMommy* 
That study was done also (comparing women who had previously undergone FGM with intact women). The FGM group had lover HIV infection rates, though also different cultural/economic background. Fortunately, there is no pro-FGM lobby in the USA at this time.









What does FGM stand for? Is there a link to this study? I debate this issue with some women I know, and I want to come armed.

This news about the CDC absolutely disgusts me.


----------



## zoeyzoo (Jul 6, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *phatchristy* 
And, you know, they don't want to do a true study on circumcision death/complication rates in infants. Because if they did one they would likely find out it was like that study they did in Britain all those years ago, after which virtually circumcision stopped, because they discovered how risky it was.

Does anyone have a link to this study? I have someone I'm trying to convince who thinks the cosmetic reasons are enough. I think something like this would help.


----------



## Quirky (Jun 18, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hparsh;*
What does FGM stand for? Is there a link to this study? I debate this issue with some women I know, and I want to come armed.

This news about the CDC absolutely disgusts me.

FGM is Female Genital Mutilation. I prefer to call it FGC -- Female Genital Cutting. Less of a loaded term (and easier to call it MGC and not close people's ears right away when they hear the term "mutilation").

Link is here: http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138


----------



## NamastePlatypus (Jan 22, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *karlugato* 
I am so worn out. This is just ... beyond words how people can be so cruel for profit. And that is all it is. I just can not fathom why people don't understand that it is the WRONG thing to do.

I feel stuck. And tired. ANd I need to know this will get better. I need to work for this. Will it ever get better? Sorry.. a little rambly, I'm a little depressed...

Anyone have some ideas to stop this? It should be illegal. My new mission is to make this illegal. Ugh.

you said it sister


----------



## phatchristy (Jul 6, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ZoeyZoo* 
Does anyone have a link to this study? I have someone I'm trying to convince who thinks the cosmetic reasons are enough. I think something like this would help.

Oh, they have that 'timeline' animation basically that shows the rates based on year...hopefully someone knows what I'm talking about and has the link. It's talked about in there. It's like an animation that shows rates in US, UK and other parts of the world by year.


----------



## karlugato (Sep 9, 2006)

Quote:

quote removed by administrator

I sure do hope not. I think it is just so ingrained in this culture that to do anything else is preposterous. I have been feeling like that though. On other boards I will be involved in discussion and some moms said they just did it because they can and they will not read any research or studies because they won't change their mind. Fingers in their ears singing ladeeda deedaa... I just don't get that mindset. At all. I really think that they are just trying to get my goat.

Or they were misinformed or not informed at all and they don't want to admit to themselves or anyone else of any wrongdoing. That is a big barrier to push past.

Today I have renewed hope.


----------



## Frootloop (Aug 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *phatchristy* 
Oh, they have that 'timeline' animation basically that shows the rates based on year...hopefully someone knows what I'm talking about and has the link. It's talked about in there. It's like an animation that shows rates in US, UK and other parts of the world by year.


Do you mean this one?

http://www.icgi.org/medicalization/#Page_64


----------



## jenP (Aug 22, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *karlugato* 
Or they were misinformed or not informed at all and they don't want to admit to themselves or anyone else of any wrongdoing. That is a big barrier to push past.

To me, that sums up exactly why the CDC is considering this recommendation. To "prove" that American doctors and hospitals were "right" all along with the huge numbers of routine infant circumcisions. "See, all you people who were questioning our rights to take your children without your informed consent or often your consent at all? Well, you have no reason to complain because we were SAVING YOUR CHILDREN FROM AIDS!!! So you can all line up to get yourselves and your children circumcised now and STOP ASKING QUESTIONS!!"

I just can't believe anyone could consider surgery on infants as a "protection" against a sexually transmitted disease of adults. Even imagining there were no ethical considerations, the risks of the surgery are far greater than the "protection" afforded anyway (reducing risk of HIV from heterosexual vaginal intercourse from 0.03% to 0.015%.) And of course, there are HUGE ethical concerns. Who knows what will happen in these boys' lives? Some, sadly, may never survive childhood. Some may be celibate. Some may marry and be faithful to a faithful spouse. So they need to be subjected to risky, painful, amputative surgery as infants.... WHY? What would be wrong with letting young adult men decide how THEY wish to deal with avoiding HIV? They may or may not feel that circumcision would be useful to them.
The only reason I've heard for NOT letting adults choose for themselves was the pediatrician on the Today show who was featured along with Ms. Chapin from IntactAmerica:this pro-circ doctor said that it is too hard for parents to talk about sex with their children and teens. Wonderful. So instead of teaching our children about sexuality and sexually transmitted diseases and ways to reduce chances of getting one, we will just perform painful risky amputative surgery on them when they are infants. Then we won't ever have to bring up those icky subjects! Great!

Jen


----------



## readytobedone (Apr 6, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Quirky* 
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/he...cision.html?hp

Horrifying.

sorry if this has already been discussed, but the article says:

"But they acknowledge that a circumcision drive in the United States would be unlikely to have a drastic impact: the procedure does not seem to protect those at greatest risk here, men who have sex with men."

how is it that circ protects straight, but not gay, men? does your foreskin know whether you're having sex with a man or a woman? REALLY? if foreskins are that smart, we'd better get rid of them, or they'll take over the world!







:







:







:


----------



## ~RememberToForget~ (Aug 21, 2009)

Does anyone have a link to that poll that was on the today show website? I couldn't find it on there.


----------



## Papai (Apr 9, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *~RememberToForget~* 
Does anyone have a link to that poll that was on the today show website? I couldn't find it on there.

http://www.newsvine.com/_question/20...et-circumcised


----------



## elanorh (Feb 1, 2006)

I told our anti-circ Pediatrician that I'd heard rumors that the AAP and CDC were considering changing their stances, this past spring, and she said she hadn't heard anything about it, and couldn't believe it would be true.

I guess I'll be bringing it up again at dd2's 3 year appointment. The more vocal our knowledgeable, intactivist HCPs can be in this instance, I think the better. But while our Ped does her best to keep up on recent research etc. in all areas - she's got a lot on her plate! So it's up to us to make sure those we know support this cause, have a heads-up to try to counter this.

I just can't believe that they're going to make this recommendation (or want to). It's awful. I certainly hope that it doesn't go through, and that those of us opposed to circ aren't going to end up having to come up with a 'religious exemption' argument against it, just as some are having to use against vaccinations.


----------



## glongley (Jun 30, 2004)

They're not talking about it being mandatory, but floating the idea (leaning in favor) of making an official recommendation in favor of newborn circumcision, and making it a legal requirement that Medicaid (or presumably any public health reform plan) would have to pay for it.


----------



## aran (Feb 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *glongley* 
They're not talking about it being mandatory, but floating the idea (leaning in favor) of making an official recommendation in favor of newborn circumcision, and making it a legal requirement that Medicaid (or presumably any public health reform plan) would have to pay for it.

I am not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying it's no big deal because it wouldn't be mandatory? Because that's what it sounds like to me.... just thinking other people might interpret that way too.


----------



## minkajane (Jun 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aran* 
I am not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying it's no big deal because it wouldn't be mandatory? Because that's what it sounds like to me.... just thinking other people might interpret that way too.

She's just saying we won't have to come up with exemptions or anything like that, since it won't be required like vaccines. She never said it was no big deal, just that it's not as bad as some people are making it out to be. A recommendation is not as difficult to fight as a requirement.


----------



## glongley (Jun 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *minkajane* 
She's just saying we won't have to come up with exemptions or anything like that, since it won't be required like vaccines. She never said it was no big deal, just that it's not as bad as some people are making it out to be. A recommendation is not as difficult to fight as a requirement.

This is the more correct interpretation of my post. It's still a big deal, it's still bad But just trying to clarify what has been said by the CDC so far, as stated in the NYT article. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

Gillian


----------



## hparsh (Jun 12, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Quirky* 
FGM is Female Genital Mutilation. I prefer to call it FGC -- Female Genital Cutting. Less of a loaded term (and easier to call it MGC and not close people's ears right away when they hear the term "mutilation").

Link is here: http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138

That link didn't work for me.


----------



## SleeplessMommy (Jul 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *readytobedone* 
sorry if this has already been discussed, but the article says:

"But they acknowledge that a circumcision drive in the United States would be unlikely to have a drastic impact: the procedure does not seem to protect those at greatest risk here, men who have sex with men."

how is it that circ protects straight, but not gay, men? does your foreskin know whether you're having sex with a man or a woman? REALLY?

The "receptive partner" (male or female) of an infected male receives a viral load in the ejaculate. Of course if a condom is used correctly, risk is very close to zero. The anus, apparently, is 5 times more likely to be infected _per act_ than the vagina. HIV grew so rapidly in the gay community because of unprotected intercourse, multiple partners and IV drug use *in a small portion of the gay community.* The "insertive partner" (male) is at risk for infection if there is an open wound or sore on the penis, allowing an entry point for the virus. (allegedly, the foreskin itself acts as an open door to the virus.) The "pro circ" movement claims to slightly reduce the 5 per 10,000 risk for the insertive male, and no reduction for the receptive partner. (I have not seen any exact number on what the new risk is claimed to be.) In fact, I believe one study suggested infection was more likely for the receptive partner of a circed male - intercourse is less gentle.

*Infection risk for non-condom protected activity* (source: wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS)
Receptive anal intercourse 50 out of 10,000
Insertive anal intercourse6.5 out of 10,000
Receptive penile-vaginal intercourse 10 out of 10,000
Insertive penile-vaginal intercourse 5 out of 10,000

*non-sexual transmission*
Needle-sharing injection drug use 67 out of 10,000
Blood Transfusion 9,000 out of 10,000

There are several huge problems with the circumcision craze in Africa (and proposed circ craze in the USA)
* Needle sharing and "receptive" intercourse are currently major sources of transmission - these will not be fixed by circ. Women receive only (alleged) "indirect" protection.
* The suggestion of (self) protection for the circed partner will make them less likely to use condoms for their partner's protection








* A circed male, not yet healed, has an increased risk of infecting his partner.








* A circed infant won't be sexually active for 12-18 years - any "benefit" is delayed.









Anyway, the "fix" offered by circ is pretty lame compared to the know risk reduction provided by needle sharing programs, condom usage and eduction. I am really disappointed that the CDC is even considering this.


----------



## vachi73 (Mar 26, 2009)

I have been academically interested in the press (internet) coverage of this debate. The day that it actually was being discussed (Monday, I think? or Tuesday?), it was a "lead" story on the Today show, and one of the lead links off of msnbc.com. Then, all of the sudden, it was pulled off ... and replaced by the Michael Jackson coroner's report story. The next day, there was a link to an article discussing the fact that circ is of no benefit for AIDS transmission in gay men ... but buried halfway down the page under "Health".

I can't figure out what happened. Is it a simple case of "more interesting news" cropping up, or is it a deliberate attempt to hide the fact that even the discussion of recommending RIC is ridiculous?! I guess I am sounding a little like a conspiracy theorist.

I wish that there were equal billing on these mainstream media internet sites to BOTH sides of the argument ... it was all about CDC recommending circ, complete with a video link and photo of baby ... but only for one day. Then *poof* not much there, except a buried link to some of the drawbacks to the current discussion.

Sorry to get off topic. The CDC drives me absolutely, positively CRAZY and I wish they would zip it. Or at least provide a BALANCED PERSPECTIVE on the true risks and benefits, not just get a bunch of pro-circ doctors/activists who are searching for a reason to alter baby boys to look for reasons to justify their biases.

ARGH. I need to be less fired up about this!! I am gestating twins and should try to be less stressed.







:


----------



## tennisdude23 (Apr 2, 2008)

Quote:

quote removed by administrator for defamation concerns
Uhm, no. In this country as in all of the other industrialized countries you need to sign a consent form for any surgery, no matter how small or benign. Otherwise the hospital, clinic, etc faces serious legal issues. I believe what you are referring to was a statement from a physician in one St. Louis hospital. That statement represented her disgusting, biased opinion. However, the issue of consent is central to any procedure no matter the personal preferences of the secondary parties. You also have the legal right to refuse any procedure. If any health care professional ever tries to force you to sign a consent using tactics and behavior that you may find uncomfortable or distressing, you have every right to file a complaint and change services. Because of the very real and serious fear of litigation, proper consent, either direct or by proxy, is always necessary for any procedure. I believe this has been the case since the early 70s. Of course, the legality and ethics of proxy consent in such a context as that of circumcision is highly questionable, which is why people can file lawsuits when they reach legal age.


----------



## PuppyFluffer (Mar 18, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tennisdude23* 
Uhm, no. In this country as in all of the other industrialized countries you need to sign a consent form for any surgery, no matter how small or benign. Otherwise the hospital, clinic, etc faces serious legal issues. I believe what you are referring to was a statement from a physician in one St. Louis hospital. That statement represented her disgusting, biased opinion. However, the issue of consent is central to any procedure no matter the personal preferences of the secondary parties. *You also have the legal right to refuse any procedure.* If any health care professional ever tries to force you to sign a consent using tactics and behavior that you may find uncomfortable or distressing, you have every right to file a complaint and change services. Because of the very real and serious fear of litigation, proper consent, either direct or by proxy, is always necessary for any procedure. I believe this has been the case since the early 70s. Of course, the legality and ethics of proxy consent in such a context as that of circumcision is highly questionable, which is why people can file lawsuits when they reach legal age.

I do not want to derail this thread but I do want to explain an exception to the bolded statement. You have the right to refuse medical intervention until "the system" decides it's in the best interest of the child to force treatment or testing and they invoke the legal action available to force you to consent or remove your power to consent. There have certainly been situations where this has happened to parents. I was almost there myself recently. I'll be happy to explain via PM my particular situation.

I don't foresee this happening with circumcision but I did want to make the above clarification (since this is a recent personal issue with my family.)


----------



## tennisdude23 (Apr 2, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PuppyFluffer* 
I do not want to derail this thread but I do want to explain an exception to the bolded statement. You have the right to refuse medical intervention until "the system" decides it's in the best interest of the child to force treatment or testing and they invoke the legal action available to force you to consent or remove your power to consent. There have certainly been situations where this has happened to parents. I was almost there myself recently. I'll be happy to explain via PM my particular situation.

I don't foresee this happening with circumcision but I did want to make the above clarification (since this is a recent personal issue with my family.)

Oh yes, naturally. Proxy consent is a murky area from a legal perspective. For example, we pretty much allow parents to do as they please with their children unless of course they are charged with abuse or something. Then the courts step in. The courts can also step in and overrule parental proxy when they try to determine the best interests of a child. But that's done only on a case by case basis. So, for example, if a child needs a life saving blood transfusion but the parents object then the state will step in and give that child the transfusion, meaning that the state can curb parental rights in order to protect the child's interests. This is why circumcision remains such a thorny issue. While it's impossible to prove medically that circumcision is in a child's best interest, it is certainly feasible to say that operating on healthy tissue without warranted and urgent medical cause is by our current moral and legal standards unethical and illegal. We have already made that determination for girls, without taking into consideration the possible "benefits" of female circumcision. So, why should we have a legal differentiation for boys if everyone is created equal under the constitution. That's the central question to this debate and one that most people won't touch with a ten foot pole because of religious and cultural sensitivities. So, perhaps, one can only conclude that in many instances justice depends only on political correctness as determined by society. The quest for justice always has and will remain illusive in the realm of controversy until someone steps up and grabs the mantle.

PS: Puppyfluffer, I hope everything worked out well in your personal situation.


----------



## Fyrestorm (Feb 14, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PuppyFluffer* 
I do not want to derail this thread but I do want to explain an exception to the bolded statement. You have the right to refuse medical intervention until "the system" decides it's in the best interest of the child to force treatment or testing and they invoke the legal action available to force you to consent or remove your power to consent. There have certainly been situations where this has happened to parents. I was almost there myself recently. I'll be happy to explain via PM my particular situation.

I don't foresee this happening with circumcision but I did want to make the above clarification (since this is a recent personal issue with my family.)









:

Can you say "forced c section" after threat of a court order and CPS?


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

Hello, posts have been removed that were in violation of the User Agreement and Forum Guidelines. We do not host namecalling. Please do not use pejorative terms to discuss circumcision or the thread will be removed. Members of the community are expected to be able to post respectfully, even when we are upset. If you can't post something within the UA, don't post.

Please also be mindful that we do not host reference to or discussion of religion per the forum guidelines. We also do not host discussion of other site's comments nor do we host posts asking others to go comment at another site:

Quote:

Do not post to invite MDC members to other communities, blogs or message boards for adversarial purposes or link to discussion about MDC at another site. Do not negatively discuss other communities or discussions elsewhere (this includes blog comments), regardless of whether or not you link to that discussion or community. This is to maintain and respect the integrity of our own and other communities.
Further User Agreement violations will result in this thread's removal, and I doubt anyone wants this to happen as it is a very important topic. If you have a question about the appropriateness of a post, please utilize the report button or PM a forum moderator. Thank you!


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

Hi, more posts removed. Please note what I posted above:

Quote:

Do not negatively discuss other communities or discussions elsewhere (this includes blog comments), regardless of whether or not you link to that discussion or community. This is to maintain and respect the integrity of our own and other communities.
This includes Facebook. Please keep the discussion on-topic to CDC conference, thanks! Please take questions or comments regarding our forum policies to me via our Private Messaging system rather than posting here on the thread. Thanks!


----------



## serendipity22 (Sep 19, 2006)

Reading the CDC website there seem to be some people there who are very biased towards circ.

IMO the CDC is jumping on the African bandwagon.


----------



## Minarai (Jul 26, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *serendipity22* 
Reading the CDC website there seem to be some people there who are very biased towards circ.

IMO the CDC is jumping on the African bandwagon.

More like they OWN that bandwagon.







:


----------



## Fyrestorm (Feb 14, 2006)

Wanna bet the panel was crowded with Peds that make $$$ off cutting baby genitals?

They are merely trying to preserve their income levels. If circ rates continue to fall at the rate that they have been, who is going to leep them in the style to which they've become accustomed?

Circumcision has always been a cure in search of a disease to keep up the revenue stream.


----------



## Minarai (Jul 26, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Fyrestorm* 
Wanna bet the panel was crowded with Peds that make $$$ off cutting baby genitals?

You've already won; no need to bet on it.

Quote:

They are merely trying to preserve their income levels. If circ rates continue to fall at the rate that they have been, who is going to leep them in the style to which they've become accustomed?
Easy: they convince the highest medical authority in the US (the CDC) to make a "recommendation" in favor of circ and before we know it, that "recommendation" becomes law. Anyone who attempts to opt out will be prosecuted and/or have CPS take their children away. All in the name of profit.

Quote:

Circumcision has always been a cure in search of a disease to keep up the revenue stream.









There's no other logical explanation.


----------



## K703 (Dec 15, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Minarai* 
Easy: they convince the highest medical authority in the US (the CDC) to make a "recommendation" in favor of circ and before we know it, that "recommendation" becomes law. Anyone who attempts to opt out will be prosecuted and/or have CPS take their children away. All in the name of profit.

Do you seriously think that would happen? I think if they made it illegal to not circumcise there would be a lot of outcry.


----------



## Fyrestorm (Feb 14, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *K703* 
Do you seriously think that would happen? I think if they made it illegal to not circumcise there would be a lot of outcry.

I doubt it...but scare enough people and it won't be an issue. Most people don't realize that there is no law that that you have to vaccinate...they just think there is because of all the misinformation and scaremongering. How many mamas here are worried about CPS being called because they do the perfectly legal thing and don't vaccinate. I can see them trying to get the same mindset going about genital cutting.

Take my parents generation...My MIL just told me that she didn't even know she had a choice not to cut my DH...even though her DH was happily intact.


----------

