# Circ Article in 'American Baby' Magazine



## nerdymom (Mar 20, 2008)

I just received the July 2009 edition of _American Baby_ magazine. I don't subscribe, they just started sending it to me.







: I was flipping through and saw this blurb. Not an article, just a paragraph:

Quote:

SHOULD YOU CIRCUMCISE?
If you're on the fence, it may help you to know that 79 percent of newborn boys are circumcised in the U.S. and they have a lower risk of developing urinary tract infections in their first year and STDs later in life.
_Source: center for disease control and prevention_
I am going to write them an email, and I encourage you to do the same.

Quote:

I am disappointed that your magazine did not provide a more balanced overview of information about circumcision. You missed a big opportunity to mention that virtually all current policy statements from specialty societies and medical organizations do not recommend routine neonatal circumcision, and support the provision of accurate and unbiased information to parents to inform their choice.

The American Academy of Pediatrics says "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision." And regarding the transmission of STDs, the American Medical Association says "behavioral factors are far more important risk factors for acquisition of HIV and other sexually transmissible diseases than circumcision status, and circumcision cannot be responsibly viewed as "protecting" against such infections."

Also, your 79% statistic is from a study done in 1979; circumcision rates have declined quite a bit since that time. According to the National Hospital Discharge survey, in 2006 56% of boys born in the US were circumcised.
Does anyone who has written a letter like this before have any additions? Besides the salutation and etc, I will add that when I send it.


----------



## glongley (Jun 30, 2004)

Your letter is great. You get right to the point, use credible references. Shorter is always better for people reading a letter, or getting it published. Of course there are other points that could be made (sexual function, ethics) - actually there are a zillion other points. But what you have written is perfect. Might add the nocirc.org url for people to get other information.

WRiting letters is SO important. I encourage anyone who ever sees something that is incorrect, unbalanced, or biased to write. Publishers need the feedback and readers need the info. Kudos to you!

Gillian


----------



## femalephish (Feb 3, 2009)

Yay! I love this letter!

I read that 'article' too. I know it's a mainstream mag. but they didn't ever have a 'here are some reasons people do' 'here are some reasons that people don't'--thing. This mag went right into my recycling.


----------



## 1littlebit (Jun 1, 2008)

i like that it says there 'may' be benefits.... how do people decide that circing is a good thing b/c there might be benefits? hasn't it ever occurred to people that the fact that they don't out right say all the ways the medical community have proved circ is beneficial means that they can't prove it? there are lots of maybes in the world... i don't understand why this is the one people jump on the bandwagon for.


----------



## tennisdude23 (Apr 2, 2008)

It would be also nice if they did not use statistical information from the early 1970s. I believe three or four decades passed since the "79%" statistic. This is just another example of inaccurate writing.


----------



## becca_howell (Jan 3, 2009)

*My copy of this magazine came with the "It's time to renew" bill (which I find totally offensive, sending me a bill assuming I'm going to renew, but anyway). Yeah, right. It just makes me sick to think that I used to be one of those moms that would say, "Oh, if the CDC says it, it's GOT to be true!"*


----------



## QueenOfTheMeadow (Mar 25, 2005)

Moved from CAC.


----------



## SleeplessMommy (Jul 16, 2005)

If you get this mag in the mail, you can write "return to sender" on it ... it may cost them a little for the return postage. I am not sure if it is a free mag or paid, but calling to cancel subscription may help.


----------



## mysticmomma (Feb 8, 2005)

what about stats. I don't think 79% is accurate.


----------



## nerdymom (Mar 20, 2008)

I just did a search, and came up with this link: http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA/ which quotes data from the National Hospital Discharge survey, which reflects that in 2006 56% of boys born in the US were circ'd. It also has a breakdown of each region, the lowest being the Western region at 33%, and the highest being North Central at 77%.

I will now edit my original letter.


----------



## nerdymom (Mar 20, 2008)

I'd love to put something in there about FGM, and use the word 'intact'...but I'm worried that it will then be too long and they'll just ignore it.


----------



## mysticmomma (Feb 8, 2005)

You could say something like our girls are offered gential integrity, and our boys deserve the same protection.


----------



## mysticmomma (Feb 8, 2005)

According to the National Hospital Discharge survey, in 2006 56% of boys born in the US were circumcised.

According to the National Hospital Discharge survey, in 2006 44% of boys born in the US were left intact.


----------



## mysticmomma (Feb 8, 2005)

A quick anatomy lesson?

At birth the penis is anatomically immature. The foreskin is fused to the head of penis. It contains muscle fibers that work to keep the tip closed when the child is not urinating and this protects the glans and urethra from direct exposure to contaminants and germs. Throughout childhood, there is no need to wash underneath the foreskin. Only warm water, gently applied to the outer, visible portions of the genitalia is wise. Skin cells from the glans of the penis and the inner foreskin are shed throughout life. Natural skin shedding creates smegma, which acts as a barrier to keep the inner foreskin and glans apart and keep a permanent adhesion from forming should there be any irritation.


----------



## mysticmomma (Feb 8, 2005)

And at the risk of getting too long...

The intact penis is easy to care for. The AAP says that throughout childhood, there is no need to wash underneath the foreskin. The first person to retract the child's foreskin is the child himself. Simply wash the penis like a finger, from base to tip; never in the other direction. Only warm water, gently applied to the outer, visible portions of the genitalia is wise. No manipulation is necessary, and infact can be quite harmful.


----------



## nerdymom (Mar 20, 2008)

thanks! I'm going to wait and see if I get any more input before making final changes and sending it off.


----------



## Quirky (Jun 18, 2002)

I wouldn't add the FGM part, or a single word about girls. I think that for most (uneducated) people that's enough to make them dismiss you as a flake. Because as we all know cutting girls is SO much worse.









I would stick with what you have -- it's short, sweet, and to the point. Maybe add something about asking for a doctor to review their statements in light of the most recent medical evidence before they publish, because otherwise they risk giving parents misinformation upon which parents are making surgical decisions for their babies at birth.


----------



## Evergreen (Nov 6, 2002)

How about "if you're on the fence" it can always be done later in life but can't be taken back? What a horrible article/blurb.


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Do you have an email address? I'm not finding one on the website.


----------

