# OMG - AAP says circumcision benefits outweigh the risks?!?!!!



## thegoodearth (Jun 6, 2011)

For the first time since 1999, the AAP is stating that the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks. I just read this and couldn't believe what I was reading. Is anyone else as shocked as I am? I cannot believe they are actually putting forward the idea that routine circumcision is a good idea. Wow. I thought we were moving away from routine circumcision... wonder where we'll be headed now.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/27/health/aap-circumcision-recommendation/index.html


----------



## tammylsmith (Jul 11, 2008)

That is so... upsetting. What a huge step backwards. To think of all of the ignorant articles and regurgitated half-truths that are about to be spewed, chewed up and re-spewed. I have a pit in my stomach


----------



## emma1325 (May 23, 2005)

I just saw this and came here to post about it.








All the poor babies who will suffer because of this. Please someone say that there is hope of this being overturned...I remember a couple of years ago when the AAP tried to soften the official language used to describe female circumcision, there was an outcry from the public, and the academy quickly retracted their statements. I wish something like that would happen to save the poor boys.


----------



## bugmenot (May 29, 2005)

It's financially motivated.

Who are the AAP? A bunch of doctors who get paid to circumcise. A lot of their kids are probably circumcised, and I think we can safely assume the AAP members are probably circumcised.

As we know, the doctors/hospitals get a huge payday off circumcisions.

Read this:
http://www.circumcision.org/aap.htm


----------



## nia82 (May 6, 2008)

As I said before, despicable. Docs against circumcision have a great analysis how this is utterly financially motivated. So sad.


----------



## tropicana (Sep 11, 2011)

it hit the AOL news today. haven't seen it on local TV news yet though.


----------



## pek64 (Apr 8, 2012)

The best way to fight fire is with fire. LLL did breastfeeding studies to prove the benefits of breastfeeding. There needs to be an organization that can raise money and prove or disprove these and other claims.


----------



## C is for Cookie (Jan 27, 2011)

I read a blog about this yesterday who agreed to the change. I was like "SAY whaaaaattt???"







It got me flustered for sure.


----------



## emma1325 (May 23, 2005)

I was so excited when I read about the AAP's recent policy changes on breastfeeding in which they express interest in distancing themselves from pharmaceutical/formula companies. I even considered spending a little time looking around for a pediatrician for my 3 children.

Now this.

I guess we'll continue boycotting this profession since their own leaders cannot get their sh** together and continue abusing the innocent members of society to pad their bottom lines.


----------



## philomom (Sep 12, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tammylsmith*
> 
> That is so... upsetting. What a huge step backwards. To think of all of the ignorant articles and regurgitated half-truths that are about to be spewed, chewed up and re-spewed. I have a pit in my stomach


I know, right. So hurtful all around.


----------



## briannas auntie (Feb 21, 2011)

No way on earth would I ever have a baby boy circumcised! After hearing an infant screaming bloody murder at my urologists office while getting circumcised, I would never put a baby though that kind of sick torture. I don't understand why cooporations are starting to go back to the pro-circ stuff again. Doctor's can afford to lose a bit of money if it will mean that a baby boy can stay intact, because they don't need to be circumcised.

You know, I have always wondered why so many people get freaked out by female circumcision, but could care less about male circumcision. Males should be able to stay intact, just like females.









Jessie


----------



## nudnik (Aug 9, 2006)

Ya know, it's kinda like the whole "breech birth is deadly" argument. MISMANAGED breeches are dangerous. Same here. MISMANAGED intact boys (forced retractions for starters, anyone?) leads to greater risk of (admittedly mostly minor) problems. Maybe if peds were actually educated with evidence-based practices, they'd realize that the so-called "benefits" are in reality just trying to make up for their incompetence.


----------



## crayfishgirl (May 26, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pek64*
> 
> The best way to fight fire is with fire. LLL did breastfeeding studies to prove the benefits of breastfeeding. There needs to be an organization that can raise money and prove or disprove these and other claims.


I don't think that it would even take that much....just highlighting the relative risk to put these "findings" into context.

Our son is intact, but if I were a new or soon-to-be mama on the fence and not one to do much research, the "reduced penile cancer" would likely resonate with me. However, without numbers, "reduced" means nothing. The risks associated with circumcising are hard to find. However, the American Cancer Society cites penile cancer rates of 1/100,000, and according to the CDC, even states with the lowest breast cancer rates are 100 times higher than that (101.9-117.7/100,00). Despite that, no one is advocating preventative mastectomies for our daughters (and I suspect no one in their right mind would do so).

Aside from the fact that hacking off part of your baby isn't the most intuitive way to prevent STDs and a disease commonly associated with having one, putting numbers beside this recommendation would certainly highlight the lunacy behind it.


----------



## pek64 (Apr 8, 2012)

I think the fact that it (LLL) is a name known organization ans they published their own studies carried much more weight than if the subject had been handled differently.


----------



## mama24-7 (Aug 11, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pek64*
> 
> I think the fact that it (LLL) is a name known organization ans they published their own studies carried much more weight than if the subject had been handled differently.


As far as I know, LLL has never commissioned their own studies on breastfeeding. I've been going to meetings for 10 years (since the month before my first was born in 2002). If I'm mistaken, please link to them.

I think what you are *trying* to say is that LLL has made it known that there are studies that show that breastfeeding has benefits. I've never liked this language though, as it sets breastfeedng up as special, etc. It's not; it's just normal & all else isn't. Much the same as there are not benefits to being intact; it's all normal. There are risks to being circumcised.

Sus


----------



## tipslady (Jul 27, 2012)

I am so upset about this! I JUST convinced DH to keep DS-to-be intact I hope he doesn't hear about this and change his mind.


----------



## pek64 (Apr 8, 2012)

Sorry. Can't provide links because I read it on paper. Not sure if I still have that stuff. This goes back longer, to 1998. Or maybe 99. I still have some boxes from those days. Not even sure I remember where I read it. I could give you all the info I remember, but that would sidetrack the discussion even more.

Of course it's natural, but they're saying the artificial way is better, so someone needs to prove the natural way is actually better. That is, I believe, the best way to get those near the fence to come on over. Those *on* the fence would need less persuasion, most likely.


----------



## tammylsmith (Jul 11, 2008)

Hey Tips... Just don't bring it up. If he does (which is unlikely, since he'd probably just rather not talk about it if he's anything like my dh), you know the facts. be nonchalant about it and poke holes in the argument. Don't even leave the doorway open


----------



## Adaline'sMama (Apr 16, 2010)

Boo  Shame on them.


----------



## erinsuzy (Mar 22, 2012)

One of the comments says "I have a question for the anti-circumcision fanatics: If they truly oppose removing a healthy body part without the consent of the child, why aren't they protesting the removal of the umbilical cord?" wow Can you say ANALOGY FAIL?... lol As depressing as the article is- that gave me a good laugh.


----------



## spiritofthings (Apr 22, 2005)

Yes, so upsetting and backward in this day and age.


----------



## mt_gooseberry (Jun 25, 2010)

Sigh. And back I go to my Facebook soapbox. Just when people were starting to get over my last breastfeeding tirade. But I can't let this go unchallenged!


----------



## thegoodearth (Jun 6, 2011)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tammylsmith*
> 
> That is so... upsetting. What a huge step backwards. To think of all of the ignorant articles and regurgitated half-truths that are about to be spewed, chewed up and re-spewed. I have a pit in my stomach


Yes - same here. I can imagine that this only going to reconfirm and validate all my friends with a pro-circ viewpoint - especially those who were on the fence. It's so sad.


----------



## thegoodearth (Jun 6, 2011)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *emma1325*
> 
> I just saw this and came here to post about it.
> 
> ...


The bolded completely baffles me. HOw a logical person doesn't see that female and male circumcision are the same thing - it blows my mind. Its so cruel that there isn't the same outrage for the poor boys.

A couple of months back I had a conversation with a pregnant friend about circumcision and what she planned to do with her son. She is someone who is strongly against female circumcision and she had actually done some research on it in her graduate studies. We had conversations about this before we both had our first children. Fast forward to a couple of months ago - I was completely taken aback when she told me they were going to circumcise their son. When I told her circumcising her son was the same as female circumcision (in the softest way possible) she emphatically denied they were the same.


----------



## Gemini529 (Oct 11, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thegoodearth*
> 
> Yes - same here. I can imagine that this only going to reconfirm and validate all my friends with a pro-circ viewpoint - especially those who were on the fence. It's so sad.


Yeah. I'm 100% sure my sister is now going to circ her baby when he's born. She was on the fence but her husband said he would like it done. I had her convinced that there was no medical reason. They were looking for a medical reason. Now they have one. They're not going to bother to really look into the studies the AAP used and realize they are flawed. Thanks, AAP.

Another anecdote...my friend had a baby a few days ago and circ'd him because she read that the AAP was going to come out with a new stance and that it would prevent him from getting HIV. She almost changed her mind at the last minute and her husband said no.

Then she went on to tell me that her husband couldn't bear to change his diaper because he couldn't stand looking at the scabs.  But he's the one who insisted on making her go through with it in the first place. It really makes me sad!

I wish I were brave enough to post on facebook about the AAP stuff. I have way too many friends who circ'd their kids because it was the norm and just don't want to deal with fighting them today.


----------



## Cherry_Blossom (Nov 7, 2009)

Intelligent people such as ourselves will still be against circ.


----------



## Blueberry159 (Dec 19, 2011)

We are rising up! We are demanding that this new policy be retracted. Please join us because every voice counts! This is what you can do...

http://www.ourmuddyboots.com/the-aap-statement-what-you-can-do/

*The AAP Statement: 12 Things YOU Can Do!*

August 28, 2012

1. Visit the AAP's Facebook page and let them know what you think about their revised policy.

2. Read the critique of the statement so that you understand why it is flawed.

3. Become informed: Visit Saving Our Sons and follow their Facebook Page to understand more about routine infant circumcision.

4. Find and "like" your local chapter of The Intact Network on Facebook. This will keep you up to date and will let you know when there is something specific that needs to be done.

5. Learn as much as you can about Circumcision so that you can answer questions asked of you and so that the fire starts to burn in you.

6. Remind yourself again and again what the AAP's decision does NOT change.

7. Change your timeline banner, grab some graphics and spread the word. It is more important now more than ever that people understand circumcision.

8. Order some info cards that you can share in places where parents- to- be can find them.

9. E mail, write, call, or protest in front of your local AAP office or your own local hospital.

10. Contact your pediatrician and OB/GYN to let them know that you oppose their support of Routine Infant Circumcision.

11. Make a donation to Saving Our Sons to help cover the cost of all of the work that is being done.

12. Most importantly, remember that you never, EVER need to doubt that Routine Infant Circumcision is wrong.


----------



## jd0805 (Feb 17, 2011)

A few good responses to the AAP's Task Force Statement:

AAP Circumcision Policy Statement: A Critique: http://www.drmomma.org/2012/08/aap-circumcision-policy-statement.html

Children's Health & Human Rights Partnership Condemns New AAP Policy Statement: http://chhrp.org/index.php/news/childrens-health-human-rights-partnership-condemns-new-aap-policy-statement/

Doctors Opposing Circumcision Commentary on AAP Policy Statement: http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/2012-08-26A_Commentary.pdf


----------



## jammomma (Nov 17, 2008)

This is so shocking to me that they made this recommendation. So sad. This is all about the money.


----------



## tammylsmith (Jul 11, 2008)

I did want to add, on a brighter note, that googling circumcision generally leads to this forum. That's how I ended up here while pregnant with ds. I hadn't definitely decided against it because I didn't know any better... but the AAP's policy had nothing to do with my decision. They were tooting the "circ prevents STDs" horn long before this statement. Some might be convinced, but many others come here and get their courage and information to do the right thiing


----------



## LiLStar (Jul 7, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinsuzy*
> 
> One of the comments says "I have a question for the anti-circumcision fanatics: If they truly oppose removing a healthy body part without the consent of the child, why aren't they protesting the removal of the umbilical cord?" wow Can you say ANALOGY FAIL?... lol As depressing as the article is- that gave me a good laugh.


Haha, I would be tempted to say "Actually, as long as the umbilical cord is still functioning (ie, it is still pulsing and delivering blood from the placenta) I vehemently opposite clamping/cutting the umbilical cord under *all* circumstances. Once it ceases to function (upon delivery of the placenta) whether I choose to remove it or not, it will dry out and fall off on its own, rendering any decision moot"

Anyway, I'm generally scared of posting anticirc stuff to facebook because I just hate starting drama. when I see people (especially people i KNOW, vs strangers) arguing in favor of ric, justifying doing it themselves, I have a physical reaction! I feel so sick, so horrible, it eats at me for the rest of the day. It is SO upsetting to me. I have to avoid conversations to protect myself. Its much easier, say, if a friend posts something and I comment on there  At least that way anyone I'm arguing against is a stranger. Last night, a friend posted this link http://birthwithoutfearblog.com/2011/11/27/the-circumcision-decision/ and I decided to let my fear or baby boy's being harmed be more than my fear of stirring up any drama. So I shared, with the comment "Very thorough! Sharing with a tone of nonjudgement for anyone's past decisions, because I know so many parents start out with the same thoughts as the author!" or something like that. I nearly instantly felt horror and dread.. if anyone posted anything to try and justify having their sons cut I knew I would spend the whole day sick over it. The comment stating that I wasn't judging anyone's *past*, I hoped, would prevent anyone feeling the need to post anything defensive. I went to bed a little bit stressed out and hoooped that there wouldn't be any upsetting comments. Aaand.. no comments! Which is kinda surprising, but unless it was "I agree" I don't think I would be able to handle it.. so I'm happy. I got some likes, and of the likers they were people I already knew (or strongly suspected) agreed.. except 1 who was a surprise! So that made me VERY happy. I feel SO much more respect for an individual when I learn they are anti-ric. And putting it out there lets everyone on my friends' list know where I stand, and if they are ready for any information.. they see it.. and maybe.. just maybe.. some seeds are planted.

Such a small thing.. but since its really hard for me to step out of my comfort zone with any kind of intactivism, I'm glad it went well for me. And "well" for me means no friends/family members rubbed in my face why they think they made a good choice, or that they "really researched" and "feel they did the right thing"


----------



## tennisdude23 (Apr 2, 2008)

Hello all,

I have not been here in a long time, but I saw this thread while googling the recent AAP statement. Since a lot of posters on here are having kids or know people who are having kids, I just wanted to clarify that the AAP still DOES NOT recommend routine infant circumcision. While their statement does say that the potential benefits of circumcision may outweigh its acute risks (bleeding, infection), the decision rests fully with the parents to make a final choice based on their personal, religious, or cultural beliefs. In effect, this statement is not very different from their old one with regard to this last point. The primary difference is that the AAP makes a recommendation for the first time that insurance, most notably medicaid, should cover circumcision so that all parents can have access to the procedure if they feel that circumcision is in the best interests of their child.

In its talk on benefit vs. risk, the AAP seems to make a unfortunate suggestion that there might be some kind of public health benefit to circumcision. However, this is where the statement becomes extremely self-contradictory. For example, one of the so called benefits to an individual infant is the possible reduction in HIV. This is based from data collected in sub-Saharan Africa, which the statement correctly says may not be extrapolated to the US. The statement also correctly points out that in the US HIV is primarily acquired through gay sex and intravenous drug use. The studies in Africa showed only an effect on female to male transmission, which is the rarest form of transmission in the developed world but allegedly the most common form of transmission in Africa. Circumcision has no effect on male to male transmission. So, even if the studies could be extrapolated to the US (which is very unlikely since the two populations are so different), the chances of a US infant actually benefiting from circumcision in this regard are essentially negligible (probability of 0.001%, if that). Keep also in mind that the infant would only possibly benefit 20 + years from now, when he becomes sexually active, and when there might be actually a vaccine or a cure for AIDS. The methodology of the African studies themselves is questionable and their value to the real world might be very small. In addition, no study has shown that circumcision actually makes a dent to HIV rates on a large scale population level anywhere on earth. The academy seems to acknowledge all of this, but for a puzzling reason adds on the equally small benefits of UTI reduction, penile cancer, etc and says that the combined value of these small benefits exceeds the equally small risks.

Curiously, the academy states that there is NO PRECISE way to quantify the acute risks, let alone the long term ones. Douglas Diekemma, the ethicist on the AAP task force, acknowledged for example that a man might be very unhappy to be circumcised as an infant and that this is always a potential risk of circumcision, but again there is no way to quantify such occurrences. The AAP statement also says nothing of the foreskin. You would think that a statement that talks about an amputation of an organ would first consider the functions of that organ, apparently not in this case. In other words, the AAP states that it does not know what the risks of circumcision are and how many people are affected by those risks, but needless to say, the data from Africa still convinces them of the small benefits. In short, the statement on the one hand admits the value of the benefit to an individual from circumcision is small but that small benefit somehow exceeds the non-quantafiable risks. Indeed, this is all very contradictory and because of these contradictions the AAP leaves the decision to the parents to make the final call on whether the benefits actually do exceed the risks. So, they don't really come to any final conclusion, except that if a circumcision is performed, it should be done under proper pain management and that it should be covered by insurance.

The language of this statement is very nuanced and unfortunately many press headlines don't do it justice. But if you know parents who are sitting on the fence, please inform them that this statement is not a blanked recommendation of any kind and that the AAP technically remains middle of the road on the circumcision issue.


----------



## azzeps (Sep 7, 2007)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tennisdude23*
> I just wanted to clarify that the AAP still DOES NOT recommend routine infant circumcision. While their statement does say that the potential benefits of circumcision may outweigh its acute risks (bleeding, infection), the decision rests fully with the parents to make a final choice based on their personal, religious, or cultural beliefs.


Huh. I pretty much agree with what you've said, except for the part where the AAP doesn't recommend RIC. I think that if they're saying the benefits outweigh the risks, they are implicitly recommending the procedure. If I were a pregnant mom "doing the research" and read this AAP statement, I would come away believing that a bunch of pediatricians thought I should circumcise my baby boy. Of course, the statement says way more than that, but that is what my "take-home" message would be, right or wrong.

I am curious as to what new research has surfaced for them to radically change their stance on RIC? Does anyone know? Are these studies they're quoting NEW? This sort of reminds me of when ACOG changed their position on VBAC...


----------



## tennisdude23 (Apr 2, 2008)

Azzeps, in the statement itself, right after the benefits v. risks part, they specifically state that they do not recommend routine circumcision for all boys because the benefits are not great enough. This is taken directly from the statement, which is what I wanted to clarify on this thread. They call circumcision an elective procedure (meaning not necessary) and they suggest that there might be some (pretty small) benefits to circumcision which combined exceed the small risks but stop short of a routine recommendation. That is all. They fail to quantify either, which is the major flaw of this statement and don't reach any solid conclusion aside the medicaid and pain management things. Is up to the parents to figure out whether circumcision is in the best interests of the child. They actually say that for some parents it will be while for others it won't.


----------



## jessjgh1 (Nov 4, 2004)

Intact America campaign
http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5922/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=11529


----------



## Richard Scalper (Aug 30, 2012)

*"Circumcision makes sexual promiscuity healthier...So if you have a sexually-active infant, you should talk to your pediatrician about getting him circumcised."*

[Thanks to http://freethoughtblogs.com/alethianworldview/2012/08/30/circumcision-makes-sexual-promiscuity-healthier/ ]


----------



## Rowdie (Nov 24, 2011)

I've been haunting their fb page with comments.

It seems so clear that it's money-driven: "Well, there is no conclusive evidence from all this research made by folks trying to justify circ., but insurance companies should cover this elective surgery anyway."


----------



## philomom (Sep 12, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rowdie*
> 
> I've been haunting their fb page with comments.
> 
> It seems so clear that it's money-driven: "Well, there is no conclusive evidence from all this research made by folks trying to justify circ., but insurance companies should cover this elective surgery anyway."


Good for you!


----------



## azzeps (Sep 7, 2007)

Oops, sorry, you're right, tennisdude23. I went and read the statement on their page, and it does say they don't recommend it. But I still don't get why they'd say, "there are benefits... but we don't recommend you do this to your newborn son..." And I get that the benefits are teeny tiny, as are the risks. It seems like semantics to me.

Here's what they say on the AAP page, just for reference:

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.


----------



## Fyrestorm (Feb 14, 2006)

Hi All - I haven't been around here in ages! I had to come see what the take on this whole BUSINESS was in these parts  So let's look at this logically.

1. The baby cutting rate has dropped precipitously over the last few years

2. Medicaid in 17 states have dropped coverage

3. Many private insurance companies have dropped coverage

4. Peds have lost A LOT of income

5. The AAP is a trade organization

6. The AAP's objective is to protect their members (not children - their members (peds))

7. In the statement they just about begged for reinstatement of third party coverage.

8. MGM surgery takes a doc 15 minutes and nets him about $400

9. A busy cutting doc can make a house payment off of foreskin removal if the practice continues unabated.

10. Insurance and medicaid reimbursement along with a positive spin will keep the numbers from getting any lower

All of this equals one simple thing. The AAP is doing their job and protecting their members wallets and revenue stream by trying to make the foreskin pathologic and requesting payment to continue their cash cow of cutting baby genitals. This statement is money in the bank for their members.


----------



## erinsuzy (Mar 22, 2012)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jessjgh1*
> 
> Intact America campaign
> http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5922/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=11529


*I signed this petition.... thank you for posting*

*







*


----------



## hlg1212 (Nov 27, 2010)

I completely agree with you. My husband is an MD, and he was downplaying the financial profit. He thinks that the new statement is mostly motivated by religion and culture, so we have been debating this with each other. Anyway, it is clear that it is not about the health and human rights of baby boys. The most egregious aspect to me (more so even than basing the decision on the African studies, which have no bearing on infants in the U.S. regardless of the results) is the fact that they admit that they have not investigated the rate of complications or other adverse outcomes, but still state that the "benefits outweigh the risks". But you just admitted that you have no quantifiable information on the risks. Just because the data is absent does not make it zero. "Well, we have no clue, so let's just assume there are no risks."


----------



## Greg B (Mar 18, 2006)

Quote:


> Oops, sorry, you're right, tennisdude23. I went and read the statement on their page, and it does say they don't recommend it. But I still don't get why they'd say, "there are benefits... but we don't recommend you do this to your newborn son..." And I get that the benefits are teeny tiny, as are the risks. It seems like semantics to me.
> 
> Here's what they say on the AAP page, just for reference:
> 
> 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.


They may not be stating that it is recommended, but they are passively agressively promoting it big time. That is why you thought they were...

Regards


----------



## mambera (Sep 29, 2009)

I think the medical risk/benefit issue is a red herring. It could be a reasonable statement that the medical benefits balance or outweigh the risks (although IMO it's impossible to compare effectively the value to the individual of a healthy normal sex life vs the value to society of reduced STD transmission and infant UTIs). Railing against the supposed 'profit motives' of the AAP or insisting that 'their studies are flawed' just looks shrill and uneducated.

The bottom line is that it is unethical to remove a healthy, functional body part from a human being who is unable to provide consent. It doesn't matter what the medical benefits may or may not be.


----------



## DJay (Sep 10, 2006)

http://www.vancouversun.com/health/endorsement+male+circumcision+undercut/7178838/story.html

Good take on the new statement, or should I say against the new statement.


----------



## tennisdude23 (Apr 2, 2008)

Best take so far I think is written by Brian Earp, a research fellow at Oxford and a Yale grad. Check out his blog here and spread it far and wide: http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/08/the-aap-report-on-circumcision-bad-science-bad-ethics-bad-medicine/

My view of this is that the AAP statement is not about aggressively pushing the procedure. After all, theirs is "slight benefits vs. slight risk calculus. But the statement was most certainly influenced by people who have made big careers of their "pro-circ" research in Africa and is reflective of this bias in American medical culture that circumcision is an "benign if not slightly beneficial medical procedure" and that this is something that is "ok" for health professionals to engage in. So, there is a confusion here between cultural motivation and medical need for amputating healthy, normal tissue. The key (which gets utterly lost in the medical debate) is to point out that most men do not choose to get circumcised later in life because they find their foreskins to be functional, beneficial, non-optional parts of their genitalia. As such, there is an ethical problem to remove this at birth if the vast majority of men later in life choose not to.


----------



## crayfishgirl (May 26, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tennisdude23*
> 
> Best take so far I think is written by Brian Earp, a research fellow at Oxford and a Yale grad. Check out his blog here and spread it far and wide: http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/08/the-aap-report-on-circumcision-bad-science-bad-ethics-bad-medicine/
> 
> My view of this is that the AAP statement is not about aggressively pushing the procedure. After all, theirs is "slight benefits vs. slight risk calculus. But the statement was most certainly influenced by people who have made big careers of their "pro-circ" research in Africa and is reflective of this bias in American medical culture that circumcision is an "benign if not slightly beneficial medical procedure" and that this is something that is "ok" for health professionals to engage in. So, there is a confusion here between cultural motivation and medical need for amputating healthy, normal tissue. The key (which gets utterly lost in the medical debate) is to point out that most men do not choose to get circumcised later in life because they find their foreskins to be functional, beneficial, non-optional parts of their genitalia. As such, there is an ethical problem to remove this at birth if the vast majority of men later in life choose not to.


This was, by far, the most excellent summary about the AAP's recent statement. Thanks for posting it.


----------



## Goodmom2008 (Dec 14, 2008)

I'm not surprised. The AAP has always been wishy washy. There are no medical benefits to removing a perfectly normal part of the human body.


----------



## Richard Scalper (Aug 30, 2012)

It will be up to merciful mothers to spare their sons this humiliation. With a few exceptions, most circumcised men are so defensive they'll never own up to their loss.

~Dick-Scalper


----------



## SweetMamaKaty (Sep 5, 2012)

This is so sad. You would not believe (or maybe you would) the number of people completely uneducated on the subject. I think different areas of the country have different rates, and I know where I live, it's practically unheard of to leave a boy intact. So we're swimming against the current here, but had hoped things would be getting better, this sure doesn't help!


----------



## briannas auntie (Feb 21, 2011)

I recently had my boyfriend read two books on circumcision: "Say No To Circumcision" and "Circumcision Exposed". After he read these two books, he agreed with me 100% to not circumcise our future baby. I also had him watch an online video of a baby getting circumcised, and he couldn't watch it all the way, because he said it was so sad hearing that newborn screaming.

If anyone has trouble convincing their husbands not to circumcise, have them read these two books and watch an online video of a baby getting circumcised. It most likely will change their mind.


----------



## ChristmasLover (Dec 2, 2011)

Funny, I know a pediatric urologist who, presumably knowing all of this "research," didn't have any of his sons circumcised...


----------



## brant31 (Jan 11, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChristmasLover*
> 
> Funny, I know a pediatric urologist who, presumably knowing all of this "research," didn't have any of his sons circumcised...


As has been noted here on the board before, doctors are less likely to have their sons circumcised than are parents in the general population. This has been true for many decades. The likely reason is that although doctors wish to "honor" the wishes of all parents, per their medical training they instinctively understand that there is no medical reason to circumcise.


----------



## brant31 (Jan 11, 2009)

As Tennisdude23 points out, the new AAP statement on circumcision is highly nuanced. It is worth reading each line in it 3 times, and reflecting on the various potential meanings. There's an awful lot of spin in there, possibly even a lot of outright deception and dishonesty.

But mostly, it's riddled with contradictions to reach an awkward pre-determined conclusion. I've read through the document numerous times; here's what I have finally come away with:

Quote:


> Circumcision is not necessary for optimal health or hygiene. Circumcision is advantageous. Circumcision is optional. Circumcision is low risk, but the risks are unknown. Parents make a correct choice either way. Circumcision reduces disease, maybe. But it can be important collectively or if the parents merely think it is. It's horrible to be poor and intact because your parents couldn't afford it, but it's fine to be poor and intact if that's what your parents wanted. It's always OK to be rich and intact or rich and circumcised. The benefits don't warrant recommending circumcision to the public, but circumcision is on balance better. Except not necessarily better as a parental choice. Better as a state of being. Except intact can be fine, too, and is a perfectly valid family choice. The benefits don't warrant endorsing circumcision, per se, as that would imply that intact boys are worse off. Which they're not, in an individual sense; only collectively, particularly if poor. Circumcision is important for the public health of America! Circumcision is not entirely useless, but it's technically unneeded. Any reason for circumcision is valid, medical or otherwise. All boys are fine.


There, now is that clearer?


----------



## gcgirl (Apr 3, 2007)

Haven't read all replies, but here is my take: doctors and researchers all over the world looked at exactly the same data these doctors did and came to the opposite conclusion - that circ should NOT be performed routinely. Some countries are even taking steps to ban the practice (I'll refrain from discussing the cultural implications of that).

My main argument has been and continues to be that if 80% of the world doesn't circ and they aren't having constant foreskin problems or skyrocketing rates of penile cancer, then there is NO reason to think pre-emptive circ is a good idea.


----------



## sarafi (Feb 10, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinsuzy*
> 
> One of the comments says "I have a question for the anti-circumcision fanatics: If they truly oppose removing a healthy body part without the consent of the child, why aren't they protesting the removal of the umbilical cord?" wow Can you say ANALOGY FAIL?... lol As depressing as the article is- that gave me a good laugh.


I know this is a few weeks old, but when I had my last child in America her nurse and I were talking about circumcision. I mentioned that both our boys were intact and she was vaguely supportive. THEN I mentioned that in Japan (where both boys were born) it is customary to completely remove the umbilical cord shortly after birth. I have no idea what they do, but my boys both had fairly normal looking belly buttons from day one. They preserve them as a memory of babies connection to Mama. This nurse just went nuts about how dangerous that was, they could bleed out, why in the world would they do that, etc.?

I just looked at her and said, I am sure that is how most of the world thinks about America, and at least in Japan they aren't removing something that was supposed to stay with the child throughout their lives.


----------



## mama24-7 (Aug 11, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sarafi*
> 
> I know this is a few weeks old, but when I had my last child in America her nurse and I were talking about circumcision. I mentioned that both our boys were intact and she was vaguely supportive. THEN I mentioned that in Japan (where both boys were born) it is customary to completely remove the umbilical cord shortly after birth. I have no idea what they do, but my boys both had fairly normal looking belly buttons from day one. They preserve them as a memory of babies connection to Mama. This nurse just went nuts about how dangerous that was, they could bleed out, why in the world would they do that, etc.?
> 
> I just looked at her and said, I am sure that is how most of the world thinks about America, and at least in Japan they aren't removing something that was supposed to stay with the child throughout their lives.


Don't leave us hanging! What was her response to this???

Sus


----------



## sarafi (Feb 10, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mama24-7*
> 
> Don't leave us hanging! What was her response to this???
> 
> Sus


 i believe it was a blank stare


----------



## QueenOfTheMeadow (Mar 25, 2005)

Richard-

I have removed your post regarding American men. We do not allow negative characterization of groups of people.



Quote:


> User Agreement
> 
> *Hate Speech*
> 
> ...


I would also like to draw your attantion to The Case AGainst Circumcision Guidlines:

Quote:


> This is not a space to bash others. In an effort to minimize language which might alienate those seeking information, we are cautious about using pejorative terms such as abuse, barbarism, mutilation, etc. when routinely discussing circumcision. _Let the facts speak for themselves_.


Please keep this guidlines in mind when posting in the future.


----------



## studentDr (Dec 7, 2012)

circumcision may decrease the rate of stds, but you would expect that , well you would hope that guys didn't put themselves in such situations, eg use of condoms. I think it is more of a thing advocated in developing countries to reduce the rate of stds especially HIV.

certainly as a guy becomes an old man if he is uncircumcised he is much more likely to get recurrent urinary tract infections.

mothers having their boys circumcised are obviously unaware of the things that occupy a boys mind and time, and how could they be, they are females and just trying to do the best for their child.


----------



## pek64 (Apr 8, 2012)

How does being circumcised help a guy put on a condom? Using condoms is the only way to reduce sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV.

And what evidence do you have that older, uncircumcised men get recurring uti's?


----------



## hakunangovi (Feb 15, 2002)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *studentDr*
> 
> circumcision may decrease the rate of stds, but you would expect that , well you would hope that guys didn't put themselves in such situations, eg use of condoms. I think it is more of a thing advocated in developing countries to reduce the rate of stds especially HIV.


Why would you expect that? In the developed world, the U.S.A. has the highest incidence of STDs and also, by far, the highest rate of circumcision. Also there are studies done in Africa that claim a higher rate of HIV in the circumcised population: http://circumstitions.com/HIV-SA.html .



> Originally Posted by *studentDr*
> 
> certainly as a guy becomes an old man if he is uncircumcised he is much more likely to get recurrent urinary tract infections.
> .


What makes you say that? I do not believe that is the case in Europe where almost all the old men are intact. Consider that in Finland only one in more than 16,000 will die without his foreskin, and there is no epidepic of UTIs there, for example.


----------



## studentDr (Dec 7, 2012)

thats interesting, thank you for informing me

all that I was taught is from what we were told in our geriatric rotations

I do think it is a bit mean cutting it for trivial reasons

we study a whole 6 months on obstetrics, gynaecology and paediatrics, but we never study men's health, it's obviously just as important


----------



## hakunangovi (Feb 15, 2002)

StudentDr, I commend you for comming here with an open mind. You hit the nail on the head. There is a serious lack of knowlege about normal intact male genitalia on the part of those in teaching positions in North America. Most of what we are told are myths and fabrications. If you research the history of circumcision, you will discover that it was introduced to curb masturbation. The medical community has been searching for justifications ever since. A new one each time the previous one was disproven.

http://icgi.org/medicalization-of-circumcision.htm

Consider that 85% of the word's males are intact. Of those, the vast majority are Muslims. Most of the rest are Jews and Americans.

You seem willing to learn. I hope you are, and I hope that you will not be shy about sharing your knowlege.

You may be interested in perusing:

www.cirp.org

www.circumstitions.org

www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org

There are lots more in the sticky at the top of this board.

Good luck.


----------



## studentDr (Dec 7, 2012)

thanks


----------



## studentDr (Dec 7, 2012)

can I ask a stupid question seeing as I am not a guy or a mother

I hope I don't get into trouble for this being off the topic

um I've heard that baby boys discover their genitals and like to play with them, (and females can apparetnly put things in theirs like peas and grass ) do they actually really masturbate at such a young age ?

or is it just around 14 that it starts ?


----------



## mama24-7 (Aug 11, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *studentDr*
> 
> can I ask a stupid question seeing as I am not a guy or a mother
> I hope I don't get into trouble for this being off the topic
> ...


I don't think it's a stupid question ;-)! Actually, circumcision first took hold in the US precisely to inflict pain upon children who had been exploring their bodies, so circ'ing was used as a punishment and/or prevention from exploring the body. I remember reading a quote from an old book that talked about it saying something like, inflict pain in that area so the child remembers & will no longer masturbate. Read about Dr. Kellog (can't remember his first name)...he was one of the first big drs. pushing it. And, initially, circ was done to girls also, for the same reasons, I believe, that it was done to boys. It wasn't made against the law to perform circ on girls until 1997, I believe. (Most of my info here is going based on memory. I may have the year wrong and/or Dr. Kellog's name spelled wrong.)

I have three children. They've all explored their bodies. From age 9ish months - 10 years old. I think it is normal to do this, just not looked up as healthy in our prudish, puritan society.

Sus


----------



## candiceamey (Apr 14, 2007)

Have to say - as a guy circumcised as a baby in the late seventies like everyone I knew - I personally have no issues with the AAP statement and the CDCs new suggestions. If the evidence is there in support of the benefits of circumcision (evidence based) why should people continue disputing this just because its not PC in some circles. I had my son circumcised 5y ago and would I do it again to save him from the risks of HIV, penile cancer and less chance of increasing his GFs risk of cervical cancer. And he had local anesthetic and slept the whole time and fed well afterwards. I was there so I can vouch for it. Call me "backward" that's ok. But personally I think these benefits talk for themselves. As for less doing it - think this is rubbish. All my buddies and friends had their sons done too. So not in the minority.


----------



## candiceamey (Apr 14, 2007)

Have to say its amazing that all the quotes of evidence about circumcision are all one sided.
www.cdc.gov/hiv/malecircumcision/ mentions the evidence base from the other side. Oh and I'm also a doctor in residency. Ryan


----------



## candiceamey (Apr 14, 2007)

@Hakunangovi: think you'd better read up on HIV and the DECREASED risk in circumcised males. Not the other way around. Like I was saying spreading false facts damages any balanced argument. I'm prepared as a guy to see the other side of opinion of circumcision but it seems others aren't here. Even if I disagree. Ryan.


----------



## mama24-7 (Aug 11, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *candiceamey*
> 
> Have to say - as a guy circumcised as a baby in the late seventies like everyone I knew - I personally have no issues with the AAP statement and the CDCs new suggestions. If the evidence is there in support of the benefits of circumcision (evidence based) why should people continue disputing this just because its not PC in some circles. I had my son circumcised 5y ago and would I do it again to save him from the risks of HIV, penile cancer and less chance of increasing his GFs risk of cervical cancer. And he had local anesthetic and slept the whole time and fed well afterwards. I was there so I can vouch for it. Call me "backward" that's ok. But personally I think these benefits talk for themselves. As for less doing it - think this is rubbish. All my buddies and friends had their sons done too. So not in the minority.


Hello Ryan! (I have a son named Ryan ;-).)







I hope you'll stick around & continue to participate in the conversation.

There are plenty of guys in your shoes, happy as larks w/ their goods. But, there are plenty of guys who are in your shoes angry as hell. Does another person have the right to amputate a healthy body part regardless of the potential benefits? What about amputating the healthy body parts of girls? Is that okay? If not, why is it okay to do to boys but not girls?

If you are on twitter, you may want to check out this to follow: https://twitter.com/mendocomplain Oh, and on Facebook, here are pictures of the brave men who stood up at the press conference in front of where the AAP was holding their conference to say that they did not consent to their circ's: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151286880176388&set=pb.41930706387.-2207520000.1361921157&type=3&theater

There's a thread here from those who are unhappy they were circ'd. Here it is: http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1368471/if-you-regret-being-circumcised-post-here My husband is circ'd & we are both unhappy about it. It effects us every single time we're intimate. Every. Single. Time.

And, you have no problem w/ the AAP's statement? We're the laughing stock of the rest of the first world! Here's a sampling of other countries pediatric group's statements: http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *candiceamey*
> 
> Have to say its amazing that all the quotes of evidence about circumcision are all one sided.
> www.cdc.gov/hiv/malecircumcision/ mentions the evidence base from the other side. Oh and I'm also a doctor in residency. Ryan


Since you are a doctor, you may want to become familiar w/ this organization www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org as well as this one www.nursesfortherightsofthechild.org in addition to this one, run by a nurse www.nocirc.org. There is also www.intactamerica.org who is working to end the practice of forced genital cutting on unconsenting individuals.

While I'm not a lawyer, since you are almost a physician, I'd suggest you never circumcise a child. Did you know that a child can sue his circumciser when he comes of age? You might look at GregB's posts here. I believe he's a lawyer who has represented those who have been circ'd as well as a parents of children who's circ's have been botched (Greg, please correct me if I'm wrong).

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *candiceamey*
> 
> @Hakunangovi: think you'd better read up on HIV and the DECREASED risk in circumcised males. Not the other way around. Like I was saying spreading false facts damages any balanced argument. I'm prepared as a guy to see the other side of opinion of circumcision but it seems others aren't here. Even if I disagree. Ryan.


I'd encourage you to look through the threads here at MDC. There are many rebuttals to the supposed trials of circ in Africa. Did you know that the trials were cut short? Did you know that they advised the circ'd group to abstain from sex for a large portion of the study? There is more that I'm not sure of my memory on so I'll stop there. Do you think that your child won't be able to learn how to protect himself from STDs while keeping their whole body? Do you think that a circ means their immune? What will happen if there is a cure to those diseases by then? Where will your son be then? Oh, maybe you'll help him learn about foreskin restoration.

And, even if they were valid studies, what does cutting off parts of Africans have to do w/ healthy babies born in America?

You said, "I'm prepared as a guy to see the other side of opinion of circumcision but it seems others aren't here." Are you prepared to see the "other side" of the female genital mutilation argument? Do you know what the proponents of that practice claim are it's benefits? Hmmm, hygiene, more attractive potential mates, healthier, blah, blah, blah. Yup, the same stuff that's spewed as "information," and "research," and "reasons" to cut off healthy parts of non-consenting individuals.

Oh, and just to round out the info for your purusal, here are many moms who regret circ'ing their sons. Many of them were misinformed by doctors & other medpros. Many of them were coerced by family members. Many were lead to believe it was just a flap of skin. Many of them believed it was their partner's decision since they weren't the ones w/ a penis. Read it, I dare you (it's 36 pages long): http://www.mothering.com/community/t/112410/if-you-regret-circumcising-your-son-s-please-post-here

I could go on, but I must attend to my happy, healthy, WHOLE sons now.

Best wishes,

Sus


----------



## candiceamey (Apr 14, 2007)

Hi Sue. Interesting stuff. Recall there are no proven medical benefits for female circumcision. Period. So comparing it with male circumcision is worse than bananas and cotton fields. As for the unhappy circumcised guys out there, there are plenty unhappy uncircumcised guys - just look at Ricky Lake show for example. I've seen it too with a buddy from school. And he was circumcised later in his 20s with complications far above what would have been expected as a child. As for being sued ... I can only picture the attorney driving around in his tacky van after the Connecticut massacre wanting to sue everyone in CT. There will always be those taking a quick buck. Maybe when someone gets HIV or penile cancer he'll sue someone that he WASN'T circumcised. As parents we can always look back and try and see did we do our best for our kids. There will always be things we could have done better. Weird that the AAP has never adopted as encouraging a support for infant circumcision as this time August 2012. And what so they have to benefit from it except the evidence. Good enough for me. That said I respect your opinion - all the best for you and your kids. I'm sure you will see them right. Same for me and my wife.


----------



## candiceamey (Apr 14, 2007)

Oh and the trials in Africa were stopped because the evidence in support of circumcision decreasing HIV was so compelling that continuing would have been criminal to those not being circumcised. That was evidence based again. R


----------



## Mitchell756 (Oct 14, 2012)

It is interesting that the only medical personnel in the industrialized world that believe that circumcision should be forced on children are also from the only industrialized nation that has a profit based medical system instead of a care based medical system. The United states has the worst health system and the highest rates of HIV, STDs and cervical cancer of all of the industrialized nations.

The German pediatric association recently came out in support of a total ban of male circumcision, in the same manner that the Royal Dutch Medical Association has. Circumcision is already illegal in Finland, represented by the successful prosecution of a couple that had their sons circumcised in 2011.

The Indonesian medical community believes in female circumcision and has specific guidelines for physicians detailing how it should be performed. Female circumcision was also previously supported by many physicians in the American medical community and was covered by the insurance company Blue Cross until 1977. No one has yet to investigate whether female circumcision has health benefits in regards to STDs or cervical cancer, so to say that they do not supposedly exist if they, according to you, do for male circumcision is truly quite daft.

There are many threads on all of these subjects here if you take the time to look around, because many of them are fairly recent. You are a circumcised man that is happy that he is circumcised and has circumcised his son. There are many woman that are happy that they are circumcised and have done the same thing to their daughters and would do it again.

If you were to travel to Europe, Latin America, non Muslim Asia or New Zealand and attempt to introduce male circumcision as a form of preventative medicine similar to vaccines you would be viewed as endorsing a form of pseudo science and be completely disregarded by the medical establishments in those nations (which the vast majority of have much better overall health than the U.S in every way, at a much lower cost).

This is not aimed directly at you as I suspect there is very little chance of changing your position on this regardless. This is aimed at anyone that may be reading this that is on the fence about whether or not they should have any future sons circumcised.

Here is one thing that I believe everyone that may be reading this should watch :


----------



## candiceamey (Apr 14, 2007)

I hear your opinion. However you cannot compare male with female circumcision. There are no benefits at all for the latter. The are per the CDC benefits for male circumcision however. And that's evidence based. Whether the rest of the world chooses to follow this is up to then. I suspect if you don't do it already you won't be keen to start. That's why we still do it on the States. Not because we have bad health care or because we are dumb. Even if John Kerry suggests otherwise


----------



## Fyrestorm (Feb 14, 2006)

Can you explain how you get around the 14th amendment that is supposed to provide equal protection under the law and how you do the work around for medical ethics? I'm confused as to why boys don't deserve the same rights that are guaranteed through this constitutional amendment and how proxy consent and first do no harm come into play here.


----------



## philomom (Sep 12, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *candiceamey*
> 
> Have to say - as a guy circumcised as a baby in the late seventies like everyone I knew - I personally have no issues with the AAP statement and the CDCs new suggestions. If the evidence is there in support of the benefits of circumcision (evidence based) why should people continue disputing this just because its not PC in some circles. I had my son circumcised 5y ago and would I do it again to save him from the risks of HIV, penile cancer and less chance of increasing his GFs risk of cervical cancer. And he had local anesthetic and slept the whole time and fed well afterwards. I was there so I can vouch for it. Call me "backward" that's ok. But personally I think these benefits talk for themselves. As for less doing it - think this is rubbish. All my buddies and friends had their sons done too. So not in the minority.


I have reported your posts. The "glory" of cutting non-consenting boys is not our goal at MDC. Cutting boys harms the boy they are and the men they will become. My Swedish cousins are appalled that Americans maim boys to possibly reduce HiV. That's a grownups and condom issue...... not something to be solved by barbarically cutting a baby boy's penis.


----------



## erinmattsmom88 (Oct 28, 2010)

@candiceamey... do your colleagues feel the same as you? I hope not. I hope the trend is away from your mentality. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, values, beliefs, etc, but since you have chosen a profession in medicine, you have a responsibility to practice good medicine. Routine circumcision is not that. My intact son was born a few years ago at a very large teaching hospital in NC. He was born via c-section and unfortunately spent his first 9 days of life in the NICU. As you can imagine, I saw and spoke with MANY doctors, nurses, and other practitioners during this time, and everytime I was asked if I was going to circ my son and said no, I was practically high-fived by all of them. I don't know what specialty you are interested in, but I hope not OB/Gyn or any pediatric specialty.


----------



## EchoSoul (Jan 24, 2011)

Ryan...the CDC is NOT an appropriate source for information of any kind. They lie about it all. As far as the HIV study in Africa..it's important to note that it is not common for them to use condoms. It's got nothing to do with whether they're intact or not, it's entirely due to the fact that they just don't often use condoms over there...if at all. The only reason the study was stopped, as all one-sided studies are stopped, is to achieve the answer they wanted. Organizations that know better only run highly tweaked studies for a short enough period of time, to achieve the answer they want..then they just stop. Nor do they invest time and money and research into all possible theories. Such as the lack of condoms being the cause of the high rate of HIV over there. That's all there is to it. Pass out a bunch of condoms to the people, teach them how to use them, and why to use them, and I bet we wouldn't even be having this discussion right now.


----------



## K703 (Dec 15, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fyrestorm*
> 
> Can you explain how you get around the 14th amendment that is supposed to provide equal protection under the law and how you do the work around for medical ethics? I'm confused as to why boys don't deserve the same rights that are guaranteed through this constitutional amendment and how proxy consent and first do no harm come into play here.


What you're hinting at could very well happen in the future - especially once boys born after the FGM ban start to turn 18 and thus would have standing in court - someone sues the government on the basis of unequal protection. If the case ever goes up to the Supreme Court it will be interesting to see how it turns out. The downside may be, like a poll in this thread of mine suggests, that because (male) circumcision is so enshrined in our culture that Congress would rather lift the FGM ban rather than ban MGM if the courts rule that they must treat the sexes equally in this regard. (Some religious groups might try to claim it's justified under the 1st Amendment, but freedom of religion does not apply once you force it on others.)


----------



## Fyrestorm (Feb 14, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *K703*
> 
> What you're hinting at could very well happen in the future - especially once boys born after the FGM ban start to turn 18 and thus would have standing in court - someone sues the government on the basis of unequal protection. If the case ever goes up to the Supreme Court it will be interesting to see how it turns out. The downside may be, like a poll in this thread of mine suggests, that because (male) circumcision is so enshrined in our culture that Congress would rather lift the FGM ban rather than ban MGM if the courts rule that they must treat the sexes equally in this regard. (Some religious groups might try to claim it's justified under the 1st Amendment, but freedom of religion does not apply once you force it on others.)


ITA! The ethical question is what other body parts can parents consent to the amputation of without immediate therapeutic concern? I have an awful history of ingrown toenails and no doc would take me seriously if I asked to have DDs toe removed with no imminent need. Where exactly does proxy consent start and end Ryan? Are there any body parts that you would remove from a child because the parents want it?

I'm waiting for the challenges to start against the FGM bill and equal protection. It is just a few more short years before the first boys whos rights were violated under this law reach the age of consent and can start a constitutional challenge. I'm not sure the FGM laws are in any danger of being overturned. Less than 2 years ago, the trade organization that represents the financial interests of American pediatricians tried to sneak in an exemption to allow their constituents to mutilate girls genitals in a clinical setting and the uproar was ASTONISHING! The request very quietly went away.


----------



## Marnica (Oct 4, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *candiceamey*
> 
> Hi Sue. Interesting stuff. Recall there are no proven medical benefits for female circumcision. Period. So comparing it with male circumcision is worse than bananas and cotton fields. As for the unhappy circumcised guys out there, there are plenty unhappy uncircumcised guys - just look at Ricky Lake show for example. I've seen it too with a buddy from school. And he was circumcised later in his 20s with complications far above what would have been expected as a child. As for being sued ... I can only picture the attorney driving around in his tacky van after the Connecticut massacre wanting to sue everyone in CT. There will always be those taking a quick buck. Maybe when someone gets HIV or penile cancer he'll sue someone that he WASN'T circumcised. As parents we can always look back and try and see did we do our best for our kids. There will always be things we could have done better. Weird that the AAP has never adopted as encouraging a support for infant circumcision as this time August 2012. And what so they have to benefit from it except the evidence. Good enough for me. That said I respect your opinion - all the best for you and your kids. I'm sure you will see them right. Same for me and my wife.


Do yourself a favor Ryan, don't pass yourself off as open minded about this. You aren't. At all. But I think that's pretty clear to anyone reading this thread. just saying


----------



## K703 (Dec 15, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fyrestorm*
> 
> I'm waiting for the challenges to start against the FGM bill and equal protection. It is just a few more short years before the first boys whos rights were violated under this law reach the age of consent and can start a constitutional challenge. I'm not sure the FGM laws are in any danger of being overturned. Less than 2 years ago, the trade organization that represents the financial interests of American pediatricians tried to sneak in an exemption to allow their constituents to mutilate girls genitals in a clinical setting and the uproar was ASTONISHING! The request very quietly went away.


The issue I mentioned was that, if Congress is forced to decide between either banning or legalizing GM for both genders (rather than banning it on females but not males as is currently the case) because the courts say you can't discriminate between the sexes which way would they go? Trust me, I don't like GM for either gender, but based on that poll it seems like if faced with a fork in the road they'd rather go the route of re-legalizing FGM rather than banning MGM.


----------



## ceric (Feb 27, 2013)

Male genital mutilation, called circumcision, was forced on me at birth, with no regard for my rights in the matter.

My parents were not given adequate information about the complications resulting from this mutilation, nor is any parent given the truth about circumcision.

My rights and my body were violated. As a result, I've had difficulty all of my life in achieving orgasm in normal sex, because of the damage inflicted on me.

There are no standards to male genital mutilation; the amount of tissue hacked off, the location/depth of the wounds are solely up to the whim of the mutilator at the moment. And the corresponding damage to sexual feeling and function because of the neural and vascular damage can be devastating. Google "David Reimer" to see just how destructive this is.

If it's illegal to circumcise female minors, it should be equally illegal to force circumcision on male minors, and for precisely the same reason; genital mutilation is genital mutilation, regardless of the sex of the victim.

The foreskin is not "extra skin," but a complex structure, with specialized tissues and about 20,000 nerve endings. The foreskin also has Langerhans cells, which produce langerin, a substance with antiviral and antibacterial properties.

Doctors have been promoting MGM for decades in the USA----they make money from it, and are frequently members of the religions that try to impose circumcision on all males; they're highly biased.

Circumcision is a fraud and a hoax.

A foreskin is not a birth defect; it is a birthright.

CERIC


----------



## Mitchell756 (Oct 14, 2012)

In the past many American physicians were of he belief that there were benefits to female circumcision. No study has ever been done on whether female circumcision would impact STDs or cancer, If there were those that have been desperately trying to find any excuse they can to continue cutting off parts of girls in a region where it has been falling out of favor than they would likely be able to come up with some benefits. Perhaps one would be reducing or eliminating the risk of vulvar cancer, even though vulvar caner is one of the rarest cancers for women, similar to penile cancer for men. Where are the studies on the benefits of amputating any other part of the human body?

Here is an incomplete list of some of the reasons given for circumcision overtime. Epilepsy, convulsions, paralysis, elephantiasis, tuberculosis, eczema, bed-wetting, sexually transmitted infections, hip-joint disease, respiratory infections, fecal incontinence, rectal prolapse, sexually transmitted diseases, wet dreams, hernia, headaches, nervousness, hysteria, cancer, poor eyesight, idiocy, mental retardation, and insanity.

In addition to these, circumcision was also considered as a way to prevent black men from raping white women.

Please read this or visit the site here. http://www.nocirc.org/articles/fleiss1.php

Quote:


> The "medical" debate about the "potential health benefits" of circumcision rarely addresses its real effects.
> 
> removed by moderator for copyright violation


So many underestimate the severe damage done by circumcision. Here is an individual that shares his experience of being circumcised as an adult. 




Why so many individuals have an obsession with cutting off part of their sons penis is difficult for me to understand. Would they be just as willing to cut off any other part of their childrens body if they were given that option? Even when parents could have had their daughters circumcised, the percentage of those that did only represented a very small portion of the population.

The obsession with circumcising males is something that I am still trying to fully grasp. Perhaps, when the cultures that circumcise their daughters are considered, it is about parents viewing their children as their own personal property instead of as individual human beings. Desiring to mark them as such and to do it in a way that will effect them more personally than any other, a mark that will remind both the person and his or her partner who he or she belongs to. It will be during their most personal and private moments together that they will be reminded of this and effected by it the most. A mark intended to show a parents influence and control over every relationship that their children will engage in, to remind all lovers of the power they once had over them and of the family lineage. Every partner will quickly be made acutely aware of this, an unspoken understanding of who shaped both individuals sexual lives.

Men are at a seven times or more greater risk of having this done to them than women. I have hypothesized on why this is the case but I am still seeking a definitive answer, although it is likely a combination of things.


----------



## pokeyac (Apr 1, 2011)

Hello Everyone,

I temporarily removed this thread for review, but it is back now. I want to remind all users of our forum guidelines (see below for an excerpt). This forum is called The Case Against Circumcision. I appreciate that you are keeping the discussion going in a civil manner that inspires and educates. Thank you for sharing your voice in our community.
Pokey

Mothering questions routine medical circumcision and advocates for informed consent. TCAC hosts discussion of the reasons to avoid circumcision, the history of the procedure, medical issues and studies, complications, the needs and rights of the child, care of the intact child's penis and other educational topics. *We are not interested in hosting discussion on merits of routine infant medical circumcision*. [Emphasis added by Moderator] Advocacy threads requesting members take action should be submitted to the Activism forum for approval.

It is our wish that The Case Against Circumcision be an informative and welcoming space for those who are new to the subject of circumcision. This is not a space to bash others. In an effort to minimize language which might alienate those seeking information, we are cautious about using pejorative terms such as abuse, barbarism, mutilation, etc. when routinely discussing circumcision. _Let the facts speak for themselves_.


----------



## ceric (Feb 27, 2013)

Circumcision, male OR female, is a violation of human rights, and damages sexual feeling and function.

Male genital mutilation, called circumcision, doesn't prevent any disease or infection. The HIV and STD rates in the USA, where the vast majority of males in the past had circumcision forced on them as infants, is much higher than in Europe, Scandinavia, South America and most of Asia, where circumcision is rarely perpetrated on males.

There are no standards to circumcision; the amount of tissue hacked off of the penis, the location/depth of the wounds are solely up to the whim of the mutilator at the moment.

Doctors aren't the only ones who force genital mutilation on infants; inexperienced medical students and nurses also perpetrate circumcision. It's open season on male infants, while female minors are protected against genital mutilation. This is sexist in the extreme, and unconstitutional as such in the USA.

The foreskin is not "extra skin," but a complex structure with specialized tissues and about 20,000 nerve endings. The foreskin also has Langerhans cells, which produce langerin, a substance with proven antiviral and antibiotic properties. The foreskin is also essential for complete, natural and normal sexual feeling and function.

It's absurd to think that damaging a penis would improve it in any way. Circumcision was popularized in the USA because doctgors made money from it, and many of the doctors belong to the religions that try to impose circumcision on all males; they're highly biased.

I had circumcision forced on me as an infant, and the resulting damage made it almost impossible for me to achieve orgasn in normal sex. The damage of circumcision varies wildly, as I stated above----it is neural and vascular damage to the penis, and the keratinization of the glans and surrounding tissues, which are supposed to be covered by tghe foreskin, damages sexual feeling throughout the victim's lifetime.

Circumcision is a fraud and a hoax.

A foreskin is not a birth defect; it is a birthright.

ERIC


----------



## philomom (Sep 12, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *candiceamey*
> 
> Have to say - as a guy circumcised as a baby in the late seventies like everyone I knew - I personally have no issues with the AAP statement and the CDCs new suggestions. If the evidence is there in support of the benefits of circumcision (evidence based) why should people continue disputing this just because its not PC in some circles. I had my son circumcised 5y ago and would I do it again to save him from the risks of HIV, penile cancer and less chance of increasing his GFs risk of cervical cancer. And he had local anesthetic and slept the whole time and fed well afterwards. I was there so I can vouch for it. Call me "backward" that's ok. But personally I think these benefits talk for themselves. As for less doing it - think this is rubbish. All my buddies and friends had their sons done too. So not in the minority.


I have reported your post. We do not advocate the cutting of helpless children here on MDC.


----------



## Greg B (Mar 18, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mama24-7*
> 
> ...
> 
> While I'm not a lawyer, since you are almost a physician, I'd suggest you never circumcise a child. Did you know that a child can sue his circumciser when he comes of age? You might look at GregB's posts here. I believe he's a lawyer who has represented those who have been circ'd as well as a parents of children who's circ's have been botched (Greg, please correct me if I'm wrong). ...


Sorry to disappoint, I am not a lawyer. Instead I am a scientist and the son of an engineer. And recently I have spent considerable time learning and applying decision analyis tools to my work and personal life.

More importantly, I have spent a lot of time over the last 12 years reading and thinking about this issue. Hopefully I have been able to articulate and frame the discussions well, so that they are easier to understand for everyone. The thing is, once you clearly articulate the arguments, the ones for RIC fall apart for some reason...

Regards


----------



## Greg B (Mar 18, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *candiceamey*
> 
> I hear your opinion. However you cannot compare male with female circumcision. There are no benefits at all for the latter. The are per the CDC benefits for male circumcision however. And that's evidence based. Whether the rest of the world chooses to follow this is up to then. I suspect if you don't do it already you won't be keen to start. That's why we still do it on the States. Not because we have bad health care or because we are dumb. Even if John Kerry suggests otherwise


You should be aware that the very same arguments are used to justify female circumcision. You can go down the points one by one and find they are the same. And have the same level of support.

The benefits per the CDC are not widely accepted. However, even if you accept that they benefits are there, that is not all you have to do to make a good decision. Instead, you need to weigh those benefits against the negative consequences. It is not enough to say there is some benefit and that is enough. A simple example. There are a number of benefits to castrating a boy before the age of puberty. He will never get testicular cancer, be less aggressive, will retain his hair, will live longer, and will have a wondeful voice for singing. In fact, this was done back in the day. Google "castrati" if you are curious.

But you hear that and cannot understand why anyone would even contemplate that, I would imagine. And with good reason. Because you can clearly see that these benefits are clearly not enough to outweight the negative consequences of losing his ability to father children, having his human rights violated, and not having his nromal sex drive, perhaps being impotent due to low levels of testosterone. Easy to see why those benefits are not enough to justify castrating.

You need to do the same when thinking about circumcision. Do the benefits you feel are proven justify the negative consequences? The negative consequences include: 1) pain and suffering during the procedure, 2) risk of death and complications, loss of the most important part of a man's anatomny for sexual feeling and function, for both him and his partner, 3) violation of his human rights, among others.

I would say clearly they are not. Not to mention that it is easy to wait, and medically a better, more predictable job can be done later in life.

Regards


----------



## mama24-7 (Aug 11, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Greg B*
> Sorry to disappoint, I am not a lawyer. Instead I am a scientist and the sone of an engineer. And recently I have spent considerable time learning and applying decision analyis tools to me work and personal life.
> 
> More importantly, I have spent a lot of time over the last 12 years reading and thinking about this issue. Hopefully I have been able to articulate and frame the discussions well, so that they are easier to understand for everyone. The thing is, once you clearly articulate the arguments, the ones for RIC fall apart for some reason...
> ...










Whoops! Thanks for correcting me.









Sus


----------



## mama24-7 (Aug 11, 2004)

I'm guessing there was a lot in this thread that was edited out my a mod. Anyway, I saw this today & it reminded me of the recent happenings in this thread. It's the Attorney's for the Rights of the Child's paper on the recent AAP changes. "Out of step: fatal ﬂaws in the latest AAP policy report on neonatal circumcision."

http://ww1.prweb.com/prfiles/2013/03/16/10539181/JME%20AAP%20Article%20Final%20Approved%20Proof%203-12-13.pdf

Sus


----------



## emma1325 (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *candiceamey*
> 
> I hear your opinion. However you cannot compare male with female circumcision. There are no benefits at all for the latter. The are per the CDC benefits for male circumcision however. And that's evidence based. Whether the rest of the world chooses to follow this is up to then. I suspect if you don't do it already you won't be keen to start. That's why we still do it on the States. Not because we have bad health care or because we are dumb. Even if John Kerry suggests otherwise


Greetings!

I was wondering if it is of your opinion that evidence-based research can never be flawed or biased? If foreskin removal prevented STD's, then surely a quick check of the data in other non-circumcising nations will reveal a clear higher STD rate compared with the US?

I encourage you to research this issue with an open mind. Read about the history of the procedure, and deaths and botched surgeries requiring multiple surgeries and resulting in lasting damage. Your son may have been OK, but many are not, and if you are truly a man after the truth, step outside your comfort zone and see this issue for what it is.

Even if circumcision on a grown man in Africa did slightly reduce the risk of HIV, please tell me how this applies to newborn baby boys in the US? Can you say apples to oranges? Doesn't seem very scientific to me.

Also, even if there were slight benefits, have they been properly weighed against the negatives? The foreskin is a highly sensitive part of a man's body...it has more nerve endings than the female clitorus! Removing this tissue removes the functions and benefits of the organ. Why does a very limited study on grown African men, who were instructed to abstain from sex or use condoms (did you actually read the study or do you prefer to take the AAP's word on it?) mean our nonconsenting baby boys must lose their rights to bodily integrity? Does that sound like evidence-based medicine to you? To me, it sounds like a profit-based decision which preys on US parents' trust in health authorities and deeply ingrained cultural taboos.

My husband used to think as you do...that it's no big deal, he was happy with his penis, and that there MUST be valid medical reasons for it if it was done to him and so many others. It can be difficult to consider the possibility that the public has been misled on this issue. After learning what the foreskin is, and how important it is to the function of the penis, my husband is officially pissed off. Part of his body was cut off and thrown into the trash (or sold) against his will while he was strapped down. This gross abuse of our boys has got to stop. It is unethical and an obvious (well, to the rest of the developed world anyway) human rights violation.


----------

