-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP – the science-based one) has recently published the results of its task force on circumcision. The AAP evaluated the recent evidence and determined that “the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks and that the procedure’s benefits justify access to this procedure for families who choose it.” We have previously discussed the ruling of a German court that parents who circumcise their sons based on religious beliefs are committing child abuse.
The specifics benefits of circumcision include
- prevention of urinary tract infections,
- penile cancer, and
- transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.
However, the AAP notes that the health benefits are not great enough to warrant routine circumcision.
The AAP notes that the benefits warrant reimbursement via medical insurance policies. We await the Christian conservatives’ outrage, claiming that circumcision, and it accompanying reduction in sexually transmitted diseases, will increase male promiscuity.
The AAP Technical Report recommends that “circumcision should be performed by trained and competent practitioners, by using sterile techniques and effective pain management.” The Task Force notes the problems with finding competent providers.
Researchers from Johns Hopkins University have found that “twenty years of falling circumcision rates have cost the country $2 billion in preventable medical costs.” Eighteen states have dropped their Medicaid coverage of the procedure.
Those who claim that the uncircumcised penis is natural and hence, better, commit the naturalistic fallacy. The argument that circumcision violates a “right to bodily integrity” would also apply to any number of surgeries to correct birth defects like fused limbs and the removal of vestigial tails.
While circumcision for health benefits has a rational basis, circumcision to demonstrate a commitment to an imaginary being is not rational.
H/T: David Bernstein (VC), Monya Baker (Nature), The Virginian-Pilot.
Unfair analogy, jag. Let’s have an intellectually honest debate. Your problem seems mostly philosophical, which I can abide. I’m just giving you my personal experience, I’m neutral philosophically on this topic. However, I’ll always err on the side of caution, even @ the craps table.
OK Darren….. the jig is up…..
YOU have to be from the North west??? 🙂
JP Patches…. ????
The circumcisee has no say in it, it is all about the choice of the circumcisor imposed upon the circumcisee.
Unless it is only done after the age of majority.
Nick…. there could have been other methods that may have worked just as well….
I think teaching a boy how to clean himself properly is very important….
there are GIRLS that get many many UTI’s…. YOU teach the girl how to take care of her genitals so this does not happen….
just as a woman is more adept at teaching her daughter how to keep herself clean…. I man with a foreskin is also most likely going to be a better teacher as to teach a young boy with a foreskin how to keep himself clean…
Now should people start taking children’s appendix out????? this will also curb infection and can potentially be life saving…..
Clint Eastwood was simply acting out the role of a character. He was no more responsible for encouraging others to smoke as J. P. Patches or Bozo the Clown were responsible for young adults listening to Insane Clown Posse and becoming Juggalos.
Thanks for sharing BFM!
Gurl – do you really not know what is involved in female circumcision or are you just trying to be funny?
NO… actually NOT trying to be funny…..
There are many in Europe that feel, cutting the healthy tissue of a boy, is just as bad as cutting the healthy tissue of a girl….
It seems that the USA is the ONLY ONE who comes to this conclusion….
France, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland…. UK…. Norway…. Holland… ETC….. come to the TOTAL OPPOSITE conclusion that the American study does….
Now…. One thing I do know…. The AAP is made of of many Doctors…. now, I do have to wonder, how many of them are Jewish, and are going to have a religious BIAS in this study.????
We can not look at this study, that goes against what MOST of the rest of the rest of the world, and not look at the possible religious bias that may have shaped these opinions….
Jag, Our pediatrician, who we trust implicitly, said have your son cicumsized and 90% chance he won’t have another UTI. She was correct. jag, maybe it takes a dude to truly empathize w/ having your hood whacked when you’re 10. My wife felt so bad for him, but I literally had sympathy pains. Better done when babies than pre-adolescent.
Thanks, but I think I will just use a condom and wash very, very carefully – if it is all the same with you.
itchinbaydog, OK, you hate Clint. Fine. But, Hollywood made smoking cool, not just Eastwood.
well… here is an article on this study from Canada….
and I must say, I tend toward having more faith in their conclusion….
The USA is PRO Circumcision…. that is ingrained in the culture and tradition….
here is the article……
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/…
“The Canadian Pediatric Society’s position statement says circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed.”
and….. “Goldman contends medical studies showing benefits are flawed and that the academy’s new position is “out of step” with medical groups in other developed countries.” an additional, older article stating why it is difficult to provide accurate study
result…..
http://www.scientificamerican.com/art
… same demographic limitations apply to the spread of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). A study from a venereal disease clinic in Africa reported that circumcision was less common among HIV-infected males as compared with HIV-negative males who attended the same clinic.
This clinic served two different tribes, each having who have different religions and mores. Again, the prevalence of circumcision was but one difference between the groups and so cannot be considered the only reason for the discrepancy in their infection levels–and circumcision certainly cannot be depended on for protection against a deadly virus.”There are several published studies that conclude that circumcision prevents urinary tract infection in infant boys. These studies focus on infants who were examined for fever, were hospitalized and were diagnosed as having discharge from a urinary tract infection. These studies may be biased in another way. For years, physicians have heard that uncircumcised boys may be more prone to urinary tract infections. Circumcised boys, therefore, are more likely to be checked for signs of infection than are their uncircumcised friends. Unfortunately, there have been no studies designed to test boys (circumcised and not) prospectively for urinary tract infection.
It’s really easy to find circumcised doctors who are against circumcision, but surprisingly difficult to find male doctors in favor who weren’t circumcised themselves as children.
The AAP are way out of line with other national medical organizations, and it’s very disappointing that they say this:
“Parents are entitled to factually correct, nonbiased information about circumcision”
but they provide information that is both biased and highly selective. They simply don’t seem to consider that the foreskin might actually be valuable.
How strange that all the health benefits the AAP claim don’t seem to exist in Europe, where almost no-one circumcises unless they’re Jewish or Muslim.
I suppose it’s a good thing they didn’t look at operating on girls to prevent breast cancer. 11% of women get breast cancer, and 3% die of it, so the health benefits to the girls would massively outweigh the risks.
Meanwhile, other national health organizations including the Canadian Paediatric Society and the Dutch Medical Association continue to recommend *against* circumcising newborns.
Female and male circumcision are more comparable than some people (including Frankly) think. Firstly, in countries where female circumcision is done under unhygienic conditions, male circumcision is too (broken glass, no anaesthesia, etc). Many boys die each year in Africa from tribal circumcisions – over 100 young men died last year in just one province of South Africa. In some countries though female circumcision only involves the removal of the clitoral hood – the anatomical equivalent of the foreskin – and is done to babies in sterile conditions, even with pain relief. Check out how it’s done in Egypt, Malaysia or Brunei, for example. Circumcised women choose to have their daughters circumcised, citing how it’s cleaner, good sexually, reduces secretions and smegma and is generally hygienic, and also mentioning studies showing circumcised women have lower infection rates. Basically the same reasons that people use to defend male circumcision. It’s just a cultural difference.
This is just one study that showed health benefits to female circumcision:
http://www.iasociety.org/Default.aspx?pageId=11&abstractId=2177677
“Conclusions: A lowered risk of HIV infection among circumcised women was not attributable to confounding with another risk factor in these data.”
There was a movie on tv last night with that schmuck Clint Eastwood. He was smoking the entire movie. Millions of kids and adults were encouraged by the schmuck to take up smoking. Then the old fart appeared on tv at the national convention. He made no apologies for the millions whom he condemned to illness and death.
Our adopted son was ~3 when we got him. He was uncircumsized. After about 4 UTI’s our pediatrician urged circumcision. My poor boy was 10 and it was very tough for us to have him undergo it, but it stopped the UTI’s. Plus, guys who served in the military will tell you the dudes w/ “hoods” get the clap much more frequently. Just sayn’.
Gurl – do you really not know what is involved in female circumcision or are you just trying to be funny?
But lets pretend the two are similar. It still would come down to any medical benefits from doing or not doing each. The health benefits of male circumcision have been known for years (the reduction in cancer was explained to me 50 years ago) despite any real questioning of the practice. There needs to be more study but that appears to be happening. No such benefit has been witnessed in female circumcision but it could be studied.
Waldo – while your statement is true & suspect the conclusion you want to draw is very wrong.
Scientists are human and suffer from the same human failings we all do. That is why they insist on peer review and repeatability before reaching consensus. Even in this post the details of the two stories are far more important than the glaring headlines that people want to focus on to proved their point. Those details are much more nuanced and complex than some people want them to be.
Good science, the kind done in the past about the dangers of smoking and currently being done about climate change, takes time, it takes multiple reviews, it takes teams of actual scientists combing over the results the find errors and even to weed out – HEAVEN FORFEND! – bias and prejudice. That is what makes it better than the fake science done by tobacco companies or coal and oil company stooges who do not provide for peer review but do write beautiful headlines.
well.. I would think that the USA might have amore bias towards…. and as for Europe… Canada… Germany…. France… they all come to the opposite conclusion than the USA…..
also…. WHY is it OK to cut a males genitals????
and NOT OK to cut females????
I find it interesting that the American and some European medical associations seem to reach very different opinions. I suppose it’s just another example that scientists are no more free from prejudice and bias than anyone else.
“[…] the ruling of a German court that parents who circumcise their sons based on religious beliefs are committing child abuse […]”
No. The accused (whose acquittal by the first instance was upheld by the State Court Cologne BTW) in that case was the doctor, not the parents. And the offense in question was causing bodily harm, not child abuse.
The point of the court wasn’t if circumcision is good or bad (“abuse”), the point was the validity of the informed consent.
Put me in the health camp….though it may originally been based on religious beliefs… It’s more of a health benefit….