CDC considering a recommendation

[Pamela H in Texas]

to circumcise ALL baby boys.

 

Watching story right now. I'll just post some facts as they mention it.

 

65% of all boys are currently circumcised (as of 1999).

 

Main reason for circumcision in this country is "to look like daddy."

 

They are talking about sexually transmitted diseases. Though in African countries, uncircumcised men spread AIDS more readily (by 50%), that hasn't been the case in this country. (ETA: the article linked below seems to disagree but that was my understanding of what was said was) However, there does seem to be evidence that uncirc'd men in this country ARE spreading other sexually transmitted diseases more readily. By the end of the year, the CDC is planning to make circumcision a formal recommendation so this is less of an issue.

 

JMO, but I'm not sure that cutting off a body part of every male because people are being promiscuous is a particularly good reason. It seems to make more sense to discourage inappropriate sexual practices rather than lopping off foreskin.

Edited August 24, 2009 by 2J5M9K

[angela in ohio]

JMO, but I'm not sure that cutting off a body part of every male because people are being promiscuous is a particularly good reason. It seems to make more sense to discourage inappropriate sexual practices rather than lopping off foreskin.

 

This seems to parallel the recommendation to inject each pre-teen girl with Gardisil. :glare:

[Perry]

There's a story about it here.

[Lilymax]

Interesting, esp. considering my third baby boy is due in a few weeks.

 

I probably would not have chosen to circ any of my sons if it were left up to me, but DH was insistent on it. I don't want to start a circ/non-circ debate...I have read extensively on the subject and I still have mixed feelings about it.

 

One of the reasons I was hoping for a girl this time around was so that we wouldn't have to go through that again. When you first take their little diaper off and see what they look like after the procedure, it's just heartbreaking. I bawled my eyes out when they took my other boys to have it done. DH was all stoic about it, but I couldn't stand knowing they were hurting my baby, or thinking about the residual pain the poor things go through afterward.

 

Still, DH made a valid point and this study echoes it: circumcision does seem to have some disease-protecting benefits for both the man and his future partner. I know we all have to decide for ourselves how much weight we give those studies when we make this decision.

[Murphy101]

I see nothing wrong with having my boys circ'd

if we have anymore more sons, they will be also.

 

and yes, I've read all the anti-circ stuff and still feel that way.:)

 

that said, I think the CDC is not the best primary source of sound medical advice sometimes. I pretty much feel that way about most medical establishiments, the FDC, the AMA, and certainly the ob/gyn in boards.:glare:

[tdeveson]

I wouldn't cut off a piece of my son's body to "pre-empt" a disease. That's what condoms and good sense are for. By that standard, I would also have to have his appendix and wisdom teeth removed just in case they ever give him trouble in the future. Oh, and we should also remove the gall bladder -- you know how that can go bad.

 

As to AIDS, try using circumcision as your mode of protection.

 

And last, my favorite argument: "But they won't remember the pain." Bullsh*t. If you rationalize it that way, then we should conduct all surgery on Alzaheimer's patients without anesthesia. After all, they won't remember the pain.

 

Please -- ritual mutilation of children is sooooooo last millennium. By boy was born perfect. I did not feel compelled to amputate any part of him.

[Dirtroad]

Smegma is the stuff that gets under that fold of skin. Oh, it is so gross & nasty.:ack2: It is a bacterial playground & is disgusting stuff. There are health benefits for it. I got my MS in reproductive phys. Smegma was so gross.

 

It is only a flap of skin... not like the vaccination which enters the body & may cause horrible side effects. It is uncomfortable for the infant for a few days but isnt' brutal, barbaric, or life threatening.

 

I am glad to see is it being promoted, but don't think any gov't should mandate it or make it a law.:001_huh:

[Dirtroad]

Your initial reaction to start crying when you saw what they had done to your child was right. Why would you allow your husband to force you to mutilate your children? These things never make sense to me.

 

Mutilate? That seems very extreme.:001_huh:

 

It is a piece of skin that has very little need... except to grow bacteria and make cleaning harder.

[Pamela H in Texas]

I was hoping that this wouldn't turn into the more extreme type of debate about circumcision. I kept my general opinions about circumcision out of it as well as our choices for our children. I don't think they are relevant. Basically, if anyone cares, I don't think circumcision is necessary and I think "to be like daddy" is a ridiculous reason. I also believe it does make a difference sexually later on. However, I'm not completely against it. I don't consider it an issue to fuss about. I also made the choice to let my hubby decide.

 

HOWEVER, my point in this post was simply that I had a real issue with the idea of, "here my dear 1 day old infant. Because one day you will probably decide to have sex with many people who probably are having sex with many people, I'm going to cut off a piece of your body so you won't spread disease to your wife, especially since you may choose not to be faithful to her."

 

I just really have an issue with THIS reason.

Edited August 24, 2009 by 2J5M9K

[MomLovesClassics]

It is my belief that it should be up to the parents to decide what is best for their children. Maybe there are religious factors that would help them make their decision. I personally do not think circumcising prevents spread of sexually transmitted disease.

Is having sex with multiple partners what causes sexually transmitted disease? At least that is what I thought?

This could give people the false sense of security that it is ok to have multiple partners. Condoms are not fool proof. Some think oral sex is not sex, and that you can't get a disease from that either. People get these sexually transmitted diseases from being misinformed.

Maybe I am old fashioned here, but having sex with your husband, a partner for life, and both remaining faithful is the best way to reduce your risk of getting a sexual transmitted disease. Yet this is one option not drilled into young peoples head.

There are pros and cons of circumcision, parents need to be able to make informed desisions. I just don't find preventing spread of sexually transmitted disease to be a valid reason.

[phathui5]

I probably would not have chosen to circ any of my sons if it were left up to me, but DH was insistent on it.

 

My dh wanted it done and I put my proverbial foot down. None of my children are having elective cosmetic surgery until they can sign for it themselves.

 

It is a piece of skin that has very little need... except to grow bacteria and make cleaning harder.

 

It has a lot of nerve endings, much like the clitoris (which I wouldn't be willing to cut off). I believe it serves a sexual function.

[cathmom]

I seem to recall that Mothering magazine just did an article that showed how flawed that research about the uncircumcised men in Africa was. I'll have to go look at my back issues.

[ELaurie]

Try to ignore the banana :tongue_smilie:

Link

[Mommyof4ks]

Like other decisions I would like the gov't to stay out of this private decision. We chose to circ. for several reasons, but that is my business not the gov'ts IMHO. A good friend chose not to circ. and that is her business. What does the gov't not understand about, my child my choice?!

 

There is an easy way to stop the spread of those diseases, but of course we could not tell people to stop doing that now could we, because that is their own personal decision. :)

[5KidzRUs]

I think that it is a Jewish ritual that became popular in the US.

What if it was a trend to do this to our daughters genitalia as it is still done in some places?

I know adult male doctors who are from a culture that does NOT circumcise and they can hold us their end of the argument against circumcision.

As I am sure that there are those that are equally adamant for it.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

It became popular in the US because Drs told parents that cutting off a boy's foreskin would make him stop masturbating. The exact words were, "circumcision without anesthesia is recommended. Do not use anesthesia so he will remember the pain and not repeat the act".

 

How sad.

 

My son, too was born perfect and did not require cosmetic surgery on his penis. And, ftr, it does not require extraordinary care. Females have foreskins and produce smegma (is it called something else in females?) and we clean up just fine. It is actually harder to clean girls, both infant and older than boys, but I manage, even without the use of scouring powder or Brillo pads! ;)

 

It is HIS body. If he decides that he wants part of his penis removed when he is older, then that is HIS decision.

[Renee in NC]

I seem to recall that Mothering magazine just did an article that showed how flawed that research about the uncircumcised men in Africa was. I'll have to go look at my back issues.

 

I remember reading an article at some point that discussed the glaring error in the studies - religion was not seen as a contributing factor. Something like religious men were more likely to be circumcised and less likely to have multiple partners, thereby not getting and spreading STDs.

 

Some of my sons are and some aren't. Even if I had wanted my last baby circ'd, they wouldn't have done it until I paid the $650 upfront!

[radiobrain]

Both my sons are NOT c'd. Neither is my husband.

 

It is more than just a piece of skin.... really it is. Trust me. I see that it is probably not good to get into specifics here... but if my kids, when adults, elect to have the procedure done... that will be up to them. I will try to talk them out of it of course.... :) If they choose to cut down their sensitivity in that area... (excuse the pun)

 

All you need to do is teach your sons to clean the area when they bathe. Is that so hard? like "clean behind your ears, between your toes and beneath your foreskin." That's it.

[lionfamily1999]

Both my dss were. It was a combination of things that led dh and me to that decision.

 

If the CDC wants to endorse it as a way to reduce disease, then good for them. I don't see what all the fuss is about.

[chiguirre]

I'm not anti-circ, if that's what the parents want to do, but I am concerned that new parents will be pressured to consent to circumcision by their ob/gyns and pediatricians. Just what new parents need, another topic that you have to buck the medical establishment on before you take your newborn home.

[SquirrellyMama]

JMO, but I'm not sure that cutting off a body part of every male because people are being promiscuous is a particularly good reason. It seems to make more sense to discourage inappropriate sexual practices rather than lopping off foreskin.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:

[lionfamily1999]

I'm not anti-circ, if that's what the parents want to do, but I am concerned that new parents will be pressured to consent to circumcision by their ob/gyns and pediatricians. Just what new parents need, another topic that you have to buck the medical establishment on before you take your newborn home.

One thing I've noticed is that, many parents that just do what their doctor tells them to are not the most hands-on parents. I've babysat for a little boy that was uncirced (3yo). His mother did whatever the doctor said and beyond that... well, if the doc hadn't recommended it, she didn't do it. That poor kid was so dirty, dirty hair, dirty nails, but the doc said, 'kids at that age get dirty, so don't worry about it, he should have a bath if he smells, if he's obviously dirty, or every three days. He should wash his hands and face often.' So, the kid had infections pretty often, the doctor said it was from OVER washing :( He obviously assumed she was being straight up, but I knew she was only washing him, once he got the infection. Parents like that, their kids might be better off.

[FO4UR]

The issue is not whether or not to circ.

 

The issue is whether or not to allow the gov't control if you do or do not circ.

 

I have my own opinions on the topic, and as *MOTHER* of my boys, I hold the authority to make this decision. Whether or not I agree with the gov't this time is of no matter.

[lionfamily1999]

Paula, I was under the impression that the CDC was just going to recommend it.

 

Forcing it would be wrong, I totally agree.

 

If they're just endorsing it, though, eh, they endorse all kinds of things that people ignore.

[Perry]

Paula, I was under the impression that the CDC was just going to recommend it.

 

Forcing it would be wrong, I totally agree.

 

If they're just endorsing it, though, eh, they endorse all kinds of things that people ignore.

 

 

They haven't even made the recommendation yet, but if they do it's a *recommendation* not a requirement.

[Audrey]

I think circumcision is a terrible thing to do to a boy. There are plenty of complications that occur from circumcision, too. It is not difficult to teach a child to wash himself properly (as another poster stated), and until he can, you are probably bathing them anyway.

 

The foreskin is NOT just a useless flap of skin. It actually provides protection to the head of the penis which is filled with very sensitive nerve endings. An intact foreskin preserves the sensitivity of those nerve endings and allows the man the experience the pleasure he was meant to during intercourse. Exposing the head of the penis by circumcision numbs those nerve endings thereby reducing the natural sensitivity of the man's penis.

 

I see that another poster also mentioned the archaic "it stops them from masturbating" excuse that was prevalent in the early 20th C. It certainly doesn't stop them from doing it, but it does rob them of a significant degree of the natural pleasure they should have had with an intact foreskin.

[dirty ethel rackham]

Both my dss were. It was a combination of things that led dh and me to that decision.

 

If the CDC wants to endorse it as a way to reduce disease, then good for them. I don't see what all the fuss is about.

 

The fuss is about the fact that they are using poor science to justify this expensive and unnecessary procedure when there are better and more effective ways to reduce disease.

[lionfamily1999]

They haven't even made the recommendation yet, but if they do it's a *recommendation* not a requirement.

That's what I thought.

The fuss is about the fact that they are using poor science to justify this expensive and unnecessary procedure when there are better and more effective ways to reduce disease.

If it's only a recommendation, then what does it matter?

 

Again, people have no problem ignoring recommendations.

[Plucky]

That's what I thought.

 

If it's only a recommendation, then what does it matter?

 

Again, people have no problem ignoring recommendations.

 

Have you noticed things seem to start as recommendations and then become expected?

[lionfamily1999]

Have you noticed things seem to start as recommendations and then become expected?

Expected and forced are still two different things. The gov. and different bodies can recommend whatever they want, as long as it isn't forced.

[Carrie12345]

I happen to have one circ'ed son and one non-circ'ed son. While I now believe "Their body, their choice", I'd much rather have "My child, my choice" than "My child, WWTheGovernmentD?"

 

And I agree, sexual promiscuity is the problem, not the foreskin!

[Miss Marple]

It became popular in the US because Drs told parents that cutting off a boy's foreskin would make him stop masturbating. The exact words were, "circumcision without anesthesia is recommended. Do not use anesthesia so he will remember the pain and not repeat the act".

 

Where is this quote found and who is the doctor who said it? And how did this doctor who said this influence the myriad other doctors in the US? Was it a surgeon general?

 

As a parent of 4 boys, and as a medical professional who is married to a medical professional, I have NEVER heard this either from my sons' pediatricians or our extensive acquaintances in the medical profession. So...I would love to know where this quote is from.

[Plucky]

Expected and forced are still two different things. The gov. and different bodies can recommend whatever they want, as long as it isn't forced.

 

The problem is that pediatricians do try to coerce patients based on recommendations. I already have to do battle with the medical community based on my beliefs of homeschooling, homebirthing, and vaccinations on my own schedule. Often experts and schools will try to make people think that it isn't a choice. I also think this is faulty science.

[Plucky]

Expected and forced are still two different things. The gov. and different bodies can recommend whatever they want, as long as it isn't forced.

 

What if we left it up to the boys when they turn 18? Surely, if it means their health they would be willing to have the surgery. :D

[phathui5]

Try to ignore the banana :tongue_smilie:

Link

 

A penis that is regarded by most as being more attractive.

 

Really? They listed that as a reason to circ someone?

[Plucky]

Really? They listed that as a reason to circ someone?

 

The author of the site is a professor and only has girls.

[phathui5]

Have you noticed things seem to start as recommendations and then become expected?

 

Ah. Like vaccines and full-day kindergarten?

[Miss Marple]

I have talked to quite a few men (when I worked in the VA system) who were electing to have the procedure done when they were in their 60s. Being pregnant with my first son, I wanted to hear all sides of the story (and being in the medical field, I had that perspective already). All of these men were in the hospital for the procedure due to dealing with multiple infections and severe pain from infections. They *all* said they wished they had had the procedure done as a baby. The surgery for an adult is more difficult than in a new born. It requires a longer hospital stay - some of which is due to the condition of the penis prior to surgery.

 

So...yes, adults do request the surgery, but all the ones I know wish their parents had provided it rather than allowing them to go through the infections and surgery as adults. And, yes, I know that they can keep themselves clean and avoid the infections, but the reality is that many won't do it.

[Plucky]

I have talked to quite a few men (when I worked in the VA system) who were electing to have the procedure done when they were in their 60s. Being pregnant with my first son, I wanted to hear all sides of the story (and being in the medical field, I had that perspective already). All of these men were in the hospital for the procedure due to dealing with multiple infections and severe pain from infections. They *all* said they wished they had had the procedure done as a baby. The surgery for an adult is more difficult than in a new born. It requires a longer hospital stay - some of which is due to the condition of the penis prior to surgery.

 

So...yes, adults do request the surgery, but all the ones I know wish their parents had provided it rather than allowing them to go through the infections and surgery as adults. And, yes, I know that they can keep themselves clean and avoid the infections, but the reality is that many won't do it.

 

 

My 11 yos with learning issues is a pro at keeping himself clean. He did learn from having a sore spot that he absolutely has to wash his penis. But now he knows to pull back the foreskin and clean it. No problems since.

 

Is it that the men can't/won't clean themselves or it becomes too much for care workers when the men are elderly?

[dirty ethel rackham]

Where is this quote found and who is the doctor who said it? And how did this doctor who said this influence the myriad other doctors in the US? Was it a surgeon general?

 

 

I believe that is from the late 1800's - early 1900's. Up until the late 1800's, almost all routine circumcisions were done for religious reasons and not by Christians. Every time the "medical" justification was debunked, a new justification was invented.

 

Here are a couple links on the history and sociological issues:

 

History of circumcision US

 

Circumcision: The Uniquely American Enigma by Wallerstein (I am not a big fan of CIRP's tactics, but I have seen this article elsewhere, but this is the only place I could find it on the web.)

[Miss Marple]

These were not elderly men. They are men who were otherwise healthy and in charge of their "affairs" and of sound enough mind to make the decision as well as discuss their thinking with me. Some STDs can also make that area sensitive making it harder to clean because of pain.

[Plucky]

These were not elderly men. They are men who were otherwise healthy and in charge of their "affairs" and of sound enough mind to make the decision as well as discuss their thinking with me. Some STDs can also make that area sensitive making it harder to clean because of pain.

 

They would rather have surgery than keep themselves clean? What std besides herpes would do that regularly? Even warts go away or are removed and usually clear up.

[Miss Marple]

I still don't see how an argument can be made that this is *why* physicians in the US recommend the procedure today (as seemed to be stated in by the poster I replied to). Am I missing something here? Few if any medical professionals would use anything from the 1800s to justify current medical thinking.

[Miss Marple]

Oh, I think it's similar to those who are overweight and keep eating and finally end up with ill health, or those who drink extensively knowing that it might destroy their livers, but do it anyways because until it hits them in the face, they don't see the need.

 

I think it's just human nature to ignore things that aren't causing problems until problems surface because of neglect.

[OnTheBrink]

I wouldn't cut off a piece of my son's body to "pre-empt" a disease. That's what condoms and good sense are for. By that standard, I would also have to have his appendix and wisdom teeth removed just in case they ever give him trouble in the future. Oh, and we should also remove the gall bladder -- you know how that can go bad.

 

As to AIDS, try using circumcision as your mode of protection.

 

And last, my favorite argument: "But they won't remember the pain." Bullsh*t. If you rationalize it that way, then we should conduct all surgery on Alzaheimer's patients without anesthesia. After all, they won't remember the pain.

 

Please -- ritual mutilation of children is sooooooo last millennium. By boy was born perfect. I did not feel compelled to amputate any part of him.

 

I did not circumcise my son at birth. By age 5, he'd had so many infections due the fact his foreskin wouldn't retract, he needed to be circ'd. And, no, it wasn't because I didn't bathe him properly, According the pediatric urologist, his skin was in such a way that it was nearly impossible to keep him clean, no matter how many baths he got in a day.

 

The surgery was done outpatient at a children's hospital. He is 21 today (22 next month) and has absolutely NO memory of it whatsoever, and he was 5. No memory of the surgery, no memory of the hospital stay, and no memory of how he ripped the stitches a few days later while playing Superman (he was leaping from chair to chair in a single bound).

 

So, I'm thinking that if a fully aware 5 year old has no memory of it, a newborn won't either.

[dirty ethel rackham]

I still don't see how an argument can be made that this is *why* physicians in the US recommend the procedure today (as seemed to be stated in by the poster I replied to). Am I missing something here? Few if any medical professionals would use anything from the 1800s to justify current medical thinking.

 

This is not why it is recommended today. It is why it became popular here in the first place. There have been a multitude of reasons spouted over time, each debunked and replaced with something else. In the 1980s and early '90s, it was UTI's and penile cancer, which, again was based upon faulty logic. Infant girls have much higher rates of UTI's and we don't recommend circumcising girls. Plus the studies did not take into account bad advice given to parents about the care of intact boys (forcible retraction instead of leave it alone.) In studies that did, the difference was statistically insignificant. The penile cancer thing was a red herring because this cancer is SOOO rare that there would be over 200 moderate-serious complications from a circumcision to prevent 1 case of penile cancer. Now, it is STD's/AIDS, even though the science showing any benefit is fuzzy at best.

[TravelingChris]

WE had our son circumcised. I had no idea about his grandfather (my FIL) until he had prostate cancer. He had to be circumcised in his 80's. It was very painful, much more so than the cancer procedures. After that, I was very thankful that both my dh and my ds had had this procedure done at infancy.

 

I have no problem with the recommendation. Yes, they are recommending Gardisil, but I am not ready to give it a try. Will I later for my daughters/ Maybe. I am not anti-vaccination, just want to be cautious about a new vaccine. Recommendations are just that- not requirements. I have had none of my girl's doctors, and they both have many and had many in the last place we lived, recommend gardasil. SOme have posters out with the information but none has pressured us or even asked us if we want it. My thinking is that some of these doctors actually observe and think about their patients so they can tell from talking with my older dd that right now, the only danger she has for cervical cancer is getting raped by a man with the carrier disease. That is very unlikely and if that happened, we would have many more problems than a potential cancer many years later.

[Miss Marple]

It is why it became popular here in the first place.

 

Honestly? Was the world, at that time, so consumed with who mast...bated and how often? I wonder...I *can* believe that some fringe religious groups might have advocated this, but as a mainstream opinion, that physicians advocated, I just can't see it.

[Perry]

This is not why it is recommended today. It is why it became popular here in the first place.

 

I believe someone said it, but I'd be surprised if it had much impact. From circinfo

 

 

In the late 19th century circumcision became routine in the United States of America and elsewhere as a result of pronouncements in publications by various physicians, most notably Peter Remondino [12, 206, 462]. He recognized the various health benefits at the time, although he overemphasized the clinical significance of the foreskin in masturbation, a practice thought at the time to have adverse consequences [514]. Most other authorities at the time did not agree with him on this point, as is discussed in the next paragraph. The procedure rapidly gained popularity and became routine.

Some of the purported benefits have stood the test of time, namely that circumcision prevents penile cancer, syphilis, balanoposthitis and phimosis. Although it is often claimed (by anti-circ activists) that circumcision was popular in the Victorian era as a cure for masturbation, the truth is quite different. This hypothesis appeared in an 1891 commentary [260] by an author who, decades earlier, was the first to observe that circumcision protects against syphilis [259]. But the idea that circumcision prevented masturbation had no common currency in Victorian times. For example, the purported ‘evil’ of masturbation occupies much of the 1913 book ‘Youth and Sex’, yet circumcision is not mentioned [492]. A well-known book on circumcision by Felix Bryke completely rubbishes the idea [84] and Whitla’s ‘Dictionary of Treatment’ does not list ‘circumcision’, whereas, under ‘masturbation', only suggests performing circumcision if irritation from a tight prepuce is responsible [619].

 

Edited August 24, 2009 by Perry

[AngelaNYC]

Just to throw a Christian slant in all of this:

 

"Jesus Christ is the New Covenant, rendering all of the Old Testament practices, including the Abrahamic covenant of circumcision, null and void."

 

Not only that, but the original way to circumcise (old Jewish Law) was to just nick the foreskin, not completely remove it.

 

http://www.noharmm.org/christianparent.htm

 

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/396937/circumcision_in_the_bible_what_christian.html?cat=25

 

 

 

And as far as health is concerned, the US is the only westernized country still advocating this practice. Europe and most of Asia do not practice this and they have the lowest rates of STDs and AIDS in the world. The highest rates of these diseases are in Muslim countries and parts of Africa (oh, and the US) where circ is widespread. Compare the circ and AIDS rates by country and you can see, for the most part, how they correlate.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_HIV/AIDS_adult_prevalence_rate

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_circumcision