Spy Car Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 In a long-overdue move, the American Academy of Pediatrics today announced a change in it's position, and now says: ... 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. Specific benefits identified included prevention of urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has endorsed this statement. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2012/08/22/peds.2012-1989 Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 :lurk5: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Evaluation of current evidence indicates 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. It justifies *access*. They are saying that it shouldn't be made illegal. They aren't saying, "yes, everyone should do it!" I have seen very few people argue that it should be made illegal over the course of my 16 1/2 years discussing parenting topics online. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Only because of idiot doctors that retract (irt uti's). Yep, and they'll change their position again in another few years. *eyeroll* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 It justifies *access*. They are saying that it shouldn't be made illegal. They aren't saying, "yes, everyone should do it!" I have seen very few people argue that it should be made illegal over the course of my 16 1/2 years discussing parenting topics online. :iagree: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted August 27, 2012 Author Share Posted August 27, 2012 It justifies *access*. They are saying that it shouldn't be made illegal. They aren't saying, "yes, everyone should do it!" I have seen very few people argue that it should be made illegal over the course of my 16 1/2 years discussing parenting topics online. They say " the benefits outweigh the risks." Clarity. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dory Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 :party: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktgrok Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 I was waiting for you to bring this up. Of course, using a condom, keeping it clean, and being careful where you put it also offer those same benefits, without the risk of surgery on a newborn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melissad2 Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 :lurk5: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 They say " the benefits outweigh the risks." Clarity. Bill And yet, they are still not making a recommendation endorsing circumcision the way that they do vaccinations. They are leaving it to parents to choose what is best. I really don't understand why you have such a problem with parents making choices for their kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktgrok Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 They say " the benefits outweigh the risks." Clarity. Bill They also say that it isn't enough for them to reccomend for all baby boys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jpoy85 Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 yeah but the other side can say the same thing. That not having it done has benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 I was waiting for you to bring this up. Of course, using a condom, keeping it clean, and being careful where you put it also offer those same benefits, without the risk of surgery on a newborn. :iagree: I also agree with mommaduck that ignorant doctors, grandparents, etc who forcibly retract are a large part of the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justamouse Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 I actually agree with the Drs and Bill on this. My *uncirced* son went through sheer hell and an operation to fix what went wrong. I support a family's decision to choose what they prefer for their child, but if you disagree with circing, don't pretend that it's all sunshine and roses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justamouse Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 :iagree: I also agree with mommaduck that ignorant doctors, grandparents, etc who forcibly retract are a large part of the problem. My son wasn't, and a lot still went wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibraryLover Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 (edited) The Uganda studies are compelling. They aren't making up the fact that they saw a 60% decrease in HIV transmission as more and more foreskins were removed. A lot of men won't use condoms. (I say that as the mother of sons who have theirs.) Edited August 27, 2012 by LibraryLover Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catz Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 I was waiting for you to bring this up. Of course, using a condom, keeping it clean, and being careful where you put it also offer those same benefits, without the risk of surgery on a newborn. :iagree: When other developed countries start doing them routinely someone let me know please! :D And yet, they are still not making a recommendation endorsing circumcision the way that they do vaccinations. They are leaving it to parents to choose what is best. I really don't understand why you have such a problem with parents making choices for their kids. :iagree: Why do we all need to be clones and make the exact same choices? The AAP is still advocating parent choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 (edited) My son wasn't, and a lot still went wrong. And there are horrible stories on the other side of circumcisions gone wrong. There is no *winning* this discussion. It is a tough decision. Parents choose what they think is best for their child and hope for the best. Edited August 27, 2012 by Mrs Mungo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted August 27, 2012 Author Share Posted August 27, 2012 And yet, they are still not making a recommendation endorsing circumcision the way that they do vaccinations. They are leaving it to parents to choose what is best. I really don't understand why you have such a problem with parents making choices for their kids. Please do not ascribe positions to me that I do not hold Mrs Mungo. It is a disreputable tactic. I think parents should make decisions for their children. Now parents can factor in the change in position of The American Academy of Pediatrics that says the benefits outweigh the risks of circumcision. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In the Rain Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 It's kind of a "nothing" statement, IMO. If anything, it is probably aimed at keeping it legal, and keeping it covered by insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dustybug Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 And there are horrible stories on the other side of circumcisions gone wrong. There is no *winning* this discussion. It is a tough decision. Parents choose what they they is best for their child and hope for the best. :iagree: This is one of those subjects that rarely, if ever, when discussed actually changes minds on either side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dory Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 I actually agree with the Drs and Bill on this. My *uncirced* son went through sheer hell and an operation to fix what went wrong. I support a family's decision to choose what they prefer for their child, but if you disagree with circing, don't pretend that it's all sunshine and roses. I know of three little boys in my small community who had the same problem. All my boys were done. There is a lovely doctor in Vancouver who specializes in it. The babies don't even cry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Impish Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 And there are horrible stories on the other side of circumcisions gone wrong. There is no *winning* this discussion. It is a tough decision. Parents choose what they they is best for their child and hope for the best. :iagree:Yup. It's another parenting decision, pure and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktgrok Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 The Uganda studies are compelling. They aren't making up the fact that they saw a 60% decrease in HIV transmission as more and more foreskins were removed. A lot of men won't use condoms. (I say that as the mother of sons who have theirs.) And if you are a man in Uganda planning to have sex without a condom circumcision makes sense. But if you live in the USA, and are willing to use a condom, it sure doesn't make sense. I actually talked to my teen (intact) son about this. He was horrified by the idea of having surgery rather than "keeping it clean and watching where you put it". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DianeW88 Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 I actually agree with the Drs and Bill on this. My *uncirced* son went through sheer hell and an operation to fix what went wrong. I support a family's decision to choose what they prefer for their child, but if you disagree with circing, don't pretend that it's all sunshine and roses. I've seen more than a few of these in my day, and if you want to talk about scarring a kid for life....circumsize him when he's five. I'm so sorry your little guy had to go through that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktgrok Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 I actually agree with the Drs and Bill on this. My *uncirced* son went through sheer hell and an operation to fix what went wrong. I support a family's decision to choose what they prefer for their child, but if you disagree with circing, don't pretend that it's all sunshine and roses. OH sure, rarely, boys will NEED to have it done. Of course, equally often boys that are circumcised will need to have a second operation, or have complications. The rate was 1 in 500 in the articles about the new AAP statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 It's kind of a "nothing" statement, IMO. If anything, it is probably aimed at keeping it legal, and keeping it covered by insurance. Exactly. And here is the other quote, for those who did not click through to the link. Although health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns, the benefits of circumcision are sufficient to justify access to this procedure for families choosing it and to warrant third-party payment for circumcision of male newborns. It is important that clinicians routinely inform parents of the health benefits and risks of male newborn circumcision in an unbiased and accurate manner. Yes, it is a developing story, but this is hardly the hearty endorsement that Bill is making it out to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Please do not ascribe positions to me that I do not hold Mrs Mungo. It is a disreputable tactic. I think parents should make decisions for their children. Now parents can factor in the change in position of The American Academy of Pediatrics that says the benefits outweigh the risks of circumcision. Bill A disreputable tactic is putting words in the mouth of the AAP, which is most definitely what you are doing here. I strongly suggest people read the full article, because your snippet is not really what it says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted August 27, 2012 Author Share Posted August 27, 2012 Yes, it is a developing story, but this is hardly the hearty endorsement that Bill is making it out to be. I did not say the AAP gave a "hearty endorsement." I asked you before to please stop inventing positions for me. It is not cool. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paisley Hedgehog Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 This is not an area where the opinion of the American Academy of Pediatrics influences me at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 (edited) I have three sons with three differences in this area. One was a "partial circ" (circ was my choice, partial was not), he is considered "medically uncirc'd", and we went through sheer hell with him and infections. One was fully circ'd, but I now wish we had not done it. No real problems though and we count ourselves fortunate. One that is uncirc'd and has NEVER been forcibly retracted. No problems. My advice is for each parent to be informed of the pros, cons, and examine their reasons why they want it done. (wanting child to "look like dad" is a lousy one, imo) There used to be a section for discussions on this topic at Mothering.com (Bill, you might want to stay away from there...they will chew you up and then ban you) Edited August 27, 2012 by mommaduck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catz Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 It's kind of a "nothing" statement, IMO. If anything, it is probably aimed at keeping it legal, and keeping it covered by insurance. Exactly! I'm sure this came around again so it could be covered. My nephew had a bad circumcision. No walk in the park for their family. I've changed this boy's diapers, and it will affect him for life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dory Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 OH sure, rarely, boys will NEED to have it done. Of course, equally often boys that are circumcised will need to have a second operation, or have complications. The rate was 1 in 500 in the articles about the new AAP statement. I think that if they are going to endorse circumcision, they need to teach doctor how to do it properly so that there are so many horrible mistakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaithManor Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Cupcakes and kilts anyone? :lurk5: Faith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted August 27, 2012 Author Share Posted August 27, 2012 A disreputable tactic is putting words in the mouth of the AAP, which is most definitely what you are doing here. I strongly suggest people read the full article, because your snippet is not really what it says. Not true. I quoted the AAP abstract directly. They say the benefits outweigh the risks. They have not moved (yet) to recommending "routine" circumcision for all, but this is a big move for the AAP. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 I think parents should make decisions for their children. Now parents can factor in the change in position of The American Academy of Pediatrics that says the benefits outweigh the risks of circumcision. Direct quote from you. Direct quote from the *full* AAP article: Although health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns, the benefits of circumcision are sufficient to justify access to this procedure for families choosing it and to warrant third-party payment for circumcision of male newborns. It is important that clinicians routinely inform parents of the health benefits and risks of male newborn circumcision in an unbiased and accurate manner. I did not say the AAP gave a "hearty endorsement." I asked you before to please stop inventing positions for me. It is not cool. I ask you to quit inventing positions from the AAP, since it is so disreputable and not cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alice Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Cupcakes and kilts anyone? I’m a member of the AAP and I’m not touching this conversation with a ten foot pole. :auto: (The car smiley is because my son is watching over my shoulder and wants to “do the racecarâ€. :auto::auto: And again. And again.) I wouldn’t say no to a cupcake though. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted August 27, 2012 Author Share Posted August 27, 2012 I think that if they are going to endorse circumcision, they need to teach doctor how to do it properly so that there are so many horrible mistakes. :iagree: If circumcisions are performed then doctors should be highly-trained on how to do the procedure safely and humanely. There is no reason for the procedure to cause pain or trauma. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Not true. I quoted the AAP abstract directly. They say the benefits outweigh the risks. They have not moved (yet) to recommending "routine" circumcision for all, but this is a big move for the AAP. Bill The benefits are great enough * to allow access*, not to recommend it for all. There is a big difference between those two statements. They are not equal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Impish Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 So glad I don't have a p*nis, and could just abdicate this decision to Wolf :tongue_smilie: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Cupcakes and kilts anyone? :lurk5: Faith Given the topic, we might want to avoid kilts on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shanvan Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Cupcakes and kilts anyone? :lurk5: Faith Thinking the same thing.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stacy in NJ Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 It's kind of a "nothing" statement, IMO. If anything, it is probably aimed at keeping it legal, and keeping it covered by insurance. http://www.businessinsider.com/germany-circumcision-illegal-cologne-2012-6 This article doen't outline the full, up-to-date story, but there's a movement in Germany to have circumcision declared a human rights violation. Of course, religious folks - both Jewish and Muslim - are quite upset about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 I think that if they are going to endorse circumcision, they need to teach doctor how to do it properly so that there are so many horrible mistakes. This is something I can totally agree with. We hear about the wonderful doctor who can do a circ and the baby never opens his eyes. Then we hear the horror stories of circs gone wrong. There needs to be a very high standard set for docs who are allowed to circ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted August 27, 2012 Author Share Posted August 27, 2012 Direct quote from you. Direct quote from the *full* AAP article: Although health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns, the benefits of circumcision are sufficient to justify access to this procedure for families choosing it and to warrant third-party payment for circumcision of male newborns. It is important that clinicians routinely inform parents of the health benefits and risks of male newborn circumcision in an unbiased and accurate manner. I ask you to quit inventing positions from the AAP, since it is so disreputable and not cool. The AAP says that "the benefits outweigh the risks." They do not yet recommend it as a routine procedure for all. But this is a huge step forward in making access possible for Americans. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonshineLearner Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Sure, I always listen to others when it comes to what should happen with my children. Yup, "they're" the ones who are to blame if I don't like the outcome. (or my kids don't) With choices come responsibility. I'm pretty sure I'll discuss, as will my son's dad, that with intact parts comes responsibility. Regardless of parts missing or not, you need to be careful about s*xu*lity. :) It's best to ride in a parachute protected... it's safer not to ride at all :) We make all of our decisions knowing our family's values, and that our children may not carry them. We also don't shoot all vaccines in our children, regardless of "suggestions". If they travel to countries requiring them, they can make that adult decision. We don't cut body parts out of fear. Funny thing... for those who do, there are actually views/disagreements on what length cut to make.... :) I think this article is interesting. Maybe it's all wrong, but their are interesting points, along with the fact that what is typically removed is about a 3x5 size of skin. That's a ton in my view. It also talks about what can possibly be removed, so if I were going to circ, I would be the one to choose how much and what parts would be cut off. (I wouldn't just choose a Dr to make such a delicate decision.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaithManor Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Given the topic, we might want to avoid kilts on this one. :smilielol5::smilielol5::smilielol5:No sense getting banned! Faith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jilly6 Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 I have three boys, all of who were circumcised. I have mixed feelings about the procedure. First, I was very young(20) when my first son was born. I had it done because I thought I had too. I didn't know I had an option. He had no problems with it. Second son was born, 6 years later and again we did it. No problems with his either. Third son was born and again we circumcised. He had "spraying issues' when he began potty training. The issues persisted and when he was six we were referred to a pediatric urologist. We were in the Doc's office and he asked him 'Does it hurt when you pee?" My baby answered him, " Yes but isn't it supposed too?" I started bawling like a big baby. My poor little boy had pain every time he peed for his entire life due to an improper circumcision. He had surgery to correct the issue which was painful and not fun at all. He is okay now. I wonder though if I had been older or known better if I would have made the same decisions regarding my boys. I do think it is a personal decision for everyone but I think every new parent should be given detailed information on the pros and cons for BOTH sides before making a decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 http://www.businessinsider.com/germany-circumcision-illegal-cologne-2012-6 This article doen't outline the full, up-to-date story, but there's a movement in Germany to have circumcision declared a human rights violation. Of course, religious folks - both Jewish and Muslim - are quite upset about this. There's a similar movement in California. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparrow Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 So long as it isn't forced I don't care about the position of the AAP. :iagree: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts