BrookValley. Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 (edited) I might take it more seriously if the statement didn't come from a group of people who benefit financially from doing this procedure. :glare: :tongue_smilie: good point. I don't see what's so earth-shattering about their statement. They clarified their previous position to say that they believe the benefits outweigh the risks. They don't recommend it, they aren't trying to disuade from it. They say the parents have the ulimate responsibility for the choice. I dunno. Seems like no big deal to me. It also seems like the little bit of added clarity is obviously targeted at getting insurance, especially medicaid, to cover the procedure, because many plans don't. (We don't circumcise here, but to each his own.) Edited August 27, 2012 by BrookValley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted August 27, 2012 Author Share Posted August 27, 2012 I might take it more seriously if the statement didn't come from a group of people who benefit financially from doing this procedure. :glare: If doctors were only in it for the money they would oppose circumcision as the major Johns Hopkins study (released last week) shows medical costs are higher because of reduced rates of circumcision. I think these physicians are doing their best (in the face of huge pressure against doing so) to follow the medical evidence that shows the medical benefits are greater than the risks. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 :tongue_smilie: good point. I don't see what's so earth-shattering about their statement. They clarified their previous position to say that they believe the benefits outweigh the risks. They don't recommend it, they aren't trying to disuade from it. They say the parents have the ulimate responsibility for the choice. Exactly. Still not enough evidence for them to recommend it. Not much of a change from their previous stance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justLisa Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 :tongue_smilie: good point. I don't see what's so earth-shattering about their statement. They clarified their previous position to say that they believe the benefits outweigh the risks. They don't recommend it, they aren't trying to disuade from it. They say the parents have the ulimate responsibility for the choice. I dunno. Seems like no big deal to me. (We don't circumcise here, but to each his own.) Yeah, my whole stupid point was that it is not helping parents become more informed JUST by that statement. INFORMED parents research beyond just one statement from the AAP. Followers of the AAP will follow their advice, but they don't all make INFORMED decisions, they just follow along. Not all doctors even get into it. They just say, "The AAP says...now what do you decide?" So a lot of parents don't have much knowledge they just follow the AAP. So I don't get how it is making all of these parents so much more knowledgeable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swellmomma Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 I was asked a very important question today that was more important than circ. I was asked if donkey's wore hats if they would be called a$$hats. hmmm, I dunno machine gun kitty doesn't wear one. Makes sense though. Gotta love teen boys and their thoughts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted August 27, 2012 Author Share Posted August 27, 2012 Exactly. Still not enough evidence for them to recommend it. Not much of a change from their previous stance. Again, the APP did not recommend it routinely for all. They did say the medical benefits (which include potentially life-saving benefits) outweigh the risks. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktgrok Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 :iagree: I don't have one, so I let my xh decide if he wanted the big boys circumcised. I let dh decide if he wanted little man circumcised. I suppose I should have wanted input since neither man changed diapers or bathed babies, but my strongest opinion was/is that I don't have one. I also feel like this is an insurance issue and am glad for the wording for those on both sides. Mandy I almost did that, abdicated to my husband. Then realized my husband didn't have a foreskin, so was therefore still missing the relative part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justLisa Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 I was asked a very important question today that was more important than circ. I was asked if donkey's wore hats if they would be called a$$hats. hmmm, I dunno machine gun kitty doesn't wear one. Makes sense though. Gotta love teen boys and their thoughts That would make logical sense to me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktgrok Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 I've had 2 friends whose sons had to be circ'd as toddlers. One, the foreskin was actually twisting, and causing his p*nis to twist. He had to be treated at a children's hospital, be put under, and the recovery was horrid. The other, his foreskin was actually attaching to the p*nis. his dr literally grabbed a piece of gauze and *ripped* it off and back. He ended up having to go for surgery as well, same as above. Those are 2 cases I know of, personally. The foreskin is supposed to be attached to the penis at that age. Had the doctor left it the heck alone it would have detatched around puberty, like it is supposed to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktgrok Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 The doctor sounds incompetent. There are incompetent doctors. Some forcibly retract, and some botch circumcisions. Better training, better oversight, and better policies should be in place either way to eliminate or reduce preventable complications. While we all should support efforts (either way) to reduce preventable complications only circumcision lower risks of men acquiring HIV, HPV, UTIs, genital herpes, penile cancer and syphilis. Reducing HPV transmission reduces the odds of causing cervical cancers among their female sexual partners. And who knows what future STDs our children's generation might face? Parents of children in my generation could not have known AIDS might risk their children's lives. Bill Well...circumcision or condoms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Again, the APP did not recommend it routinely for all. They did say the medical benefits (which include potentially life-saving benefits) outweigh the risks. Bill Diagram the sentence. I double dog dare you. The benefits outweigh the risks of *allowing access*. You cannot ignore that prepositional phrase to make it a convienent argument for your position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrookValley. Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Again, the APP did not recommend it routinely for all. They did say the medical benefits (which include potentially life-saving benefits) outweigh the risks. Bill Exactly. So is anyone even disagreeing here? :D I don't know about you, but I'm getting dizzy. What I'm interested in is the numbers that brought the AAP to update their statement. I know that one of the oft-cited studies was done in Africa--I don't remember which country--that found a correlation between circumcision and a reduction in AIDS transmittal. I'm just curious how relevant the studies are to a first-world environment with a better access to education and preventative measures. I'm not attempting to dispute their claim, I just think it's an important part of the picture if a parent is going to use the information to make an informed choice about wether to circumcise or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dory Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 The foreskin is supposed to be attached to the penis at that age. Had the doctor left it the heck alone it would have detatched around puberty, like it is supposed to. Now that's something I can agree with. I wish people on both sides would at least put the effort into learning how to properly care for their boys whether they circ'd or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Exactly. So is anyone even disagreeing here? :D I don't know about you, but I'm getting dizzy. What I'm interested in is the numbers that brought the AAP to update their statement. I know that one of the oft-cited studies was done in Africa--I don't remember which country--that found a correlation between circumcision and a reduction in AIDS transmittal. I'm just curious how relevant the studies are to a first-world environment with a better access to education and preventative measures. I'm not attempting to dispute their claim, I just think it's an important part of the picture if a parent is going to use the information to make an informed choice about wether to circumcise or not. The link from the opposition a page or so back would probably answer this question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corraleno Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 (edited) If anyone is interested, here is Doctors Opposing Circumcision's commentary on the statement: http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/2012-08-26A_Commentary.pdf I actually find their statement more credible than the AAP's: it's well supported by dozens of papers in reputable medical journals, plus they have nothing to gain financially from their position — unlike the AAP. According to the article, "non-therapeutic circumcision produces more than $1.25 billion in income annually." How to make sure that this revenue stream continues? Release a statement saying that although the benefits of circumcision are not great enough to actually recommend it for the population as a whole, there are enough benefits that insurers should continue to pay for it. Jackie Edited August 27, 2012 by Corraleno typos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radiobrain Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 (edited) Wow. I still don't regret our decision not to circ. Anyway, I don't remember who said something about whooping cough and vax, but I am quite sure that almost all the kids/adults who got this whooping cough going around were vaccinated. Just because you are vaccinated, does not mean you won't catch/pass on/ expose/be exposed to, those illnesses again. It is not magic. Just like being circ. does not mean you WON'T catch AIDs, STDs, have urinary problems etc, or not being circ. means you will. Life, it's full of surprises! Edited August 27, 2012 by radiobrain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILiveInFlipFlops Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 I actually find their statement more creditable that the AAP: it's well supported by dozens of papers in reputable medical journals, plus they have nothing to gain financially from their position — unlike the AAP. According to the article, "non-therapeutic circumcision produces more than $1.25 billion in income annually." How to make sure that this revenue stream continues? Release a statement saying that although the benefits of circumcision are not great enough to actually recommend it for the population as a whole, there are enough benefits that insurers should continue to pay for it. Jackie *gasp* What? NEVER! :svengo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 I don't see how one gets from "we don't recommend routine circumcision for all" to "we don't recommend circumcision for anyone." Arguing that "we do not recommend it routinely for all"="we recommend it routinely for all but a select few" is a really a fallacy of the inverse. I am sure you are familiar with that, given your math background? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted August 27, 2012 Author Share Posted August 27, 2012 Well...circumcision or condoms. Condom use certainly cuts the risks. But condoms, unfortunately, break. And sometimes, in-the-moment, people skip up. Circumcision is certainly not sufficient protection from contracting HIV and it should never be promoted as such. But it does reduce the risks when combined with other safe® practices. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIE! Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 I'm seeing the same posts over and over again. How about someone ends the thread with a link to the OP. Then anyone who wants to continue can just keep going in circles. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 I heard this story on NPR this morning. They mentioned that some insurance companies have stopped paying for it. Medicaid no longer pays for it. And that there has been a push towards discouraging people to do it. I was totally surprised by that. My insurance still pays for it. But apparently there are more and more not paying for it. Now obviously one could opt to pay for it themselves, but anything done in the hospital costs a million dollars so I imagine it puts it out of reach for a lot of people. Ah, this makes a bit more sense. My provincial health care now calls it an elective and it is no longer covered under the regular PHC, unless there is a medical reason for it. At the time my ds was born, it was covered under the PHC, although we did not opt for it. I just looked up the suggested fee schedule and for a circ with no complications and no stay $370 is the maximum charge to the patient for the procedure. This is if it is done at a hospital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In the Rain Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 I actually find their statement more creditable that the AAP: it's well supported by dozens of papers in reputable medical journals, plus they have nothing to gain financially from their position — unlike the AAP. According to the article, "non-therapeutic circumcision produces more than $1.25 billion in income annually." How to make sure that this revenue stream continues? Release a statement saying that although the benefits of circumcision are not great enough to actually recommend it for the population as a whole, there are enough benefits that insurers should continue to pay for it. Jackie :iagree: That bold part made me :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted August 27, 2012 Author Share Posted August 27, 2012 Diagram the sentence. I double dog dare you. The benefits outweigh the risks of *allowing access*. You cannot ignore that prepositional phrase to make it a convienent argument for your position. They never used a phrase suggesting "risks of allowing access." I'm afraid this is your invention. They said the medical benefits out weight the medical risks and therefore families that wish to confer the medical benefits on their children should have access to circumcision if that is their choice. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Condom use certainly cuts the risks. But condoms, unfortunately, break. And sometimes, in-the-moment, people skip up. Circumcision is certainly not sufficient protection from contracting HIV and it should never be promoted as such. But it does reduce the risks when combined with other safe® practices. Bill It is a dangerous implication. To what degree does it protect? It is safe to say that the majority of those living with HIV, dying of HIV or who have died from AIDS in the US *were* circumcised. The US has the highest circumcision rates *and* the highest rate of heterosexually transmitted HIV among developed countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman 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 Tell the truth, Bill. You're just trying to get banned again, right? ;) :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Impish Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Just perform complete castrations, and there'll be no issues at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justamouse Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 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. He was 12.:glare: the Dr was telling us that grown men who have to have it done cry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktgrok Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Condom use certainly cuts the risks. But condoms, unfortunately, break. And sometimes, in-the-moment, people skip up. Circumcision is certainly not sufficient protection from contracting HIV and it should never be promoted as such. But it does reduce the risks when combined with other safe® practices. Bill But if you are using a condom, and being selective in who you sleep with, and all that good stuff that goes with safer sex, your risk of HIV transmission is so low in this country that it no longer becomes a good argument for surgery on someone that cannot consent to it, and that carries risks of its own. Seems less risky to teach my son to, again (love this line), "keep it clean and be careful where you put it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 (edited) They never used a phrase suggesting "risks of allowing access." I'm afraid this is your invention. I didn't use quote marks there, but I was referring to your quote: ... 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. You certainly have a habit of personal attacks when backed into a corner. They are looking to justify it to insurance companies and legislators. They have not endorsed routine circumcisions for all, most or even some infants. You cannot get that from their statement. End of story, I am out. Edited August 27, 2012 by Mrs Mungo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dory Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Just perform complete castrations, and there'll be no issues at all. That's what I tried to tell my doctor! I told him the same thing for both circing my youngest and snipping my dh. I said men have lived happy lives in the past as eunuchs. Fortunately for the guys in my house my doctor doesn't take me that seriously. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted August 27, 2012 Author Share Posted August 27, 2012 It is a dangerous implication. To what degree does it protect? It is safe to say that the majority of those living with HIV, dying of HIV or who have died from AIDS in the US *were* circumcised. The US has the highest circumcision rates *and* the highest rate of heterosexually transmitted HIV among developed countries. It is dangerous to ignore that circumcision reduces (but definitely does not eliminate) the risks of HIV female-male transmission. If you check the studies in the USA, you will see the rates of HIV are drastically higher in the communities where circumcision rates are lowest, and extremely low in heterosexual populations where circumcision is common. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktgrok Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Not true. 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. Specific benefits identified included prevention of urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, including HIV The medical benefits outweigh the medical risks. Period. This justifies access to all who chose to confer these medical benefits. Bill Of course, they go on to say they don't actually know WHAT the total risk level is, so how they can say they KNOW the benefits outweigh the risks in the same statement that says they haven't studied the risks, I don't know. And stop with the penile cancer...the risk is the same as male breast cancer for heaven's sake...so low as to not be an issue in this matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Just perform complete castrations, and there'll be no issues at all. Nope, that's the kit and not the kaboodle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Impish Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Nope, that's the kit and not the kaboodle. That's why I said 'complete'. There were castrations that ended up w/men having to pee through quills. Don't ask me why I know/remember this stuff. My brain is a warehouse of useless information, and I can't find any brain bleach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted August 27, 2012 Author Share Posted August 27, 2012 You certainly have a habit of personal attacks when backed into a corner. No. I object when positions I don't share are ascribed to me. I'm not in a corner. The AAP say the medical benefits outweigh the risks. Because of that Americans who chose circumcision for their male infants should have access. While the totality of the AAPs recommendation for who should or should not get circumcisions as a matter of "routine" is less-than-clear, their position that the benefits outweigh the risks is not. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kokotg Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 It is dangerous to ignore that circumcision reduces (but definitely does not eliminate) the risks of HIV female-male transmission. If you check the studies in the USA, you will see the rates of HIV are drastically higher in the communities where circumcision rates are lowest, and extremely low in heterosexual populations where circumcision is common. Bill Is that what we're basing it on? HIV rates in populations that don't circumcise? What were those HIV rates in European countries where pretty much no one is circumcised again? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_HIV/AIDS_adult_prevalence_rate Let's see....United States: .6 Finland: .03 hmm...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparkle Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 And I'd rather poke my eyes out than use Saxon, we don't own a cockpot, I would rather tour Hades than Disney____, and I only just found out that a kcup isn't a Luna/Diva cup knock-off. Is that typo appropriate to this thread, or what? :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catz Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 It is dangerous to ignore that circumcision reduces (but definitely does not eliminate) the risks of HIV female-male transmission. If you check the studies in the USA, you will see the rates of HIV are drastically higher in the communities where circumcision rates are lowest, and extremely low in heterosexual populations where circumcision is common. Bill Link to studies by unbiased organizations please. :lurk5: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catz Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Is that typo appropriate to this thread, or what? :lol: ROFL! :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catz Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Is that what we're basing it on? HIV rates in populations that don't circumcise? What were those HIV rates in European countries where pretty much no one is circumcised again? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_HIV/AIDS_adult_prevalence_rate Let's see....United States: .6 Finland: .03 hmm...... Thanks! About what I figured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 That's why I said 'complete'. There were castrations that ended up w/men having to pee through quills. Don't ask me why I know/remember this stuff. My brain is a warehouse of useless information, and I can't find any brain bleach. I'm only familiar with the term wrt cattle. Complete means both tentacles (remember Better Off Dead?), and partial means one (with a few months passing before the other is removed). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Is that typo appropriate to this thread, or what? :lol: And my spell check let it pass. :tongue_smilie: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plucky Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Is that what we're basing it on? HIV rates in populations that don't circumcise? What were those HIV rates in European countries where pretty much no one is circumcised again? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_HIV/AIDS_adult_prevalence_rate Let's see....United States: .6 Finland: .03 hmm...... I wonder what the rate is for botched circumcisions? My first-born had an issue with his and the dr. admitted to making a mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Impish Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 I'm only familiar with the term wrt cattle. Complete means both tentacles (remember Better Off Dead?), and partial means one (with a few months passing before the other is removed). Ah. Nope, that's not what I was thinking of, LOL (why put the bull through it twice? There's some meanie heads out there...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[email protected] Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Give it a rest. Move on. Etc. Moderator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts