Doctors Group: AAP conflict of interest hampers honest circumcision policy

If circumcision provided 100% protection against HIV, as one example, then no, of course I would not oppose it. But it does not. There is a lot of conflicting evidence on just how much protection, if any, it does provide. The medical authorities are saying it "might" provide some protection against HIV transmission. There is a lot of current research that has been provided in this thread which shows that the protection it does give is not a guarantee. Would I circumcise my son's based on the current research? No. As it stands, they are simply too young to be sexually active and I am not prepared to take away a part of their bodies based on the figures I am currently seeing. When they are old enough to decide for themselves and state they wish to be circumcised, I'll pay for it myself. It should be their decision to make, not mine or my husband's.

 

It's the most cost-effective program they've been able to come up with.

You just have to be joking. What exactly do you plan on teaching these people? Risk analysis and management? Deferred gratification? Western morality-oh wait, promiscuity is pretty high over here too.

In many African countries there is no tradition of circumcision at all so it's more like 100%.

Here's one I picked at random from the CDC. They talk about a 60% reduction but they don't say what the before and after numbers were.

I don't understand what you're referring to as "laziness." Are you attempting to overlay Western attitudes on sub-Saharan Africans? Sort of what the British and other colonial powers tried to do during their centuries-long occupation? The exact type of arrogant, elitist, racist boneheaded meddling that got the Third World into the mess it's in?

I'm talking only about HIV. "Traditional" STDs are not the same order of magnitude as a public health issue. Since the invention of antibiotics they don't decimate populations. If these people get gonorrhea it's not going to cripple their countries.

Life is full of tough decisions and we have to do the best we can. There's a compact between parents and children that comes with the universe. Modern medicine has only been around for a few generations so we're still getting the hang of it. I agree that in a perfect world you would probably be safe to allow a male child to wait and make his own decision at puberty. But many societies have far more social pressure than our individualistic Western model, and adolescents are under tremendous pressure to conform. So it comes down to this: Should you make a decision that has a profound impact on the health and the life expectancy of your son, or do you want to leave it to a gang of juvenile delinquents who are certain they know more about the universe than the adults around them?

If I hear one more person bring condoms and abstinence into the HIV discussion I think I'm going to barf. They don't work in America and they're sure as hell not going to work in the Third World. The reason is that they rely on self control and that's a commodity in short supply. Schools are being sued successfuly for teacing abstinence and it's about damn time. We're talking about horny teenagers here!

What's the alternative, 24/7 surveillance to make sure he fulfills his promise to never have unprotected sex? We don't have that technology here so I doubt that they have it in Africa either.

The CDC paper I cited reports a study of men who were circumcised as adults and therefore are in a position to comment on the difference in erogenous sensation. Apparently on the average it's noticeable but unimportant.

If retaining the foreskin delayed orgasm you might start getting some support from the women.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

We can't get Americans to do this reliably. Do you really think you're going to get it in the backwoods of Africa? Give me a break.

Your strategy for the AIDS epidemic is simply unrealistic. These are actual people you have to deal with, not computer simulations. Not only real people but real people in some pretty marginal situations. People get drunk before having sex. Many are initiated into it as soon as they hit puberty. Some commit rape. This is not a demographic that's going to carry a pack of condoms in their pocket or purse or limit themselves to one partner.

You just have to get real about this. It's far too important to base on some 18th century Protestant ideal of how you think human beings ought to behave.

Condoms are a pretty good idea but they require planning and a certain level of discipline. Not to mention, I remember condoms from the days before I got a vasectomy and frankly they suck. The ones made out of skin are better but because they're actual animal tissue they don't block infection.

But if you want to talk about something that REALLY sucks, that would be abstinence! If the objection to circumcision is that it causes a minute decrease in sensitivity to erotic stimulation, I don't understand how forgoing erotic stimulation entirety can be a logical preference.

 

What I find interesting about this debate is its vehemence.

I notice that the strongest objections are coming from Americans. 95% of American men today are circumcised. Originally, circumcision was introduced because it was thought to reduce masterbation, which is considered a sin.

It is not surprising that with the US being far and away the most religious of western nations, old opinions and traditions die hard. Meanwhile, the rest of the developed world is waking up.

 

There have been a lot of reports posted in this thread that gives a vast array of numbers as well as disputes in regards to those figures.

And your proposal is what exactly? Force circumcision on those who don't want it for their children? What was it you said? Ah yes:

Every boy child on earth should be circumcised for the next two or three generations as a matter of public health.
​

You do realise that not all African or Asian cultures believe or circumcise their baby boys, don't you? But you're willing to force people to remove the foreskin of their male children for the next few generations? You want to talk about "arrogant, elitist, racist, boneheaded meddling"?

The use of condoms is recommended by all international medical bodies, as well as the vast number of Governments across the African continent, since that gives a hell of a lot more protection than circumcision ever could. Are you about to tell the UN, WHO as well as other medical bodies that the promotion of condom usage is "arrogant, elitist, racist, boneheaded meddling"? But you would recommend the forced circumcision of all male children instead? Ya right.

And you're still not seeing what is being written. Circumcision is not a guaranteed preventative against the transmission of HIV. Hence why organisations like the UN and WHO recommend the promotion of safe sex practices and proper medical practices, as well as no needle sharing, to stop the transmission. Circumcision has been found in some research to possibly reduce the level of transmission. In that circumcision "might" prevent the transmission of the disease up to a point. But telling people that AIDS or HIV won't be transmitted if they are circumcised is not only wrong, it is dangerous. Because circumcision is not guaranteed to stop the spread of the disease.

But if you want to analyse the spread of HIV, I'd suggest you look at the figures of transmission rates in Europe (where the majority of males are not circumcised) and that of the US, where the majority are circumcised.

I think those "juvenile delinquents" should still have a say whether they lose a part of their bodies such as their foreskin or not, don't you think?

So far, research has shown that the circumcision debate is one that is uncertain, with research being disputed with other research. In light of this, I would rather not hack off a piece of my son's foreskin just in case. That is a decision that will be left to them. Because based on the research that is coming out at the moment, I wouldn't even consider it.