Doctors Group: AAP conflict of interest hampers honest circumcision policy

Spidergoat:



"How dare they?" They are your parents. Get over it. You've lost nothing and you remember nothing. It is also hardly "barbaric". Plus, aren't you a Jew? Forgive me if I am mistaken, but if you are, be proud of your heritage.

And women who get their clitorises plucked out should be proud of their heritage also. Hurrah, hurrah. Give me a break.

And you bring up not remembering...duh. So people who abuse infants can later in court say that the babies will not remember.

Why should religious hallucinations about the foreskin be something to be proud of?
 
Get over it.
Why don't you 'get over' what he is saying?

You are obviously pissed off at him and people like him. You are putting in time and energy arguing against him and insulting him.

Clearly there are things you cannot 'get over' despite knowing that in this world there are billions of opinions you still manage to get annoyed by some and express your disdain.

The whole 'get over it' knee jerk reaction is at least as whiny as it seems to think other reactions are.
 
This anti-circumcision jihad is absurd. I, my three sons, and every guy I've ever happened to see naked are all circumcised. The only time I've ever seen an uncircumcised guy was an exchange student I ran cross country with back in high school. I thought the poor guy had been in some horrible accident when I saw him in the shower.

I've also read reports that circumcision protects you from STD's, especially HIV.
 
This anti-circumcision jihad is absurd. I, my three sons, and every guy I've ever happened to see naked are all circumcised. The only time I've ever seen an uncircumcised guy was an exchange student I ran cross country with back in high school. I thought the poor guy had been in some horrible accident when I saw him in the shower.

I've also read reports that circumcision protects you from STD's, especially HIV.

You should read the Genital Integrity Policy Statement. It will explain the functions of intact male anatomy and help provide a different perspective.
 
Why should religious hallucinations about the foreskin be something to be proud of?

At what point does a parent not get to decide what is right for their child? Can a parent refuse a vaccine if they don't believe in it?

Have you considered voicing that sentiment to these people?

U.N. health agencies recommended Wednesday that heterosexual men undergo circumcision because of “compelling” evidence that it can reduce their chances of contracting HIV by up to 60 percent.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17822026/

Or these:

Last month, the National Institutes of Health published a surprising report in The Lancet showing that circumcision reduced a man's risk of contracting HIV, the AIDS virus, through heterosexual sex by 51 to 60 percent compared with men who were not circumcised. The findings were based on two trials in Africa involving more than 7,500 men and were halted early because the preliminary results were so striking.

Another study, published in the journal Pediatrics in November, followed 510 New Zealand newborns until age 25 and found that circumcision cut the risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases by about half.

These studies are just the latest to point to circumcision’s potential health benefits, says AAP president Dr. Jay E. Berkelhamer.

“There have probably been hundreds over the years showing that circumcised males have lower rates of urinary tract infections, penile cancer and a variety of STDs, including HIV,” says Berkelhamer.
 
If circumcision really does help prevent HIV then why is it such a big problem in the United States where 80% of the male population is circumcised and not that big of a problem in Japan where virtually no one is circumcised? I think that data has a bit of bias in its testing methods. To be totally honest since it is a cosmetic procedure and has no medical benefit other than removing foreskin related problems, I really think that it should be left up to the actual patient to decide (not a representative party). I feel the same way about ear piercing. If I have a son I don't intend to have him circumcised unless he can make an educated decison about the matter and informs me that he wants the procedure or he can do it himself when he becomes an adult.
 
Circumcision has become popular in Japan now. As to why they have less HIV, it may be to do with their sexual practices.
 
It might be true that it helps prevent HIV transmission, but that's only because people don't use condoms. If you practice safe sex, there's no problem with it. The UN in this case has a myopic concern for health, which is a non-issue if you are safe in the first place.

My parents happened to freak out when I got an ear pierced, how hypocritical is that?
 
It might be true that it helps prevent HIV transmission, but that's only because people don't use condoms. If you practice safe sex, there's no problem with it. The UN in this case has a myopic concern for health, which is a non-issue if you are safe in the first place.

My parents happened to freak out when I got an ear pierced, how hypocritical is that?

I think a 60% decrease in HIV is not a myopic concern. Whats more relevant, avoiding a practice simply because it has religious roots or practising it in a social environment where the possibility of contracting disease is high? Do condoms prevent UTIs? Do men with partners who use birth control also use condoms?

Anyway, an uncircumcised penis looks gross.
 
I researched that study back when I had to write a research paper on circumcision. I was pro-circumcisiom at the time and I still found that medical study sketchy at best. The researchers obviously had an agenda and purposely selected a very poor sample. I think the fact that in places like Europe where HIV transmission through sexual contact is low and Europeans are more likely to aquire it through drug usage and they do not circumcise. It is poor sexual practices that lead to HIV and with HIV being as epidemic as it is I wouldn't advise broadcasting to Americans mostly that circumcision might help prevent HIV maybe.
I actually prefer to look at an uncircumcised penis, but thats probably because I don't find scars attractive.
 
I actually prefer to look at an uncircumcised penis, but thats probably because I don't find scars attractive.

Ugh to each his own. I don't see any scars

The researchers obviously had an agenda and purposely selected a very poor sample. I think the fact that in places like Europe where HIV transmission through sexual contact is low and Europeans are more likely to aquire it through drug usage and they do not circumcise. It is poor sexual practices that lead to HIV and with HIV being as epidemic as it is I wouldn't advise broadcasting to Americans mostly that circumcision might help prevent HIV maybe.
Which study?

Three clinical trials have already shown that circumcision reduces the risk of becoming HIV infected by about 60% in HIV-negative African men, with infrequent side effects.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080602214155.htm

French and South African AIDS researchers have called an early halt to a study of adult male circumcision to reduce HIV infection after initial results reportedly showed that men who had the procedure dramatically lowered their risk of contracting the virus.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/07/06/MNGANDJFVK1.DTL&type=printableL
HIV is one of the greatest health crises the world has ever seen, and affects over 40 million people worldwide.

Professor Short says that HIV is on the rise particularly in countries where males are not circumcised.

“In countries where circumcision is not religiously or culturally accepted, oestrogen treatments to the penis could be very effective in reducing the spread of the disease.”

http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20080506-17434-2.html


Reports indicate that a study in Kenya prompted the World Health Organization (WHO) to include circumcision in its prevention policies a year ago, and which compelled the Kenyan government to form a task force to promote voluntary, medically safe operations.

The trial in Kisumu, Kenya, of 2,784 HIV-negative men showed a 53 percent reduction of HIV acquisition in circumcised men relative to uncircumcised men, while a trial of 4,996 HIV-negative men in Rakai, Uganda, showed that HIV acquisition was reduced by 48 percent in circumcised men.

http://ecoworldly.com/2008/06/02/fa...c-male-circumcision-fights-hivaids-in-africa/
 
Last edited:
All of the ones done in Africa. There were cultural influences at work there. But unless circumcision is really as effective as an actual vaccine I don't see why I should do it. Circumcision is on the decline in the US though at least it was last year when I did my paper.
 
S.A.M.,

The report which is the subject of this thread gives a thorough overview of the evidence regarding HIV.

Yeah "protecting the genital integrity of infants" sounds very scientific.

All of the ones done in Africa. There were cultural influences at work there. But unless circumcision is really as effective as an actual vaccine I don't see why I should do it. Circumcision is on the decline in the US though at least it was last year when I did my paper.

How goes the rate for HIV, UTI etc in uncircumcised men?
 
Last edited:
Its higher for circumcised men (percentage wise of course a higher number of circumcised men have HIV because there are more circumcised men), but that is slightly biased because most gay men are circumcised and the way gay men contract HIV is different than how it men get HIV through heterosexual contact. So if I remember correctly if you negate homosexual men who contracted HIV through homosexual contact then I believe its about the same. I don't know about Urinary Tract Infections, beyond infancy. UTIs are certainly higher among uncircumcised infants than they are with circumcised infants though. Most UTI information has to do with women. But I don't know I didn't research UTIs in my paper.
 
Have you read the report? It is an evidence-based policy recommendation.

What does it say about this evidence?

Multiple studies14 comparing the prevalence of UTI in uncircumcised and circumcised male infants have shown a preponderance of UTI in uncircumcised infants. While a meta-analysis described a 12-fold increase for UTIs,14 the 1999 Task Force statement suggests the protective effect of circumcision is less (3- to 7-fold), inappropriately citing among others, the works of Shaw et al,15 Herzog,16 and Fussell et al.17 In reality, the study by Shaw et al yielded an 8-fold increased risk, the Herzog investigation demonstrated a greater than 50-fold increased risk, and the Fussell report did not even address the issue. It seems likely that the prevalence of UTI is higher than reported because it will be underdiagnosed unless urine cultures are routinely taken in evaluating febrile infants. Newman et al,18 reporting for the Pediatric Research in an Office Setting network, concluded that fewer than 50% of pediatricians performed urine culture in evaluating febrile infants <3 months old, despite the high incidence of UTI (>10%) in these infants. In a population-based study of 14 893 males born in 1996 in a closed-panel, nonprofit health maintenance organization with an effective tracking system, 2.5% (1 in 40) of uncircumcised infants developed UTI within the first year of life, most before 6 months old, and were 11 times more likely to develop UTI and 18 times more likely to be hospitalized with UTI than were circumcised infants.19 The subsequent development of renal scarring indicates that UTI in infancy may not be benign.20 As stated in "Information for Parents,"21 evidence indicates that in the first year of life uncircumcised infants have at least a 10-fold increased risk of UTI; a circumcised infant has approximately a 1 in 1000 chance of having UTI in the first year of life, whereas an uncircumcised infant has a 1 in 100 chance. In clinical terms, given that ~2 million boys are born each year in the United States, this 10-fold risk of UTI translates into 20 000 UTIs annually in the United States if all newborn boys are uncircumcised but only 2000 UTIs annually if all the boys are circumcised. Otherwise stated, newborn circumcision is >90% effective for preventing UTI, a preventive health benefit equivalent to the protective rate of many vaccines given to children.22 Despite this implication, however, the 10-fold relative risk for UTI in uncircumcised:circumcised is referred to as a "slightly lower risk."1

Or this?

Phimosis, balanoposthitis, and difficulty of ensuring adequate genital hygiene in uncircumcised boys have been best described in the European literature[1-4. US anticircumcision groups claim that genital hygiene can easily be maintained as the foreskin naturally separates, but, in reality, genital hygiene in uncircumcised boys has been shown to be poor, even in British and Scandinavian middle class schoolboys[1-2].

The prevalence of true phimosis (anatomic constriction of the preputial opening, which must be distinguished from adherent foreskin) in published studies varies from 0.3% to 0.9%[5], but true phimosis requires circumcision later in life, when the procedure is more difficult, risky, and expensive[6,7]. Balanoposthitis has been estimated to occur in 4% of uncircumcised boys, and incidence peaks at age 2 to 5 years[3]. Although treatment can be conservative, late circumcision is often necessary for recurrent cases, and medical management requires additional physician visits and treatment.

Or this?

The evidence that circumcision protects against penile cancer is overwhelming. In the US, incidence of penile cancer in circumcised men is essentially zero (about one reported case every five years), but it is 2.2 per 100 000 in uncircumcised men (about 1000 cases are reported annually). On the basis of life table analysis, Kochen and McCurdy estimated that an uncircumcised man in the US has a lifetime risk of penile cancer of one in 600[8].

During the last 50 years in the US, six major series of cancer of the penis encompassing more than 1600 cases have been reported; none of these cancer patients was circumcised in infancy[9]. Human papilloma virus and smegma have been implicated in the aetiology of penile cancer[10]. Of the approximately 50 000 cases of cancer of the penis that have occurred in the US since the 1930s (and which resulted in about 10 000 deaths), only 10 were reported in circumcised men[9]. Newborn circumcision virtually eliminates this devastating threat.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/105/3/620
http://www.circs.org/library/schoen3/index.html
 
Have you read the report? It is an evidence-based policy recommendation.

The AAP no longer advocates infant circumcision though do they? I believe they chose to remain neutral at the time and says that there is no significant medical benefit to circumcision and encourage parents to make informed decisions, based on their cultural and religious backgrounds.
 
Back
Top