Family Matters

Circumcision: Pediatricians Say Benefits Trump Risks

After years of remaining neutral, the American Academy of Pediatrics has revised its policy statement, saying that the risks of newborn circumcision are outweighed by the health benefits

  • Share
  • Read Later

The newborn penis has been the subject of more than a little ink lately. San Francisco tried in vain to curtail circumcision. Germany recently ruled that the procedure constitutes “bodily harm.” “Intactivists” rail against circumcision even as most baby boys born in the U.S still get circumcised.

Until now, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has remained fairly neutral on the subject. But on Monday, the influential pediatricians’ group updated its policy statement from 1999, stating that the “preventive health benefits of elective circumcision of male newborns outweigh the risks of the procedure.” The organization stopped short of routinely recommending the procedure for all baby boys, noting that the decision of whether circumcision “is in the best interests of their male child” should be left up to individual families. But they added that those families that choose circumcision — and most U.S. families still do, although the practice has been on the decline — should be reimbursed by insurance.

“There has been a change in tone,” says Dr. Doug Diekema, a member of the AAP task force on circumcision and a pediatrician at Seattle Children’s Hospital. “We are saying that based on our review, male circumcision does have significant health benefits that outweigh the risks of the procedure.”

(MORE: Uncircumcised Boys Have a Higher Risk of UTI)

From 1999 to 2010, the CDC found that between 56% to 59% of newborn boys were circumcised. Circumcision has been on the decline in the U.S., from 63.5% in 1999 to 56.3% in 2008, according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s National Inpatient Sample, which is commonly used to track hospital procedures and outcomes.

A recent study in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine projected a health-care doomsday marked by a steep rise in infections and medical-related spending if circumcision rates continue to fall. Already, Medicaid in 18 states doesn’t cover circumcision, and the study’s author, Dr. Aaron Tobian of Johns Hopkins University, worries that private insurance companies will be quick to follow suit. “[W]ith private insurance carriers following the government’s rules, we are implying there are no medical benefits to this procedure,” he told Healthland earlier this month.

In its updated policy, the AAP makes it clear there are medical upsides to choosing circumcision. Since 1999 when the original policy was written, nearly 1,000 new journal articles on circumcision have been published. More evidence was suggesting that circumcision has a protective effect against human papilloma virus (which, in turn, may lead to fewer HPV infections in women), HIV, genital herpes and even syphilis. It’s also associated with a decrease in urinary tract infections in babies and boys, as well as a reduced risk of penile and prostate cancers.

The risks are mostly limited to bleeding or mild infection; there is no clear evidence that either sexual function or sexual performance are affected.

(MORE: If Circumcision Rates Keep Falling, Health Costs and Infections Will Spike)

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has endorsed the AAP’s “technical report,” a more in-depth explanation of how the agency reached its decision. That’s significant because obstetricians perform many in-hospital circumcisions. Many Jewish and Muslim baby boys are circumcised in ceremonies outside the hospital.

In June, a court in Cologne, Germany banned religious circumcision of young boys after a Muslim boy’s circumcision went awry because “the fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity outweighs the fundamental rights of the parents.” Last year, a bid to ban circumcision in San Francisco was ultimately taken off the ballot.

At Tablet Magazine, which refracts news through a Jewish lens, Yair Rosenberg acclaimed the AAP’s updated policy statement:

The statement solidifies the scientific consensus behind the advisability of infant male circumcision…and places the traditional practice squarely within the realm of sound medical science…Thanks to the AAP, we can now state that all circumcisions are medically beneficial. If German courts continue to prosecute Jews and Muslims for practicing circumcision, then we will know that this animus is rooted not in science or fact, but in ignorance and prejudice.

(MORE: San Francisco’s Circumcision Ban: An Attack on Religious Freedom?)

Meanwhile, Intact America, which is advocating for the prohibition of circumcision, posted last month on its blog:

There is no question that, but for the “freedom of religion” claim, holding down a baby boy and cutting off part of his penis constitutes a forcible physical and sexual assault, with visible and permanent consequences.

Diekema, who is also a bioethicist, says the committee understands that circumcision can be a highly emotional issue for many families. “The tone of this policy statement is that there shouldn’t be a recommendation one way or another that they circumcise, but rather we should tell them it’s an option they have and educate them what the benefits might be for their child.”

MORE: What’s a Bris? L.A. Hospital Launches Workshop for Jewish Parents-to-Be

60 comments
JasonNelson
JasonNelson

I will hate my parents for cutting me for the rest of my life

ShaunCrystalina Ketterman
ShaunCrystalina Ketterman

everything i've read points the history of circumcision to doing when the boys were older to prevent masturbation. like Victorian era early. Also, retracting is a big no-no but docs say to do it? i'm terrified of having a boy!! 

Karabis
Karabis

The majority of the studies to "prove" the health benefits of circumcision are not done in the US, UK, or any Western country where access to clean water, regular medical care, and encouragement of safe sex practices are the norm. They are largely done in 3rd word parts of Africa, and thus are not appropriate to apply to industrialized cultures.

I also can't help note the emphasis on health impacts on "the male child." What about the male ADULT, who is likely to be sexually active and may have impaired sexual function due to an unnecessary and unneeded operation he had as a child? It's well known that the foreskin contains thousands and thousands of nerve endings that enhance sexual pleasure. What is less known is that without the protection of the foreskin, a callous can develop on the head of the glans, further deadening sensation and causing increased impairment to sexual function and enjoyment. In addition to that, the foreskin acts as a natural lubricant, easing penetration and making sex more comfortable and enjoyable for the female partner. Women whose partners are circumcised suffer more instances of discomfort or pain upon penetration than women with partners who are intact. 

A "natural" penis may not look as nice as a "cut" one, but aesthetics are a poor excuse for robbing a man of full enjoyment of his sex life as an adult. My husband was circumcised, and it does have an impact on our intimate life as a married couple. Being able to function/perform and having full enjoyment of intimacy are not the same thing. If you cut off your earlobe you can still hear, but your hearing will never be what it could and should have been had the anatomy never been altered. Because of what my husband (and other men I know) has faced regarding intimacy, I will NEVER circumcise a son without a sound medical reason. I wouldn't dream of unnecessary surgical alteration to a daughter, so I wouldn't put my son through that, either.

LoriAlayneWeberMiller
LoriAlayneWeberMiller

@Karabis Yes of course brown people in third world countries have entirely different appendages then white americans. Silly the reason they were done in other countries is there is practically no intact males over age 20 in our country to serve as a cohort group for scientific study.

dunkthejunk
dunkthejunk

I am embarrassed by this new statement from the AAP.  In 12 years of practicing pediatrics in this country I have never seen a problem occur from NOT CIRCUMCISING an infant.  Complications of circumcision include DEATH, blood transfusion, infection,....   The Hippocratic Oath tells us to FIRST, DO NO HARM.    Out of respect to the OATH I took when I graduated Medical School in 1999,  I will continue to refuse to perform circumcision.

Kevin Strong, MD and Founder of www.dunkthejunk.org 

Jardin J
Jardin J

I'm not a doctor, but if you would allow me to play devil's advocate- you said that "

 Complications of circumcision include DEATH, blood transfusion, infection..."

Aren't those possibilities in every procedure that include breaking the skin?

Roland Day
Roland Day

There is an alternative view, put forward by Doctors Opposing Circumcision , the American Academy of Pediatrics actually is a trade association, which is promoting medically-unnecessary child circumcision with junk medical science, so doctors can make more money. That view is elaborated in a commentary:

http://www.doctorsopposingcirc...

I think it is worth reading.

The AAP also seems to be making a strong defense of ritual circumcision, perhaps because it has so many Jewish members. If that is the case, then gentiles are getting false medical advice  from the AAP with the intent of providing medical cover for ritual circumcision.

Roland

DickScalper
DickScalper

They brand men like a herd of cows. American men are such wimps to let their sons be subjected to this absurd surgery. If it were women tied down amp; cut, the Feminists would be howling all over the world. The male genitals are a cheap commodity. There is no argument too absurd for the circumcisers. They insult the appearance of the intact penis, claim that circumcision heals everything from body warts to HIV, and draw an illogical distinction between female amp; male genitals. Circumcision is the mark of a slave, my friends.

Top Ten Tortures Less Painful Than Circumcision

10. Get knocked out by Mohammed Ali.

9. Pull out your fingernails.

8. Eat a pile of steaming bear crap.

7. Skin yourself alive.

6. Fall into a vat of molten iron.

5. Get run over by a train.

4. Go through a sausage grinder.

3. Saw off your legs.

2. Poke out your eyes.

1. Go To Hell

HumanRightsAbuse
HumanRightsAbuse

Just as female circumcision (genital mutilation) is a

despicable atrocity intended to permanently reduce the sexual sensation of

women, so too, male circumcision is nothing but penile-reduction surgery

(genital mutilation) intended to permanently reduce the sexual

sensation/function of men. Circumcised men suffer from erectile dysfunction 4.5

times more often than do genitally intact men. Circumcision of defenceless

minors is a human rights’ abuse.

http://www.cirp.org/library/se...

http://www.cirp.org/library/le...

jamesthecritic
jamesthecritic

Circumcision makes it harder to masturbate. Without the foreskin there is no gliding effect. This means that the penis becomes chafed and the extra pressure means the penis could become damaged.

The foreskin acts as an accelerator pedal, the nerves send feedback to control ejaculation. Without the foreskin men will suffer from delayed and premature ejaculation. Over time because the penis is eased to air and brushes on underwear, the skin becomes harder and envelops a thicker layer, which leads to a loss in sensitivity.

It has been shown that sex feels better for the woman if the man is not circed. A circed man tends to thrust harder because of the loss of the foreskin, which makes it a less sensuous experience for the woman and the man too.

TLCTugger
TLCTugger

^^ Pediatricians Say ^^WHICH pediatricians? Medical societies around the world have looked at the same data and reached the opposite conclusion.  Germany's PAP says it's "a scandal" to allow forced genital cutting of infants.  Holland's recent KNMG policy says infant circumcision has "an absence of medical benefits and danger of complications."  Perhaps not coincidentally, in places where doctors are on salary rather then getting paid per procedure, they don't find the procedure warranted.  Foreskin feels REALLY good.  HIS body, HIS decision.  

Craig Garrett
Craig Garrett

The AAP is now a disgrace. They are going to be the laughing stock among the international community; this new statement is way out of line with statements from other modern nations with advanced medical systems. The AAP should withdraw this statement immediately.

The foreskin is an important part of male anatomy, and circumcision has serious negative consequences for not only the man, but his female partner as well. Men who were circumcised at birth have never known what a foreskin is like and don't know what they are missing.

The foreskin is erogenous tissue, containing thousands of erogenous fine-touch nerve endings. The most sensitive and pleasurable parts of the penis are removed by circumcision. These are color-coded diagrams showing the areas of sensitivity for both circumcised and intact anatomy:

http://www.circumstitions.com/...

The boy is the one who should be able to choose what happens to his body once he is an adult. Bodily integrity is a fundamental human right. Clearly the AAP doesn't understand that.

This is an excellent video narrated by Dr. Dean Edell, a pediatrician:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

fineland
fineland

One thing, parents will do what is best for their kids. Second thing, the article clearly states the circumcision is healthy and protective. You guys shouldn't have anything to say now.  If you do, I will assume it is because you feel ashamed of being uncircumcised! :) Period...!

stfusa
stfusa

Is female genital mutilation legal in America?

EAWaldron
EAWaldron

Our son is intact (just like 70% of men in the world), and it's a non-issue. Whether you believe in God or nature (or whatever else), the foreskin is there for a reason. It is not a birth defect, so there is no reason to treat it as such. It is not "gross" and it is not out to kill anyone. It is a natural, functioning, highly sensitive part of the penis that actually serves a purpose. Guess what? Condoms and monogomy prevent STDs and HIV. Showering on a regular basis keeps one's genitals clean. It's really all common sense. I am a proud American but our country is so backwards on this subject, it's really embarrassing. Look at all the other developed countries in this world that do not circumcise. The men of Europe are getting through life just fine, and their HIV rate is lower than ours. Circumcision is really only prevalent in America, Israel, and highly Muslim countries. It's absolutely crazy and ignorant to assume that all the other men in the world are dirty, diseased, struggling to clean themselves, or not having healthy, enjoyable sex lives.

Take the time to do your own research on a global level, rather than just listening to myths from older generations or following our society's "norm". If you use common sense and trust your instincts, it's obvious how silly the whole concept is. Also, note that the AAP is technically still not recommending RIC and they are the only medical organization in the world that is even leaning in support of it. Also consider our current healthcare system and the fact that RIC is a billion dollar industry. It's not really surprising that they are using scare tactics to encourage the procedure, at a time when circ rates are continually dropping every year. ($$$)

Whatnow05
Whatnow05

Why why do we care so much about other peoples penis's? 

EAWaldron
EAWaldron

Our son is intact (just like 70% of men in the world), and it's a non-issue. Whether you believe in God or nature (or whatever else), the foreskin is there for a reason. It is not a birth defect, so there is no reason to treat it as such. It is not "gross" and it is not out to kill anyone. It is a natural, functioning, highly sensitive part of the penis that actually serves a purpose. Guess what? Condoms and monogomy prevent STDs and HIV. Showering on a regular basis keeps one's genitals clean. It's really all common sense. I am a proud American but our country is so backwards on this subject, it's really embarrassing. Look at all the other developed countries in this world that do not circumcise. The men of Europe are getting through life just fine, and their HIV rate is lower than ours. Circumcision is really only prevalent in America, Israel, and highly Muslim countries. It's absolutely crazy and ignorant to assume that all the other men in the world are dirty, diseased, struggling to clean themselves, or not having healthy, enjoyable sex lives.

Take the time to do your own research on a global level, rather than just listening to myths from older generations or following our society's "norm". If you use common sense and trust your instincts, it's obvious how silly the whole concept is. Also, note that the AAP is technically still not recommending RIC and they are the only medical organization in the world that is even leaning in support of it. Also consider our current healthcare system and the fact that RIC is a billion dollar industry. It's not really surprising that they are using scare tactics to encourage the procedure, at a time when circ rates are continually dropping every year. ($$$)

Cyndi
Cyndi

I think there are a lot of double standards here - we have no problem with a mother who feeds her child the nasty formula that the formula companies say is so safe and that the hospitals and doctors push at us like drug dealers (yet will never compare to breastmilk), that has been proven to cause health concerns including obesity later in life and yet we condemn a family for choosing circumcision - even after the family has been educated on the procedure and made an educated decision on it.

 Sure, there are some who decide based on religious reasons and really should we be persecuting a religious belief when the procedure is done in a way that can cause no pain, no issues and can actually have health benefits? My husband and I talked at great length about circumcision before our son was born and he said that he was so glad that he had been circumcised and he would want his son to be as well. Of course, as parents we worried about his pain levels and how things would be after, but doing our research allowed us to advocate for our son and his circumcision went very well.

In the US we have no issues watching as teens, who are too young to make major medical decisions, opt for breast enhancements (which is a sexual and reproductive issue) and nose jobs, etc. That in my opinion should be illegal with the exception of medically necessary procedures, at least until the child reaches 18.

I've seen recently an increase of the belief that "if you don't believe the same as me, you are wrong!" and that mentality has to go. Yes, I don't agree with mutilating a child, I would never pierce my daughters ears (or my sons for that matter) while they are still a baby, but that is okay in our culture. The theory there is that while a baby, they won't remember the pain or trauma and they will get used to having a foreign object stuck in their ear(s).

The argument here is that doing a procedure like this one, whether for medical reasons, or religious ones, does have health benefits and that the benefits out-weigh the risk. As parents we are given the task of doing what we think is best for our child(ren) and ultimately in the end we will be held accountable for our actions. If my child was born with a major health problem and I could opt for surgery that could increase his/her quality of life now or later, I would carefully weigh the options and make as informed a decision as I could and I would hope that I wouldn't be blasted for making a health decision for my child (because they couldn't weigh in on it) that I felt was right. Pretty soon we will have no choice because the government will have all the say. This is not right!

HansC
HansC

 If you have daughters, will their genitals get sliced as well?

Hope Alfaro
Hope Alfaro

Making decisions for your children that you can never take back is kind of what being a parent is all about. I find it hilarious that people are acting like circumcision is big business like there is a circumcision bank that gets all of the money from it. If the benefits outweigh the risks, and thats the decision you make for your family, then good for you. There are some men that say they wished they had never been circumcised as a baby and there are some that say they wished they had been because it is much harder to do as an adult. If it isn't your family and you are attempting to attack people who do make that decision, then shut up. 

NaveedXVO
NaveedXVO

Bring back female circumcision!!!

stfusa
stfusa

As a child were your genitals mutilated and without your consent?

How do you qualify to comment on this subject?

The female clitoris is 'disgusting' to look (though it has millions of nerve ending that give pleasure to women during sex) ..... Should we get rid of that for girl babies?

"If it isn't your family and you are attempting to attack people who do make that decision, then shut up"

Should we all 'shut up' the next time we hear about incest on girls?....as you said, its all in the family, isnt? ...Life is more than the belief systems of 2000 year old mid-east desert cults.

mnl1121
mnl1121

Easy. Circumcised. All you guys crying mutilation are nuts. Uncircumcised is just gross. Guys come on.

Trajan Saldana
Trajan Saldana

"Gross" being a medical term for a condition?

mnl1121
mnl1121

Don't get sarcastic with me. I'm referring to the look and the need to clean the area.Subject: [healthland] Re: Pediatricians Say Circumcision's Benefits Outweigh Risks | Healthland | TIME.com

MikeTorrez
MikeTorrez

I'm uncircumcised. Never had any issues with cleanliness because I use this thing called soap. Never had any complaints with any of my partners either and in fact a lot of them loved it. No STIs here....makes me think the AAP doesn't have much credibility. Also, if it protects against STIs, why does Europe have lower STI rates than the US where circumcision is done more?

CountWestwest
CountWestwest

If you don't use soap and water, your junk is still nasty and dirty, even if you're circumcised. From the way they talk, you would think that circumcised men are allergic to water.

kjcdiugwesrfy
kjcdiugwesrfy

  i'm uncircumcised, and never had any problems socially, nor healthwise.

i've actually had good experiences with women saying that i was their

first uncircumcised and that it actually feels better this way. these

are my experiences. maybe i just have a better body overall, but i never

had any health problems related to the penis. and i shower every other

day generally (if i'm not out sweating or doing anything too physical to

get dirty). i must be one of the lucky few

kjcdiugwesrfy
kjcdiugwesrfy

  i'm uncircumcised, and never had any problems socially, nor healthwise.

i've actually had good experiences with women saying that i was their

first uncircumcised and that it actually feels better this way. these

are my experiences. maybe i just have a better body overall, but i never

had any health problems related to the penis. and i shower every other

day generally (if i'm not out sweating or doing anything too physical to

get dirty). i must be one of the lucky few

kjcdiugwesrfy
kjcdiugwesrfy

  i'm uncircumcised, and never had any problems socially, nor healthwise.

i've actually had good experiences with women saying that i was their

first uncircumcised and that it actually feels better this way. these

are my experiences. maybe i just have a better body overall, but i never

had any health problems related to the penis. and i shower every other

day generally (if i'm not out sweating or doing anything too physical to

get dirty). i must be one of the lucky few

kjcdiugwesrfy
kjcdiugwesrfy

 i'm uncircumcised, and never had any problems socially, nor healthwise. i've actually had good experiences with women saying that i was their first uncircumcised and that it actually feels better this way. these are my experiences. maybe i just have a better body overall, but i never had any health problems related to the penis. and i shower every other day generally (if i'm not out sweating or doing anything too physical to get dirty). i must be one of the lucky few

fineland
fineland

I am happy to hear that. I was circumcised when I was 5 and I had my baby circumcised just after he was born. I knew already that circumcision had protective effects.  I don't care about those who don't want their kids being circumcised but why do they care what I want?

Jackno
Jackno

What about the harm?  Recent medical studies identify a correlation between circumcision and reduced sensation. The International Journal of Men's Health published results of a study that showed circumcised men are 4.5 times more likely to experience erectile dysfunction due to loss of sensitivity. In a further study, The British Journal of Urology International reports that circumcised men can experience up to a 75 percent reduction in sensitivity compared to men who are not circumcised. A study on Circumcision from Puerto Rico that shows "Circumcised men have accumulated larger numbers of STI in their lifetime, have higher rates of previous diagnosis of warts, and were more likely to have HIV infection." There is clear evidence that "Circumcision does not appear to shield men from most types of STDs in developed nations". Journal of Pediatrics, MARCH 2008. So there is no STD advantage to removing parts of babies. We need to defund this across the board and that includes defunding the mutilation of African Men.A study on Circumcision from Puerto Rico that shows "Circumcised men have accumulated larger numbers of STI in their lifetime, have higher rates of previous diagnosis of warts, and were more likely to have HIV infection." There is clear evidence that "Circumcision does not appear to shield men from most types of STDs in developed nations". Journal of Pediatrics, MARCH 2008. So there is no STD advantage to removing parts of babies. We need to defund this across the board and that includes defunding the mutilation of African Men.

Recent medical studies identify a correlation between circumcision and reduced sensation. The International Journal of Men's Health published results of a study that showed circumcised men are 4.5 times more likely to experience erectile dysfunction due to loss of sensitivity. In a further study, The British Journal of Urology International reports that circumcised men can experience up to a 75 percent reduction in sensitivity compared to men who are not circumcised. A study on Circumcision from Puerto Rico that shows "Circumcised men have accumulated larger numbers of STI in their lifetime, have higher rates of previous diagnosis of warts, and were more likely to have HIV infection." There is clear evidence that "Circumcision does not appear to shield men from most types of STDs in developed nations". Journal of Pediatrics, MARCH 2008. So there is no STD advantage to removing parts of babies. We need to defund this across the board and that includes defunding the mutilation of African Men.

A study on Circumcision from Puerto Rico that shows "Circumcised men have accumulated larger numbers of STI in their lifetime, have higher rates of previous diagnosis of warts, and were more likely to have HIV infection." There is clear evidence that "Circumcision does not appear to shield men from most types of STDs in developed nations". Journal of Pediatrics, MARCH 2008. So there is no STD advantage to removing parts of babies. We need to defund this across the board and that includes defunding the mutilation of African Men.

longcat1
longcat1

For the uncircumcised there is a higher risk of gonorrhea and inflammation of the urethra (the tube that carries the urine from the bladder outside) in uncircumcised men. It has also been reported that other sexually-transmitted diseases (such as chancroid, syphilis, human papillomavirus, and herpes simplex virus type 2 infection) are more frequent in uncircumcised men. As mentioned above, most recently three large studies performed in Africa documented that circumcision was protective with respect to the acquisition of HIV infection as compared to those uncircumcised subjects. Your choice. 

Parent choice. 

micahhenning
micahhenning

Perhaps if it were true that uncircumcised men felt largely more pleasure during sex than circumcised men, they would frequent and pursue more sexual encounters, increasing their exposure to and risk of contracting UTIs and STDs.  The problem with these news articles and all of these comments is that there isn't any quantitative data we can analyze.  We're all just speculating.

fineland
fineland

As I said, I am happy being circumcised. And that will be what I would choose for myself. You can choose what you think is best for your kids.  And I will choose what is best for my kids. Why am I being called barbaric for what I want for my kids. I choose circumcision for my kids because I want them to be healthy and protected. That is my preference. This is a free country!

fineland
fineland

 If it were a bad and unnecesary operation, I would hate my parents now. But I don't! Do you know why? I feel safer. But if somebody had stopped my parents from circumcising me, I would be mad at those!!! Now tell me if I am happy being circumcised, why would a third idiot person interfere?

fineland
fineland

Stellar, think it this way. I was circumcised when I was 5. I am happy about it and my parents are happy about it. Why should a third person be concerned about my circumcision when I am happy about it? Why should I grow up being uncircumcised which is gross in my view? How can a third person know better for a child than his parents? If I felt bad about my circumcision, I wouldn't do it to my child. Understand this. Nobody can want better for my child as much as I do. There is no point in your discussions.

stellar678
stellar678

You're being called barbaric because your child is an independent human being from you and you shouldn't have the right to elect a permanent and unnecessary operation for them when they don't have the ability to consider the facts and consent.

ml66uk
ml66uk

The AAP are way out of line with other national medical organizations, and it's very disappointing that they say this:

"Parents are entitled to factually correct, nonbiased information about circumcision"

 

but they provide information that is both biased and highly selective.  They simply don't seem to consider that the foreskin might actually be valuable.

 

It's really easy to find circumcised doctors who are against circumcision, but surprisingly difficult to find male doctors in favor who weren't circumcised themselves as children.

 

How strange that all the health benefits the AAP claim don't seem to exist in Europe, where almost no-one circumcises unless they're Jewish or Muslim.

 

The AAP is the same organization that changed its policy on female cutting in 2010 btw saying "It might be more effective if federal and state laws enabled pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a ritual [clitoral] nick as a possible compromise to avoid greater harm."

They were forced to retract this about six weeks later:

 

Dr Diekema, the chair of the committee said "We're talking about something far less extensive than the removal of foreskin in a male".

 

I suppose it's a good thing they didn't look at operating on girls to prevent breast cancer.  11% of women get breast cancer, and 3% die of it, so the health benefits to the girls would massively outweigh the risks.

 

Meanwhile, other national health organizations including the Canadian Paediatric Society and the Dutch Medical Association continue to recommend *against* circumcising newborns.

Jackno
Jackno

I would expect that anyone that watches this would never cut off parts their baby boy. :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

In the US population the cut men get HIV at the same rate as natural (intact) men. Mostly natural Europe gets HIV at a lower rate than mostly cut America. The AAP is changing their statement based on claims from Africa of HIV studies. These contradict real population data from Africa where circumcised men get HIV at the same rate or an even higher rate as natural men. Numerous studies document that erectile dysfunction and loss of sensitivity is a significant issue for cut men. There is no STD advantage, just sexual dysfunction.

Shame on the AAP for not considering the harm! Have they no sense of decency?

Especially pediatricians should First do no harm!

NC doc
NC doc

When i was a resident, i heard about the biggest racket in medicine: the urologist always put 'phimosis' as diagnosis to justify medically necessary circ. if you believed them, we have a national epidemic of phimosis (constricted penis)! Its fraud. Plain and simple.

davidgoldmandg
davidgoldmandg

Circumcision is crazy, primitive, and barbaric. Why would you want to be mutilated? For some god?

Dave Saving
Dave Saving

I was circumcised as a baby and I wish I wasn't. I wish I had the choice. I was denied healthy, functional, highly erotogenic tissue. The AAP report is insulting to men.

longcat1
longcat1

Okay. Have you ever encountered an adult male who has to be circumcised? Well, I have. and it isn't pretty. Some are young, in their twenties and some are as old as 75-80! Of course no one is going to talk about this problem publicly because it is embarrassing and deeply personal, but  yep, they suffered infections and all sorts of other problems. If they had been circumcised as infants would never have happened! Preference guys? 

Karabis
Karabis

I had one partner many years ago who was not circumcised. He never complained of any problems, and certainly never seemed embarrassed. It was a different experience for me since so many men my age are circumcised, but when a man is fully aroused there's really not much difference appearance-wise.

I have, however, encountered several men (my husband included) who have reduced sensitivity due to be circumcised, and that CAN and DOES impact sexual function. The foreskin exists for a reason, it's not just there for decoration.

Roland Day
Roland Day

Male circumcision is an ELECTIVE surgical operation. No one HAS to be circumcised except in very rare instances such as a malignant tumor growing on the foreskin.

In fact, almost all problems with the foreskin may be treated conservatively.

Please bear in mind that urologists make the most money from doing a circumcision so that is likely to be the first treatment they recommend, but it may not be the best for the patient.

Workislove
Workislove

In that case why stop at foreskins - why not fix everyone as children. Take out kids tonsils and appendix, because some small percentage of them may be infected someday?

Is there any other time that "preventative surgery" would be considered normal?

Theresekwv
Theresekwv

Richard explained I am surprised that a person can get paid $5171 in one month on the network. have you seen this(Click on menu Home)