Reactions to New Circumcision Guidelines
Circumcision is in the news, again. This time its a professional group, specifically The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), who has reignited the debate by changing its policy to one that states the health benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks.
- Condoms are great prevention, but (news flash!) no one uses them. If they did we wouldn't have STDs in epidemic proportions. This whole thing is nuts. As circumcision has not been proven to harm a man, why not just let the parents decide? And doing it at birth is 100 times better than later. This is all just crazy.
- I agree with Monika. Reduces transmission of STIs? So does a condom. Reduces risk of penile cancer? It is rare to begin with, and the last time I checked, no one advocates amputating an infant's healthy body parts to prevent cancer. Cosmetic reasons? Again, no one supports other cosmetic surgeries on infants. Let the man decide when he is old enough to choose for himself. If it is too painful for a grown man to endure, why on earth would you subject a baby to it--because the baby is smaller and unable to explain how much it hurts?
- Not what European doctors and medical groups have been saying. They criciticise this report as being too American. I suspect they are right and that it is the medical profession who are afraid of losing a steady source of income on newborns plus the possibility of too many doctors with jewish roots looking for making their traditions appear medically founded.
- In other news, removing all teeth can reduce incidents of tooth decay. Amputating all women's breasts can prevent breast cancer. Genital mutilation is a barbaric practice that has more basis in superstition than in medicine. As a European I am not circumcised and I have yet to hear one complaint about how my penis looks, not that I would listen to them anyway since it's my body and my decision. Women have no say in this. None. Zip. Nada. Why is anyone surprised that the only developed country where this is widespread is also the only developed country where health care is considered a business?
- There may be STD advantages to circumcision, but avoidance of disease does not trump the right of boys to remain intact until age 18, when they should be able to make their own decision. Something else seemingly never mentioned is the fact that should a child turn out to be transgendered, an intact foreskin provides for a better outcome when constructing a neovagina. For this reason alone, circumcision should be banned for children.
Did you find this story interesting? like or comment as 1 already did!
- Michelle StormsDiekema clearly does not know the medical literature as he made numerous inaccurate comments. Circumcision does not prevent HIV, STD's, HPV, penile or cervical...Diekema clearly does not know the medical literature as he made numerous inaccurate comments. Circumcision does not prevent HIV, STD's, HPV, penile or cervical cancer, or UTI's in infants. UTI's are easily treated with oral antibiotics and rarely lead to any problems. Also, there have been numerous deaths from circumcision around the world and in the U.S. of healthy children who bled to death or developed life-threatening infections. Botched circumcisions keep the pediatric urologists in business. Time to stop this nonsense.more2012-09-07T01:47:54.866Z