The Circumcision Discussion

And it is just as prevalent in areas that DO circumcise and those that don't --something does not compute logically.

Well, in some ways you're right. Appendectomy is ONLY done when it's needed. When there is a medical indication. Very much unlike a circ. BUt if you think that circ's don't place infants at risk for infection, stitches, adhesions, you are sorely mistaken Not to mention that we don't pack an appendectomy site with poop (as a open, healing circ is repeatedly exposed to urine and feces, yum!)

I do have very strong opinions on the matter. I, think the facts speak for themselves. I encourage parents to be to do research. Nine times out of ten, they go the non circ route. So many parents just think it's SOP and don't give it any more thought. THAT is the saddest part.

Our neonatologists don't recommend them.

And in my area, circ'ed boys are the odd ones out so that argument becomes completely irrelevant. The rates will get lower and lower. In the words of one of our hospital's pediatricians "I can't believe we're still doing these!"

You need to go back and take a class in experimental research because there is no truth to this statement whatsoever.

You cannot let the "facts speak for themselves" because I posted hard-core statistics and you have posted NOTHING to back up what you are saying.

The point of this entire discussion is being severely missed.

The point is that if you work as a healthcare worker, your JOB IS TO BE OBJECTIVE.

If you are only presenting the risks and none of the BENEFITS THAT IS SUPPORTED BY RESEARCH, then you are misleading parents, and to me, that borderlines malpractice.

Not according to the CDC, WHO and Unicef.

Once again, these are internationally recognized authorities on disease prevention and education.

I listed SEVERAL sources of DIFFERENT studies that were done.

None of them were done in Africa.

You are posting that as if all of the research is based on a single study done in Africa...and there is simply, no truth to that whatsoever.

In these studies, men who had been randomly assigned to the circumcision group had a 60% (South Africa), 53% (Kenya), and 51% (Uganda) lower incidence of HIV infection compared with men assigned to the wait-list group to be circumcised at the end of the study.

The Uganda study investigators are also examining the following in an ongoing study

In an earlier study of couples in Uganda in which the male partner was HIV infected and the female partner was initially HIV-seronegative, the infection rates of the female partners differed by the circumcision status and viral load of the male partners.

A number of important differences from sub- Saharan African settings where the three male circumcision trials were conducted must be considered in determining the possible role for male circumcision in HIV prevention in the United States. Notably, the overall risk of HIV infection is considerably lower in the United States, changing risk-benefit and cost-effectiveness considerations. Also, studies to date have demonstrated efficacy only for penile-vaginal sex, the predominant mode of HIV transmission in Africa, whereas the predominant mode of sexual HIV transmission in the United States is by penile-anal sex among MSM.

Lastly, whether the effect of male circumcision differs by HIV-1 subtype, predominately subtype B in the United States and subtypes A, C, and D in circulation at the three clinical trial sites in Africa, is also unknown

individual men may wish to consider circumcision as an additional HIV prevention measure, but they must recognize that circumcision 1) does carry risks and costs that must be considered in addition to potential benefits; 2) has only proven effective in reducing the risk of infection through insertive vaginal sex; and 3) confers only partial protection and should be considered only in conjunction with other proven prevention measures (abstinence, mutual monogamy, reduced number of sex partners, and correct and consistent condom use).

In the new study, a research team at the Rakai Health Sciences Program in Uganda -- in collaboration with researchers from the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland, and Makerere University in Uganda -- conducted two clinical trials involving 3,393 uncircumcised men ages 15 to 49. All the men were negative for HIV and genital herpes (also known as herpes simplex virus type 2); a subgroup of men also tested negative for HPV.

They also note, however, that male circumcision is not completely effective in preventing sexually transmitted infections. Safe sex practices, including consistent condom use, are still necessary to provide the best protection.