CDC rec to counsel all males about benefits of circumcision

[sistrmoon]

Wasn't sure the best place to put this, but here's the article:

CDC Considers Counseling Males Of All Ages On Circumcision : Shots - Health News : NPR

What do you think of this? Have you read the African studies and do you think they translate to our population? Do you think it's a good idea from a public health standpoint?

[wtbcrna, MSN, DNP, CRNA]

I prefer intact hands down ;-)

Then do you prefer that HCPs not be given unbiased information on the risks and benefits of male circumcision by the CDC, which is actually what the thread was originally talking about.

[wtbcrna, MSN, DNP, CRNA]

It is thought by many? I wonder why you brought this up? To me it begs the question, are you one of the many?

I can only speak confidently about my own country and our neighbors, the rest of Scandinavia. Let me assure you that this has nothing to do with anti-religion, but everything to do with pro-childrens rights.

First of all, it's never been our custom to circumcise infants so we're not trying to "end" anything as much as we're just wanting to keep on doing what we've done previously. We happen to believe that letting children decide over their own bodies is the right thing to do. Delaying surgery that isn't a medical necessity but can actually wait until the child is old enough to decide for themselves, is included in this.

Children's rights has been on the agenda for quite some time now. I don't know if you're aware, but Sweden was the first country to completely outlaw corporal punishment of children in 1979, followed by Finland in 1983 and Norway in 1987. If you spank your child you are committing a crime and that's been true for thirty-five years.

Children's rights and autonomy are deeply ingrained in our society.

This combined with tradition and how pediatricians have interpreted the available evidence, is the rationale for the resistance towards circumcision of infants. Not anti-Semitism or Islamophobia. I'm not saying that there aren't individuals in our society who are bigots or racists even, they exist in any society. But it isn't the reason for wanting to delay the decision to circumcise until the person whose foreskin it actually involves, can decide whether they want the surgery or not.

Do a google search on why Europe has a lower rate of male circumcision rates than the U.S., and one of the first things that will come up is similar links to what I posted on antisemitism.

Here are more links on antisemitism in Norway and Sweden.

Antisemitism in Norway - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Antisemitism in Sweden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Three Jews visit Scandinavia; an adventure in anti-Semitism | Opinion | Jewish Journal Swedish Comedian Confronts His Country's 'Anti-Semitic' Media | Jewish & Israel News Algemeiner.com

It is hardly unreasonable question/statement considering the historical connotations and present circumstances of these countries. I think a country would be more likely to ban a circumcision that had significant rates of antisemitism if that country viewed circumcision as nothing more than a Jewish religious practice.

I doubt that antisemitism is the sole reason for the lower incidences of circumcision in European countries, but I don't think that anyone can say that antisemitism has not played a significant part in the lack of cultural acceptance of male circumcision in European countries.

The point is the still the same. There should be no reason why United States HCPs are not given information from the CDC on the risks and benefits of circumcision.

[wtbcrna, MSN, DNP, CRNA]

Hell no they shouldn't! Not in THIS country. I PROMISE there is nothing "minimal" about its function and the CDC needs to mind their darn business!

One of the functions of the CDC is to educate the public and HCPs. In essence they are minding their business by providing medical and public health information, if the CDC avoided every controversial public health subject then the CDC wouldn't have anything left on the agenda.

[phuretrotr]

Hell no they shouldn't! Not in THIS country. I PROMISE there is nothing "minimal" about its function and the CDC needs to mind their darn business!

If the CDC needs to mind their own business, so do the pro-foreskin community. Let parents decide for THEIR children!

[~PedsRN~, BSN, RN]

It's also worth noting that in Europe, where RIC is not practiced and most men are intact, the HIV rate 0.2%, compared to 0.6% in the US. I really think it simply comes down to it being such a strong culturally accepted practice that many health organizations use the data to support their previously held cultural practice. This hullaballoo just isn't taking place in Europe, where RIC is not a strongly culturally ingrained practice.

Worldwide HIV & AIDS Statistics | AVERT

Exactly.

I don't believe we can truly get unbiased information available to parents in the US. The CDC itself, imo, is going to be inherently biased - simply because it's an American organization, full of circumcised Americans. ? there are few men out there that are going to own up to their member being somewhat "wrong", for lack of a better term.

[phuretrotr]

there are few men out there that are going to own up to their member being somewhat "wrong", for lack of a better term.

Unbelievable. So now a circumcised member is wrong? Wow. It amazes me how judgmental people can be when they are protesting for infants to be able to decide for themselves. You want people to make decisions for themselves unbiasedly but sit there and call one of the options wrong?

Yea, not biased at all...

At least the people who are pro-choice for the parents are not criticizing someone else body. This is exactly why it should be left up to the parents to decide for their children because we have ding-bats, for lack of a better word, who call their beliefs, fact.

[~PedsRN~, BSN, RN]

Unbelievable. So now a circumcised member is wrong? Wow. It amazes me how judgmental people can be when they are protesting for infants to be able to decide for themselves. You want people to make decisions for themselves unbiasedly but sit there and call one of the options wrong?

Yea, not biased at all...

At least the people who are pro-choice for the parents are not criticizing someone else body. This is exactly why it should be left up to the parents to decide for their children because we have ding-bats, for lack of a better word, who call their beliefs, fact.

You are misunderstanding me.

My point is there are few males that will agree with any view that contradicts their own member. ? You will not find a long list of men who find open fault with their member on any side of the argument, intact, circumcised, or other.

I believe part of the education we are lacking in the US is care of the intact male. It is baffling to me how much incorrect information exists in regards to simple care in the medical realm. My pediatrician is excellent with my intact son.... Incidentally, my pediatrician is also Jewish. ?

I am hardly an intactivist (yes, that's a term), but as a parent to an 11 year old with a whole member, it is refreshing to know that there are hcp out there that do not view my sons member as a medical problem waiting to be solved.

The culture of circumcision is alive and well in the US. As vocal as the dissenting opinions are on this thread, the viewpoints against circumcision are still very much in the minority. I have heard comments from my own coworkers about "disgusting" "ugly" and "gross" baby boys that have come into their care. Why? They have a foreskin.

[phuretrotr]

You are misunderstanding me.

My point is there are few males that will agree with any view that contradicts their own member.  You will not find a long list of men who find open fault with their member on any side of the argument, intact, circumcised, or other.

I believe part of the education we are lacking in the US is care of the intact male. It is baffling to me how much incorrect information exists in regards to simple care in the medical realm. My pediatrician is excellent with my intact son.... Incidentally, my pediatrician is also Jewish. 

I am hardly an intactivist (yes, that's a term), but as a parent to an 11 year old with a whole member, it is refreshing to know that there are hcp out there that do not view my sons member as a medical problem waiting to be solved.

The culture of circumcision is alive and well in the US. As vocal as the dissenting opinions are on this thread, the viewpoints against circumcision are still very much in the minority. I have heard comments from my own coworkers about "disgusting" "ugly" and "gross" baby boys that have come into their care. Why? They have a foreskin.

Thanks for explaining further and I do agree in the thinking that most males are happy with their memberes. I don't think one way or the other is right or wrong but some people do think that, whether it be for health or cosmetic reasons. This is why I think there should be a choice in the matter.

There is research supporting health benefits (whether it is accepted or not) from circumcision however there are risks associated with circumcising infants, we know this. But the main concern I see is that the infants do not get to choose for themselves whether they are circumcised or not. I understand this and am open to the parents making the decision to not circumcised their infant. I have no problem with that.

However, I feel it is a bit of backtracking when some say they want their child to decide on his own, but when faced with medical benefits of the procedure and the reasoning for the timing, they are quick to say that the medical benefits are untrue/biased/the same outcomes as with non-circumcised children/adults.

So I have a hard time believing that the real reason they do not circumcise their child is because they want the child to decide for themselves. From the responses on this thread, it's pretty clear that some do not believe any health benefits are associated with circumcision, thus the real reasoning hiding behind "I want my child to decide".

I am in no way claiming anyone thinks this, but this is what I get from this entire thread. Atlas, the point of the thread, should the CDC educate non-circumcised males about circumcision, seems like it would be a hit with those that "want their child to decide for themselves". But then we are faced with responses like, "the CDC is biased", "the CDC has inaccurate data", "the CDC should mind their own business", etc. etc.

If parents really wanted their child to decide for themselves, wouldn't they like that the CDC teachs the child about the possibility of circumcision for their health? Well, no says the consensus. Why? Possibly because they believe the CDC is biased/has untrue data? If parents who opt to not circumcise their infants believe that circumcision provides no health benefits, why say you want your child to decide for themselves? If you don't think circumcision helps anything and tell your children there are no benefits from circumcision, why would you say you are letting your child decide?

There are no medical benefits from botox, but if your child decided they wanted botox to have higher cheek bones like the rest of their class, would you let your 10 year old get botox? No? Why not? If you believe there are no medical benefits to circumcision nor botox, you would not let your child endure either. Right?

But what do I know? I just want parents to continue to decide on their own for what their child has/doesn't have. I don't want intactivists to determine what everyone should and shouldn't be when they are clearly biased. I want parents to decide, based on their thoughts, not someone elses.

I really would appreciate a well thought-out reply from someone who has something to say about what I have brought up because lately, good points are ignored because of the lack of substance in rebuttal.

[wtbcrna, MSN, DNP, CRNA]

Exactly.

I don't believe we can truly get unbiased information available to parents in the US. The CDC itself, imo, is going to be inherently biased - simply because it's an American organization, full of circumcised Americans.  there are few men out there that are going to own up to their member being somewhat "wrong", for lack of a better term.

What about the WHO or are you just going to disregard their information too, because it doesn't fit your bias. Male circumcision information in the U.S. by the CDC and AAP are based on research not someone idiotic idea that circumcised men memberes are "wrong".

[wtbcrna, MSN, DNP, CRNA]

You are misunderstanding me.

My point is there are few males that will agree with any view that contradicts their own member.  You will not find a long list of men who find open fault with their member on any side of the argument, intact, circumcised, or other.

I believe part of the education we are lacking in the US is care of the intact male. It is baffling to me how much incorrect information exists in regards to simple care in the medical realm. My pediatrician is excellent with my intact son.... Incidentally, my pediatrician is also Jewish. 

I am hardly an intactivist (yes, that's a term), but as a parent to an 11 year old with a whole member, it is refreshing to know that there are hcp out there that do not view my sons member as a medical problem waiting to be solved.

The culture of circumcision is alive and well in the US. As vocal as the dissenting opinions are on this thread, the viewpoints against circumcision are still very much in the minority. I have heard comments from my own coworkers about "disgusting" "ugly" and "gross" baby boys that have come into their care. Why? They have a foreskin.

There is plenty of information on how to take care of circumcised males in the U.S. There is no lack of information on this subject. Where is your research to back up your opinions?

Most HCPs could care less if your son is circumcised or uncircumcised or any other male for that fact. I don't know of any urologist or any other provider that looks forward to a day of doing circumcisions in the OR or elsewhere. It isn't like I jump in the morning and run to the OR, because hey I get to provide the anesthesia for a man to join the circumcised club.

The point is still the same. The CDC should provide unbiased research based information on the risks and the benefits of male circumcision. There has not been one convincing argument on this whole thread to convince anyone that the information from the CDC or AAP is biased one way or the other. The people that were against male circumcision are still against it, and the people that believe parents should have the right to choose still feel that way.

[FutureRN101]

No, the issue at hand is whether HCPs should be given unbiased information on the risks and benefits on male circumcision.

I was responding directly to someone who assumed that those who do not choose circumcision for their infant sons would also not give them information on it. (This is why I directly quoted them). I was pointing out to that person that me and many other families who do not choose RIC do so because we believe our son is the one who has the right to choose over his own body. So you are misinterpreting my response.

[RNsRWe, ASN, RN]

You should know that the man who runs that site (Brian J. Morris) has in the past said that circumcision should be compulsory and has been derided by intactivists as a "circum-fetishist."

You probably don't want to rely on him too much. Even some who support circumcision regard him as a bit of a ghoul.

The Skeptic

The testimonials are from men OTHER than this one (Morris), so unless they are all lying, it's THEIR stories that give it credibility. Their stories, are, after all, THEIR stories.