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]

Adhesions can happen with or without circumcision. One of my boys had one. It required no intervention after a visit with a pediatric urologist.

The cdc should also not be pushing anyone. I work adult oncology so my beliefs on this are pretty much not applicable in my field(not that I would offer it up anyway.) I also would not want any agenda "counseled" to my minor boys on this topic.

What literature from the CDC do you see that shows the CDC "pushing" male circumcision? Are you saying that providing unbiased information on the risks and benefits of male circumcision that the CDC is "pushing" RIC, because that does not fit your personal opinion on the subject? This also begs the question, have you even read the CDC information on male circumcision?

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/prevention/research/malecircumcision/

[sistrmoon, BSN, RN]

Wow, talk about a gift that really needed a way to be returned....

I wouldn't dare to speak for all women, even most women, but of the women with whom I've had such 'girl talk' (often fueled by ETOH which would keep the topic going!) there was a decided preference for intimate relations with a CIRCUMCISED partner....NOT with one who was 'intact'.

I also have to admit that the idea that if you had hypothetical newborn sons you would be thinking of their hypothetical wives' sexual experiences in the future....well, just a little creepy to me, sorry!

We definitely run in different circles. Most females I know feel the opposite, that uncirced is a better sexual experience. I've been with both. Never noticed a smell difference either, as someone mentioned. That's more of a man hygiene thing regardless of circ status.

[Red Kryptonite]

http://www.academia.edu/6394928/The_member-Care_Information_Gap_Preventing_Improper_Care_of_Intact_Boys

[sistrmoon, BSN, RN]

Are those against circumcision for infant boys also against ear piercing for infant girls? I'm just curious.

I'll never make the decision because we have 2 boys and are done having children, but I would personally not pierce my infant's ears. I was 8 when I had mine done and I decided. Yes, I wasn't of legal age, but I had more autonomy and expression of choice at that age than an infant. Also, I

just don't see the point. I'm not a girly girl and my earring holes get so irritated when I wear earrings I just don't wear them anymore.

[Red Kryptonite]

We definitely run in different circles. Most females I know feel the opposite, that uncirced is a better sexual experience. I've been with both. Never noticed a smell difference either, as someone mentioned. That's more of a man hygiene thing regardless of circ status.

The fact that any woman would actually reject a man because part of his body hasn't been cut off is just astounding to me. Many in the intactivist community refer to foreskins as "bimbo repellent" and are frankly grateful that it might run off women shallow enough to act like that, protecting our sons from women not worthy of them.

[sistrmoon, BSN, RN]

You can look them up too. I think many of the studies have biases. I do know that the CDC, ACOG, WHO, and AAP all agree that there is enough compelling evidence to state that routine male circumcision health benefits outweigh the risks.

"Circumcision and non-ulcerative STI

In a prospective multicenter USA study, there was evidence

for an increased incidence of gonorrheal infection in uncircumcised

men (odds ratio 1.5), but no difference with

respect to chlamydial infection.68 In a South African trial,

Chlamydia trachomatis infections decreased among circumcised

men with a borderline statistical significance.69 A

randomized trial, which investigated the prevalence of Neisseria

gonorrhoeae amongst South African men, showed that

circumcised and uncircumcised men showed similar prevalence

rates,70 which was supported by a Kenyan randomized

trial.71 Furthermore, no link between circumcision and

gonococcal or chlamydial urethritis was detected in a

meta-analysis."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23573952

I had to pull the article up with my school account so you won't be able to see what I quoted unless you can get the full article.

Again, not America. How do the STI rates compare in industrialized countries that largely do not circumcise? Does the UK have a higher STI rate than the US? Even this quote doesn't seem very compelling from a statistical point of view. "Borderline." "No link." "Similar prevalence rates."

[sistrmoon, BSN, RN]

What literature from the CDC do you see that shows the CDC "pushing" male circumcision? Are you saying that providing unbiased information on the risks and benefits of male circumcision that the CDC is "pushing" RIC, because that does not fit your personal opinion on the subject? This also begs the question, have you even read the CDC information on male circumcision?

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/prevention/research/malecircumcision/

The CDC and the AAP believe the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks. I do not think the information they would provide would be unbiased, and I also don't think the research they are citing is applicable. And yes, I've read it.

[sistrmoon, BSN, RN]

Good for you, and he still only has about 1% chance of needing medical intervention for phimosis not to mention the increased risk of STIs, the risk of spreading cervical cancer, slight increase chance of penile cancer, the increased risk of getting and transmitting HIV etc.

I am sure that he will follow all educational instructions when he becomes a teenager and will never ever engage in any high-risk activities, and his hygiene will always be meticulous....

Fear-mongering. Which is what I fear the "counseling" we would get would be. The circumcised sons can also get HIV and cancer.

STIs are a huge, complex public health issue, but this isn't the answer.

[macawake, MSN]

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

I responded to your post suggesting that anti-religious feelings/bigotry was the reason behind resistance to infant circumcisions in Europe by sharing a bit about the cultural background about my country. I find it slightly ironic that your response to this is to tell me to research anti-Semitism in Scandinavia on the internet. You do realize that I actually live here and can probably offer you (if you're willing to listen) some insights of my own that you can't really get on the internet.

You could listen to what I have to say, or you could come live here and decide for yourself. To genuinely understand a culture, any culture, it's my conviction that you need to be "immersed" in it.

Well, I read your links. Some of them were quite unpleasant and reminded me why this world is full of conflict.

One of the links is an article about three Jewish men visiting Stockholm, Sweden and Copenhagen, Denmark and titled "An adventure in anti-Semitism". I think that the title itself is rather inflammatory, but what does the article say? (I'll only comment on Sweden, for the sake of brevity and because it's the country that I hail from).

It seems that these three men encountered "some Somalian Muslim girls in hijabs" who made some very rude comment of a sexual/derogatory nature and the other incident involved "a group of Arabs" who yelled at them, shook their fists and spouted rude comments aimed at Jews and Israel. They also saw a swastika on an elevator door somewhere.

None of the described incidences are in my opinion acceptable behavior. I'm not sure why you think this is an example that Scandinavian culture is anti-Semitic though. This is clearly a conflict that originated thousands of miles away from Sweden and now the two parties happened to be in Stockholm when these altercations took place. I don't know who carved the swastika into the elevator door. We do have some, but not that many, domestic neo-nazi types so it's possible that this was a local "artist". (Yes, I do use that word with a good portion of contempt in this scenario).

As I said, the described incidents are unacceptable. One thing that struck a cord with me though, the way these two sets of antagonists that the three men encountered were described in the article, actually has discriminating/ derogatory undertones too. It's evident that there's a lot of bad blood

between the groups of people.

The article about the "Swedish comedian" was even more depressing.

What kind of an online news media outlet is this any way? I question it's quality. The comments made by its' readers were by and large quite hostile and sounded somewhat unbalanced.

Here are some of the readers comments to this article:

It is a shame that Swedish people are so naive to believe or recognize that their culture will be gone and Sharia take over. Muslims do not assimilate but destroy from within.

The Swedes are already getting a taste of what is in stall for them when their beloved Islamism takes over the country. I wish them many encounters with the Islamic State and Caliphate.

Amen to that. They'll cower following the first domestic attack. It's in their DNA.

Sweden is a stain upon Europe, and it's people are weak, fearful and suicidal by design.

(the one above is a partial quote).

I would be happy to wake up on morning to read that Sweden had been burned to the ground.

(To be fair, another reader questioned if this last one was appropriate).

wtbcrna, I realize that you wanted to show me anti-Semistism in Scandinavia but what I'm seeing here is something else, and it's quite ugly. I have never seen comments like these directed at any nationality, ethnic or religious group in our local online papers. Most of them are moderated, and the majority of the comments I saw, would violate TOS.

Ok, moving on to Wikipedia...

Surveys show that anti-Semitism exists in Sweden. The study "Anti-Semitic images and attitudes in Sweden", conducted by Henrik Bachner and Jonas Ring, revealed that 1.4 percent of the population disagrees with the assertion that "Most Jews are probably decent folks". A total of 7.3 percent disagrees with the statement "Most Muslims are probably decent folks".

This means that 98.6 % of the populations disagrees with the negative/vilifying statement as it pertains to Jewish people and 92.7 % disagree with the same statement when made about Muslim people.

I never claimed that we are 100% free of bigots and racists. They exist and people in minorities whether due to religion, origin, sexual orientation or other criteria certainly on occasion encounter prejudice in different forms. However, the vast majority of Scandinavians are quite tolerant people. Believe me or don't, there's not much I can do about it.

What I did claim is that our stance on circumcision isn't based on anti-Semitism or anti-Islamism and I stand by that claim. It is and has been tradition and a children's rights issue.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

What other piece of infant's skin has been shown to reduce penile cancer, cervical cancer, and reduce STIs including HIV when removed prior to sexual intercourse. The majority of males will have had sexual intercourse before they can legally consent as adults to male circumcision not to mention they are also unlikely to be insured/able to afford circumcision as an young adult in the U.S. So your attempt at asking is there any other part on an infant that we routinely remove has no basis in realistic terms when you are discussing potential multi-modal infection prevention measures in public health.

You are in my opinion evading the issue here. I'm not asking if there are any other parts of an infants body that we routinely remove. I'm asking which other HEALTHY parts would be acceptable to remove.

The question that I pose is of an ethical nature. Is it acceptable to remove a body part that is healthy from a person who hasn't been informed or consented, but may become diseased in the future? What is the acceptable standard between risk/reward? Do we weigh in factors as available treatments, the seriousness of the potential disease and it's incidence (is it a rare or common disease/condition) we're trying to avoid)? If it's acceptable, does this include all body parts that a person can sustain life without or does "someone" get to decide which parts are acceptable and which ones aren't?

Using the argument that removal of other body parts haven't proven medically beneficial is completely irrelevant in a discussions on ethics. The reason their is available data on circumcisions is that they've been performed on large populations for cultural or religious reasons.

Thankfully we don't have the cultural or religious tradition to surgically remove breast buds on female infants or to amputate both legs on all children, and it's hardly going to be approved for scientific trials either since it would be deeply unethical (and barbaric).

However, if we had I'm sure that we'd see the incidence of breast cancer drastically reduced and osteosarcomas of the legs would probably fare similarly for the latter group. Do you actually question that a removed body part won't be vulnerable to disease in the way that one that's still attached to a living body is?

I realize that you support circumcision of male infants and that the tradition also as I perceive it, carries a significant amount of cultural and/or emotional value to you. I would assume this makes it more easy to accept the practice, you sound like you were socially conditioned to do so. Please correct me if I've misinterpreted this.

My question can still be asked on an ethical basis. What other healthy body parts would be acceptable to remove on an infant shortly after birth for possible future health/medical gains for that individual?

[sistrmoon, BSN, RN]

First people are saying circumcision should be a choice for their child. Now it's, that circumcision isn't necessary. So which is it? Why would you give your child a choice on the matter anyways, no matter what age if you didn't think it was necessary. Because you wouldn't? If would never be brought up at the dinner table because YOU don't think it is necessary.

If those against circumcision want their sons to be able to masturbate easier and decide for themselves to have a circumcision then do it. The chances that a male, when matured enough to think what procedures he wants for himself, will actually ask his parents, HCP, or really anyone else about circumcision is rare. By time he seriously thinks about getting it done if it is what he really wants, he will have probably already been married or exposed to UTI's.

Unless of course the parents talk about the option of circumcision with their children (MALE AND FEMALE) at the age of puberty so those children can decide for themselves before engaging in sexual acts. However, by the attitude of this thread, I don't think those kids will get that education from their parents or at least unbiased information. If you sit there and tell them it does nothing for their health, the risks of surgery, or that they can't masturbate as easy, I doubt any of them would get it done because you only feed them your beliefs and not actual research of the benefits/risks of circumcision.

All of this so, I don't care what you do to your child's member. Just please, stop worrying about what everyone else does with their memberes.

The whole point is that CDC wants to educate males who are not circumcised about the procedure UNBIASEDLY, which they should because some people will fail to do so.

This isn't a thread on if circumcision is right or wrong, this is a topic about education, so please stop pushing your beliefs that circumcision is wrong on to everybody. Nobody is asking you/or cares if you think circumcision is right or wrong, they are asking if education is essential to uncircumcised males. Which you should be FOR since you want your child to decide for themselves, not you deciding for them.

That's a big assumption on your part. I've already talked to my 5 year old about why his member "has skin hanging down" and daddy's doesn't. He asked. And when he is able to understand STIs, we will talk about that and the studies, etc. But am I going to say there's overwhelming evidence that he should get this done? No I am not, because I don't think there is. If he decided he wanted it done I would support him. I don't foresee a stampede of older boys and men to have it done but you never know.

And I don't think anyone would be unbiased about it, not even the CDC.

[RNsRWe, ASN, RN]

The fact that any woman would actually reject a man because part of his body hasn't been cut off is just astounding to me. Many in the intactivist community refer to foreskins as "bimbo repellent" and are frankly grateful that it might run off women shallow enough to act like that, protecting our sons from women not worthy of them.

Since this is in response to a quoted post of mine, I think clarification is in order.

I was writing about a stated preference amongst the women with whom I've had such conversations, not anything more. To label those who find uncircumcised anatomy distasteful as "Bimbos" is incredibly rude. I don't know if it would "run off women" or if they'd simply dislike that part of their husband's anatomy; I suppose it would depend on if the REST of the man was 'worth' having or if that would just be the final straw if the answer to that question was 'no'.

I never said a word about anyone refusing to stay with such a man regardless of other circumstances, and the idea that a woman who is less than charmed at seeing an uncircumcised male does NOT equate with "not being worthy of them". That is a GIANT and erroneous leap to a conclusion that wasn't even close!

Pretty sure if a group of men were talking about women's anatomy, some might state a decided preference for a certain physical type: height, weight, body shape, hair color, etc etc. To suggest that they are 'not worthy' of women who don't fit that criteria is foolish....and insulting. Preferences are preferences, and I'll betcha that people choose partners based on MORE than physical preferences, even if those preferences are not met.

[sistrmoon, BSN, RN]

I responded to your post suggesting that anti-religious feelings/bigotry was the reason behind resistance to infant circumcisions in Europe by sharing a bit about the cultural background about my country. I find it slightly ironic that your response to this is to tell me to research anti-Semitism in Scandinavia on the internet. You do realize that I actually live here and can probably offer you (if you're willing to listen) some insights of my own that you can't really get on the internet.

You could listen to what I have to say, or you could come live here and decide for yourself. To genuinely understand a culture, any culture, it's my conviction that you need to be "immersed" in it.

All anecdotal! Useless! Must be double blind peer reviewed and controlled!

Excluding all personal experience is to exclude valuable data.