CDC rec to counsel all males about benefits of circumcision

klone, MSN, RN · Dec 9, 2014

All this scientific peer reviewed evidence seems to have lots of pros for circumcision. My question is: where is the research about the harms of circumcision? one can argue that the papers here are already biased.
Maybe when I have ten minutes where I'm not working , I'll look for some of those "peer reviewed journals" - which can be biased, it is possible - just read the flu vaccine "evidence".
Evidence will always support the money maker, in my experience. And sadly, medicine has become a huge money maker. And while cosmetic surgery is a huge market, it's just not as palatable when your target market is 2 days old.

I actually wrote a paper on the topic back when I was in midwifery school. I did a lit review and everything. The results of my research drive much of my personal opinion - that in the US, in present day, the benefits of circumcision do not outweigh the risks. I.e., no medical indication for RIC. That was 4 years ago. I don't know if there is more recently published research that is causing the AAP to suddenly flip-flop on their stance of no medical indication. Unfortunately, that paper was written 2 laptops ago, and I don't have it in my drive or I'd post it here. And as someone who is working on their master's thesis right now and right in the thick of literature reviews (on urine, rather than foreskins), I just don't have the energy that WTBCRNA appears to have in this thread. It just seems too much like homework for me. So instead, I will spout off my, by all appearances, anecdotal, unsubstantiated opinion on the topic. :)

allnurses Guide · Dec 9, 2014

(My bold)
Good grief. I never claimed that anti-semitism never played a part in cultural influences in my country or in any country in Europe. (One would have to be completely ignorant regarding history and it would easily qualify as the most asinine claim uttered by anyone, anywhere, ever). Anti-Semitism is sadly very much a part of Europe's history.
However, I'm curious why it is you feel/think that anti-Semitism plays a part in our view on infant circumcisions. They have never been a part of our customs, and I genuinely fail to see any connection between that fact and anti-Semistism.
I also wonder what you mean when you say "these countries"? Europe is large, and while there are many similarities there are also many differences between the various countries.
The claim I made is only about circumcision and in an earlier post I specifically mentioned that I can't speak for all of Europe, only for my own country and to some extent about our closest neighbors (Scandinavia). I have lived in a few other countries in Europe (and several countries elsewhere), but it takes time to get the know the "soul" or "essence" if you will, of another culture.
As I'm sure you already know, the fact that I feel that our stance on circumcision isn't based on anti-Semitism isn't a conclusion based on "peer-reviewed scientific research". How could it be? Not all subjects or phenomena are readily studied or analyzed in that format.
I've already tried to explain the background to how most Swedes feel about circumcision of infants, but that doesn't seem to have convinced you at all.
I tried to explain that it's about being pro-children's rights and not about being anti anything. Of course if two customs are polar opposites of each other than logically being "pro" one of them means that you are "anti" the other. But this is simply a consequence of the two customs being the opposite of each other. The motivating factor is the support of one custom, not the rejection of the other. Neither is it a rejection of the group of people who practice the other custom.
I can't help or control what other people feel and perceive, but I do know that what a person perceives isn't always an accurate portrayal of the truth. I can imagine that if a certain custom is closely tied to the identity of a group of people, then the non-acceptance of that custom may well feel like a rejection of the people themselves.
About your latest link. It discusses the discrimination of Jewish doctors in the past. It also mentions the Crusaders, the Spanish inquisition, the Cossack pogroms and Hitler's Germany. They're all abhorrent atrocities, but I don't see how they relate to the issue at hand. I'm not sure what else I can add.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I concluded from your lack of response that you seem to have no interest in discussing the ethical aspects of removing healthy body parts of infants prophylactically. In my opinion the ethical aspect is an integral component of the policy-making process in healthcare, and it would have been interesting to hear your thoughts on it.

My reasoning is simple for why I claim that antisemitism might be a part of the culture not to circumcise in Europe it is because it is easily identified as a perception among minority members in those countries. A simple internet search can find several news articles and blogs on the subject. It was also in recent news where the U.S. state department had asked that anti-circumcision laws not be passed in Europe as it would adversely effect certain religious groups most of all. Many members of those religious, again according to news articles, felt that these laws were in at least part d/t discrimination.

This whole thread was supposed to be about if the CDC should offer unbiased information on male circumcision to HCPs much as the same as has been done by WHO.

You want to debate ethics by my asking a question that I think has no relevance, but if you want to debate the ethics why not post one of myriad of articles on the subject that are well written and break each ethical principle down in regards to male circumcision. You could even provide a comparison between ethicists in the U.S. and Europe, but you have done none of these things. You just keep going back to your opinion, and that "I live in Europe so this is how it is".

The law and ethics of male circumcision: guidance for doctors -- 30 (3): 259 -- Journal of Medical Ethics

Recommendation by a law body to ban infant male circumcision has serious worldwide implications for pediatric practice and human rights

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Here are three different articles that present the ethical considerations of male circumcision all from high quality peer-reviewed journals. Everyone on this thread that is against male circumcision for "ethical" reasons at no time has even made the attempt to include any of these articles or any other peer-reviewed scientific articles to justify their opinions.

allnurses Guide · Dec 9, 2014

It's not a procedure I believe in, although I do understand why it's chosen, so I think I would have to say No, but I already said as much in an earlier post. In countries where the procedure would save lives, I say absolutely.

Where is your peer-reviewed scientific articles to back up your opinion that male circumcision would not save lives in the United States, because the CDC, WHO, and AAP seem to disagree with you.

klone, MSN, RN · Dec 9, 2014

Where is your peer-reviewed scientific articles to back up your opinion that male circumcision would not save lives in the United States, because the CDC, WHO, and AAP seem to disagree with you.

Good lord, you are punchy for 6am. Nobody's writing their dissertation here. Glad to see you dropped ACOG as your list of organizations that support RIC.

allnurses Guide · Dec 9, 2014

A parent choosing it for their child isn't the same as the CDC getting involved. It feels like they are advocating for it, and it bothers me.

That is very understandable, but have you actually read through the CDC article on male circumcision? http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/prevention_research_malecircumcision.pdf I thought it was well presented and didn't overstate the research, but maybe I am biased.

klone, MSN, RN · Dec 9, 2014

Oh, and BTW, I finally gathered the energy to actually look it up, and AAP's latest policy statement says that the benefits are not great enough for them to recommend RIC. So no, AAP does not recommend RIC either. Ha!

After a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence, the American Academy of Pediatrics found the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision. - See more at: Newborn Male Circumcision

allnurses Guide · Dec 9, 2014

How can they be experts on something neither of them has any experience with having? They literally have no idea what they've lost.
I said earlier in the thread that there are men who speak up about feeling robbed and violated by circumcision, and I've watched them get shamed as crybabies. I've participated in discussions where people considering circumcision were told that if they didn't do it, they'd be coddling their son and turn him soft. As insane as these things sound, there are real people out there who believe them and say them. Personally I think it's a defense mechanism. Men who've had a part of their body cut off need to see it as justified, or else they have to face that they were violated. The uncut male body has to be shamed and made disgusting, even threatening (as the genitals strangulating themselves comment early in this thread demonstrated) in order to make having part of their body cut off okay. This is the same defense mechanism that causes women who've been mutilated to take their daughters in for the same treatment.
Men circumcised as infants are in no way experts about normal, whole male genitalia. It's impossible for them to be.

And all the scientific literature on this subject is just BS I guess since it doesn't support your personal opinion?..

~PedsRN~, BSN, RN · Dec 9, 2014

That is very understandable, but have you actually read through the CDC article on male circumcision? http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/prevention_research_malecircumcision.pdf I thought it was well presented and didn't overstate the research, but maybe I am biased.

I think we can safely say you are biased. LoL!!

klone, MSN, RN · Dec 9, 2014

And all the scientific literature on this subject is just BS I guess since it doesn't support your personal opinion?..

The thing is, ALL the scientific literature does not support RIC. Some does, some does not. It is by no means a slam dunk in support of RIC.

~PedsRN~, BSN, RN · Dec 9, 2014

And all the scientific literature on this subject is just BS I guess since it doesn't support your personal opinion?..

There doesn't need to be scientific research for this statement:

A man who has never possessed a functioning foreskin, does not know what it's like to have a functioning foreskin.

That's common sense. No amount of science can prove or disprove that, since it's entirely subjective.

A circumcised male will never know what sex is like with a foreskin. If it's better or worse, or just different. They will never know, will never be able to make an educated decision for themselves. Same goes for an intact male.

Sometimes you don't need peer reviewed "scientific" papers. Sometimes it just is.

allnurses Guide · Dec 9, 2014

All this scientific peer reviewed evidence seems to have lots of pros for circumcision. My question is: where is the research about the harms of circumcision? one can argue that the papers here are already biased.
Maybe when I have ten minutes where I'm not working , I'll look for some of those "peer reviewed journals" - which can be biased, it is possible - just read the flu vaccine "evidence".
Evidence will always support the money maker, in my experience. And sadly, medicine has become a huge money maker. And while cosmetic surgery is a huge market, it's just not as palatable when your target market is 2 days old.

Ahh..I see since the evidence doesn't support your opinion then the evidence must be wrong. Your experience would be what by the way. How many times have you done peer-reviews for scientific journals? How many articles have you published? Have you ever worked at the NIH?

This is the most nonsensical argument that I have so far.

klone, MSN, RN · Dec 9, 2014

Ahh..I see since the evidence doesn't support your opinion then the evidence must be wrong. Your experience would be what by the way. How many times have you done peer-reviews for scientific journals? How many articles have you published? Have you ever worked at the NIH?
This is the most nonsensical argument that I have so far.

This post is starting to sound very much like attacking the poster, rather than the issue. One does not have to be published to know that simply by virtue of being in a peer-reviewed journal does not make an article or study without flaw or beyond reproach.

And I've WORKED for research groups that were funded by the NIH, and I know firsthand that a lot of research is fueled by public opinion and a desire to substantiate closely held beliefs.