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 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. :)

Then why aren't you presenting some of these articles to support your view. By the way I post the most when I am procrastinating doing my homework.

The newest literature reviews from AAP, CDC, and WHO would seem to refute your old literature review.

[~PedsRN~, BSN, RN]

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.

I find it interesting your fervor with this subject. I haven't researched circumcision on a daily basis because I haven't needed to. When I get a second perhaps I will, although I'm not sure I have the energy to then defend my scholarly journals. ?

And I never once disputed your evidence. I simply said by default, your evidence is already biased. You are pulling articles that only serve your side of the argument.

The only research I've done on this topic has been hands on. Ha!

[klone, MSN, RN]

Then why aren't you presenting some of these articles to support your view.

I already said why - because I'm doing lit reviews for school, I don't want to do them for fun, too.

And see my later post - the AAP does not support RIC.

[wtbcrna, MSN, DNP, CRNA]

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.

ACOG endorsed AAP's statement on male circumcision so I would say that ACOG supports RIC as much as the AAP.

"The policy has been endorsed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (the College). “This information will be helpful for obstetricians who are often the medical providers who counsel parents about circumcision,” said Sabrina Craigo, MD, the College’s liaison to the AAP task force on circumcision. “We support the idea that parents choosing circumcision should have access to the procedure.” http://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/Pages/New-Benefits-Point-to-Greater-Benefits-of-Infant-Circumcision-But-Final-Say-is-Still-Up-to-parents-Says-AAP.aspx

[klone, MSN, RN]

What about the phrase "the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision" do you interpret to mean that they are in favor of routine infant circumcision? They are saying that while they acknowledge there are benefits, there aren't enough for them to recommend all infants get their foreskins removed as a routine measure.

The fact that you take that as them endorsing RIC tells me that you are way too biased to see anything beyond your own opinion on the subject.

[wtbcrna, MSN, DNP, CRNA]

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

I don't remember saying they support routine infant circumcision/RIC (that is bad acronym I picked up through reading this thread), if I did it was a mistake. I have included the AAP statement in a number of posts. It states the benefits outweigh the risks and that the decision should ultimately be left up to the parents. That is another reason I always try to link the original source to my posts. That way no one has to "take my word" for anything.

[wtbcrna, MSN, DNP, CRNA]

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.

The point is the same when certain people cannot substantiate their point of view they attack the evidence.

I don't really understand your point about where research comes from. We often research things that are of interest at the time. That is where the majority of research grants come from is to research what is of most interest to X at the time, but if you are following scientific principles then no matter your point of view you should still come up with quality research product at the end. This also why it is important to have to go through a peer-review process, and why literature reviews and meta-analysis are important. It would very hard to nearly impossible to have all biased articles in a systematic review or meta-analysis that has gone through peer-review at a high quality journal.

That doesn't even include the fact that these articles/evidence has been scrutinized by a board of experts from the AAP, CDC, and WHO.

[wtbcrna, MSN, DNP, CRNA]

What about the phrase "the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision" do you interpret to mean that they are in favor of routine infant circumcision? They are saying that while they acknowledge there are benefits, there aren't enough for them to recommend all infants get their foreskins removed as a routine measure.

The fact that you take that as them endorsing RIC tells me that you are way too biased to see anything beyond your own opinion on the subject.

I interpret that to mean that the AAP believes that benefits outweigh the risks for male circumcision, and that routine male circumcision should be available for all newborn males (certain health conditions not withstanding).

The only thing I advocate for with male circumcision is that the parents continue to have the right to chose whether their newborn will be circumcised or not, and that unbiased information should be available to the parents from recognized healthcare agencies such as the CDC.

[morte, LPN, LVN]

your attempt at backpedaling is impressive.

And that isn't the point I was making, not even in the ballpark.

MY post said that in "girl-talk" with female friends, it seemed that the decided preference in that group of women (I said I did not speak for ALL, just MY cohorts) in favor of circumcised men.

From there, someone else commented that her experiences were the opposite. Ok, that's all fine, no issue. The ISSUE, and the reason I posted in response, was that Red then responded with comments about womwen who feel this way being "not worthy of these men" and women who preferrred to not have intimate dealings with uncircumcised men as "bimbos". WAY off base, and frankly insulting. I IN NO WAY inferred that one body type was "offensive", but that in fact there ARE preferences....and that was that. My words, it seems, not only got twisted once, but you twisted them yet again.

[RNsRWe, ASN, RN]

your attempt at backpedaling is impressive.

And your failure to understand what I thought was a pretty simply-stated concept is indeed impressive! I'm sorry that this seems to be hard for you to follow

Lack of understanding on your part does not equate with "backpeddling" on mine. I continue to stand by EXACTLY what I stated, no more, no less.

I wonder why anyone would join in on a discussion (and make abrasive comments) when they are confused as to the points presented, and by whom.....but that's rhetorical

[~PedsRN~, BSN, RN]

The point is the same when certain people cannot substantiate their point of view they attack the evidence.

I don't really understand your point about where research comes from. We often research things that are of interest at the time. That is where the majority of research grants come from is to research what is of most interest to X at the time, but if you are following scientific principles then no matter your point of view you should still come up with quality research product at the end. This also why it is important to have to go through a peer-review process, and why literature reviews and meta-analysis are important. It would very hard to nearly impossible to have all biased articles in a systematic review or meta-analysis that has gone through peer-review at a high quality journal.

That doesn't even include the fact that these articles/evidence has been scrutinized by a board of experts from the AAP, CDC, and WHO.

I have not attacked any of your evidence, simply pointed out that it is one sided at best.

[wtbcrna, MSN, DNP, CRNA]

I have not attacked any of your evidence, simply pointed out that it is one sided at best.

The evidence is what it is, if you cannot refute the evidence with the over 5K articles in PubMed then that would suggest that the overall agreement in the scientific literature supports the CDC and AAP's literature review.

You are trying to debate scientific literature with opinions instead of facts or other scientific literature, and when you cannot do that you claim that the literature is biased.