Survey on infant male circumcision

Nurses General Nursing

Published

  1. Do you agree with AAP's policy statement on male circumcision?

    • 36
      Yes, but the decision to circumcise should be left up to the parents.
    • 30
      No, I don't believe infants should be routinely circumcised
    • 1
      Yes. I believe in male circumcision as public health measure, but only when a male can consent for circumcision himself.
    • 0
      Undecided. I don't think there is enough scientific literature to make a decision at this point.
    • 1
      Other

68 members have participated

The current policy statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).

"Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks and that the procedure's benefits justify access to this procedure for families who choose it." http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/585

Specializes in OB-Gyn/Primary Care/Ambulatory Leadership.

I'm confused by the OP and the survey choices. The AAP does NOT recommend routine infant circumcision in their latest policy statement (August, 2012). They specifically said there is not enough evidence of the benefits to recommend routine circumcision.

Basically, the wording was waffling enough so that parents can still choose circumcision and physicians can still perform them without going against their fellowship, while still allowing an "out" for insurance companies to not pay for them.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
And you keep arguing past me when I say put some perspective behind your opinions.

In other words place some scientific articles to support your view that male circumcision maybe unethical.

Who is someone more likely to believe you with your unreferenced opinion or an ethicist that has done systematic literature review on the ethics behind male circumcision?

I dont think there has ever been anything "scientific" about ethics. We have many ways to keep a person alive in the ICU, but should we? Is what we do on a daily basis ethical for most of our pts? Who is to decide that? What is so scientific about keeping alive 70,80, 90 yr olds with many comorbidities? Is it because you can provide a poll for people to answer whether they think it is ethical or unethical? Is female circumcision ethical? It is part of their culture, why is it not ethical if they believe it to be otherwise? Because there was a poll done by people not of their culture to tell them it is not?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Anesthesia.
What process could ever justify the recommendation to allow parents to murder their children?

How did he come to that decision? Is it just ignorant maniacal ranting or is there some rationale for his recommendations? Did he just come to that ridiculous conclusion to bring light to some other ethical principle? What is his motive for making these statements?

Most importantly you cannot simply dismiss all "academic" ethicists based on one ethicists making absurd statements.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Anesthesia.
The foreskin is a normal part of human anatomy and has stood the test of time through evolution, there must be a good reason for it... or is it like the pinky?

The pinky is there to stick while drinking tea Britain. It serves a very important purpose.

The foreskin would play very important anatomical role for people that run naked through the woods and need the extra skin to protect the member, but other than that what purpose looking at the scientific research/literature does the foreskin provide that has been shown have any effect once it is removed?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Anesthesia.
I'm confused by the OP and the survey choices. The AAP does NOT recommend routine infant circumcision in their latest policy statement (August, 2012). They specifically said there is not enough evidence of the benefits to recommend routine circumcision.

Basically, the wording was waffling enough so that parents can still choose circumcision and physicians can still perform them without going against their fellowship, while still allowing an "out" for insurance companies to not pay for them.

The OP states do you agree with the AAP's statement on male circumcision. It does not state that the AAP recommends routine male circumcision. The actual statement from the AAP is given in the OP too.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in hospice.
How did he come to that decision? Is it just ignorant maniacal ranting or is there some rationale for his recommendations?

So if you approve of his process, you'd accept his conclusion and agree that murdering infants up to one month old to increase their parents' happiness is justifiable?

Seriously what planet am I on?

Does the concept of evil even exist for you?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Anesthesia.
I dont think there has ever been anything "scientific" about ethics. We have many ways to keep a person alive in the ICU, but should we? Is what we do on a daily basis ethical for most of our pts? Who is to decide that? What is so scientific about keeping alive 70,80, 90 yr olds with many comorbidities? Is it because you can provide a poll for people to answer whether they think it is ethical or unethical? Is female circumcision ethical? It is part of their culture, why is it not ethical if they believe it to be otherwise? Because there was a poll done by people not of their culture to tell them it is not?

Are you saying that there isn't a systematic way to come about ethical decision making in the hospital or healthcare setting or that ethical principles and ethics degrees do not have their basis in systematic research? Or are you trying to say that since we violate some ethical principles to preserve others such autonomy for the families versus beneficence for the patient that ethics are irrelevant?

"science

noun

  • the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."



Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Anesthesia.
So if you approve of his process, you'd accept his conclusion and agree that murdering infants up to one month old to increase their parents' happiness is justifiable?

Seriously what planet am I on?

Does the concept of evil even exist for you?

It is important to look at his argument not just take the most controversial thing he has said and run with it.

Do you believe that the foreskin is there for a reason and that evolution has kept it there for a reason, and that removing it is unnatural? I venture to say that your answer is yes.

Peter Singer takes that evolutionary view and the needs of society to a polar extreme by suggesting in the first 30 days of life that babies, especially the ones that are obviously disabled, should be legally be allowed to be killed (infanticide). He views newborns as not being self aware as part of his justification. Is that evil? It was and has been done for centuries by humans with unwanted newborns. Did you think that opening sequence in the movie 300 with the Spartan looking at the baby for defects before deciding if the baby should be thrown over a cliff was based on fiction?

How I think his views benefit society is it helps society become engaged in the needs and care of special needs children and people. Special needs people aren't just throw away objects that can we can disregard. It brings about the debate where does autonomy and individual rights start and stop in relation to society needs and benefits.

I absolutely hated this guy when I first heard about him, but I have mellowed quite a bit since then. His philosophy has made me realize that special needs people serve just as an important part in society as any other person and sometimes even more. I truly believe that many special needs people are there to teach society compassion and that being different is okay.

By the way when I was LVN I was a Texas prison nurse and before that I worked at a boy's home. I have had to work and provide care for numerous child molesters and seen what the psychological damage that was done to boys that were molested. I have seen what I believe is true evil in people, but I don't think this guy's rants are it.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

I will never understand the whole, my son needs to look like his father. My FIL was not circ'd, my husband was. Per my husband this was never a concern to him. My sons are not circ'd and they have never asked or seemed to notice why they don't look like Daddy. And as far as keeping it clean it was A BILLION times easier to teach them to wash their member properly vs brushing their teeth. I don't see people advocating pulling out teeth because of cavities.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

The foreskin would play very important anatomical role for people that run naked through the woods and need the extra skin to protect the member, but other than that what purpose looking at the scientific research/literature does the foreskin provide that has been shown have any effect once it is removed?

Just because we don't run naked anymore doesn't mean that skin doesn't still need to be protected. Have you seen the head of a member of an uncirc'd man and a circ'd man? The skin does not look the same, the head of the member is clearly calloused on an uncirc'd man. I don't see that as normal, it was not intended to be that way.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Anesthesia.
I don't see people advocating pulling out teeth because of cavities.

lol..You haven't done much dental rehab for Alaskan natives then.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

I have worked in a Urologists office. I saw far more problems with men who were not circ'd vs those who were. To me if I were to have a male child I would have him circ'd as an infant. My husband agrees. This simply isn't something to get so worked up over. Some on here are very opinionated about everything. I chose to pick my battles vs make everything a fight, where you have to one up someone all of the time.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Add a Comment