Though the baby boys in the United States have been circumcised routinely at a rate around 61% from 1971 through 2006, a recent downward trend has dramatically reduced that number to around 33% in 2009, according to a report published by Elsevier Global Medical News. (St. Louis' rates are sadly dramatically higher). This number brings the United States more closely in line with the rest of the world, 80% of whose male's bodies are intact.
There are few -- if any real -- medical benefits to circumcision. Most circumcisions in the United States today are done for societal, cultural, or religious reasons. While these should not be minimized, a baby's health should come first. Circumcision is not without risks. It is an elective, cosmetic surgical procedure. It is not covered by Medicaid in some states, and various other insurance providers also refuse to cover it. The American Academy of Pediatrics does not recommend it.
Though some medical organizations are now leaning towards circumcision in the belief that it can reduce HIV infection, condoms are far more effective preventatives, certainly in Western culture where they are readily available. There is no need to remove 30% of the functioning skin of an infant's penis simply to reduce the potential infection of a disease that can be far more effectively prevented by the use of a prophylactic (HIV transmission was reduced by a mere 14% by circumcision, according to one source, whereas latex condoms are 98 - 100% effective when used correctly).
Most performing circumcisions for religious reasons are part of Abrahamic religions. However, Christians in particular are under no obligation to circumcise their sons. They can learn more about what the Bible has to say by reading Christianity and Circumcision.
If you enjoyed this article, please subscribe (it's completely anonymous) by using the subscribe button at the top of the screen. You will receive an email every time a new article is published. Or follow me on Facebook.
Comments
According to the abstract of the study, the data used for the circumcision rate & to measure severe adverse events came from a company that processes EHRCs (insurance e-claims) for all patients from 21% of US short-stay hospitals. This leaves eHRCs from 79% of US short stay hospitals uncounted. That is a very large discrepancy. It is no wonder the CDC won't comment on the rate.
These circumcision rate figures were released too early. I would wager that if they counted all eHRCs from all US hospitals, then all non-eHRCs from all hospitals, they would easily find over 25 percentage points. Even then the count wouldn't include private Dr & religious/tradition 'circumcisions', but the count would be significantly more accurate.
Male circumcision is a safe, popular, healthy & beneficial procedure for individuals & parents to choose. It provides benefits such as 12x less likely for UTI, +22x less likely for cancer, 28% less risk for herpes, 35% for HPV & 60% for HIV/AIDS. The risks are about 0.2% and are typically minor & easily corrected.
Parents should research circumcision and make an informed decision for the health & well-being of their son.
More information can be found at the following sites:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision
http://www.malecircumcision.org/
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm
http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/164/1/104
http://www.circinfo.net
http://www.medicirc.org
Wikipedia is notoriously unreliable for information. Penile cancer is extremely rare in either circed or intact males, and I've already listed the risk reduction for HIV -- it's extremely low. Herpes and HPV can be better prevented with safer sex practices. There is no need to amputate a healthy part of a healthy baby's anatomy for that reason. If a sexually active male chooses to do so -- it is his choice and his business.
The article points out valid reasons that the infant circumcision rate is falling - there are no medical benefits to cutting the sex organs of baby boys.
The methodology to calculate the circumcision rate for 2009 is the same methodology to calculate the 2006 rate. This is important because comparing the two rates shows a drastic decrease in circumcision rate over just a few years.
Infant circumcision flies in the face of all medical precedent. One, you don't do surgery because something might go wrong in the future -- certainly not as a routine matter. And two, potential benefits of a procedure must be weighed against its risks and drawbacks. Since reliable risk data on circumcision doesn't exist -- and since many doctors aren't aware of the function of the foreskin (hence the drawbacks of circumcision) -- most doctors don't have enough information to recommend even one such surgery, let alone routinely.
There are Jewish parents questioning this practice. My new literary novel, The Measure of His Grief, is the first novel ever to tackle the male circumcision controversy. Please visit lisabravermoss.com. Thanks!
Many parents struggle with whether or not to circumcise their son. We created Circumcision Decision-Maker to help parents learn what their real reason is for wanting circumcision, and then giving them some expert advice on that topic. http://circumcisiondecisionmaker.com/
Thanks for sharing your tool -- I just checked it out briefly. It seems that it would be helpful for many new parents struggling with the decision on whether or not to circumcise their infant sons. Thanks for sharing it!
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!