.jpg)
Photo: Stock Xchng/Melbia
Despite recent media reports that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is about to recommend mandatory circumcision for infant boys born in the United States, the CDC issued an alert that its recommendations are not yet finalized.
The CDC calls the reports "speculation" in regards to its upcoming report on HIV prevention and male circumcision. At issue are the results of a recent African study finding the risk of transmitting the HIV virus is cut in half when a man is circumcised, and whether the CDC will propose making it mandatory for baby boys born in the United States.
The center reports, "It is important to note that the recommendations are still in development and CDC has made no determination at this time about the final content. CDC is employing a deliberative, evidence-based process for developing the circumcision recommendations, which allows for both external and internal CDC experts to provide input."
The CDC also stated whatever decision is made, the recommendations will be "completely voluntary," seeming to put to bed concerns that any parent would be forced to circumcise a child against their will.
Circumcision, the removal of the foreskin at the tip of the penis, is most often done by a doctor in the first few days of an infant boy's life.
While some studies show medical benefits to the procedure, the American Academy of Pediatrics stops short of recommending it, saying "these benefits are not sufficient" for AAP to recommend that every infant boy be circumcised.
Some of the medical benefits recognized by the Academy are
- slightly lower risk of urinary tract infections
- lower risk of an already very rare cancer of the penis
- slightly lower risk of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV
- foreskin infection prevention
- prevention of phimosis, a condition in uncircumcised males that makes foreskin retraction impossible
- easier genital hygiene
The AAP also recognizes social and religious reasons for the procedure. According to Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh's web site information, about 65 percent of newborn boys have the procedure, but the percentage varies based on economic, race and ethnic groups. Circumcision is most common in the Jewish and Islamic faiths.
Risks for parents to consider include minor complications such as bleeding or infection. Parents should also take into account beliefs that the foreskin is needed to protect the tip of the penis, that its removal can affect sensitivity during intimacy and that boys can be taught proper hygiene, lowering risks about health effects.
Comments
In Europe, almost no-one circumcises unless they're Muslim or Jewish, and they have significantly lower rates of almost all STI's including HIV.
Even in Africa, there are six countries where men are more likely to be HIV+ if they've been circumcised: Rwanda, Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, and Swaziland. Eg in Malawi, the HIV rate is 13.2% among circumcised men, but only 9.5% among intact men. In Cameroon, the HIV rate is 4.1% among circumcised men, but only 1.1% among intact men. If circumcision really worked against AIDS, this just wouldn't happen. We now have people calling circumcision a "vaccine" or "invisible condom", and viewing circumcision as an alternative to condoms.
ABC (Abstinence, Being faithful, Condoms) is the way forward. Promoting genital surgery will cost lives, not save them.
in your article, you fail to mention the most important point of the debate - permanently altering a boy's sexual apparatus without his consent. Why are we looking to Africa as an example to control HIV? Scandinavia has the lowest incidence of HIV in the world and they have an almost 100% intact population. Of course, cutting off ANY body part is going to have a therapeutic effect in any study. Removing fingertips results in less disease being spread by fingertips. Removing the breast tissue from infant girls would result in lower breast cancer rates - but whose suggesting we do this? Its time to call a spade a spade and open our eyes to what circumcision really is: mutilation of extremely sensitive, healthy body tissue. If the health benefits are so clear - let adult men choose the procedure. Forcibly taking the foreskin from an infant is a human rights violation.
I'm told by activits from the pro-intact side that the CDC is NOT taking an objective approach in that they are only consulting the pro-circ camp and not having serious discussions with intactivists. Given their history of gender bias and the ignorance and politics behind this issue, I believe it.
It is wrong to compare the health benefits of circumcision to those of removing a young girl's breast tissue. We're not talking about removing a young boy's penis. We're simply talking about reducing risks. Unless you're a parent, you cannot understand that it is a parent's responsibility to do all they can to protect their children. As the parent of a 9-year old boy, I know full well that attention to hygiene is certainly not on his list of priorities. We are lucky if we can get him to wash his hair. If circumcision provides any benefit, then it should be up to the parents to decide. Parenting doesn't require the child's consent.
hey little one. welcome to the world. i'm just going to cut the end off your penis.
how loving.
'The CDC also stated whatever decision is made, the recommendations will be "completely voluntary," seeming to put to bed concerns that any parent would be forced to circumcise a child against their will.'
If "completely voluntary" means anything, it should put to bed concerns that any male will be circumcised against his will, and thanks to the Internet, more and more men are expressing their outrage that this was done to them.
@Stacey: Circumcision is not a normal part of parenting. There is no other healthy, non-renewable part of a baby's body that may be cut off without pressing medical need, at parental whim (and some of the reasons given are whimsical to the point of idiocy). In most of the developed world, circumcision is not offered. The rest of the English-speaking world tried it, found it did no good, and has almost completely given it up. The male genitalia do not need a lot of special attention - in fact probably more problems are caused by meddling than by neglect.
hey little one. welcome to the world. i'm just going to cut the end off your penis.
how loving.
hey little one. welcome to the world. i'm just going to cut the end off your penis.
how loving.
The CDC is not a governing body and can not pass laws mandating infant circumcision. But the studies they are using to formulate their "recommendation" are known to to be false and fraudulent and there is the rub. While they can not pass laws, they have great influence on Capitol hill and I expect them to be roaming the halls of Congress advocating mandatory infant male circumcision. Congressmen will not take the time to fully investigate the issue and will probably rubber stamp the legislation based on the fraudulent studies.
Those pushing this through and producing the fraud have 25+ year histories of rabid promotion of male circumcision. This is just the next step and a response to the rapidly falling infant circumcision rate.
.
Wow, these posts sure are heavy on rhetoric and light on facts.
@Sean - really...you tought your comment was so good you had to repeat it multiple times. Try posting a fourth time and use some new words if it's that important to you.
@Sarah - yeah, wait 20 years to help prevent infections that are more likely to occur during a young boys youth. Hygiene concerns would be more applicable to children. Unless you've figured out time travel, that's not going to help much.
@Mark Lyndon - I'm scanning to see where it's called "a 'vaccine' or 'invisible condom'". Oh, did the autor remove that since your post or did you make it up? Very creative though!
@Hugh7 - haha...you make me laugh with "in fact probably"...it's either a fact or it's probable.
@Stacey - right on! Parents need to make informed decisions to benefit their children as best as possible.
The fact is that circumcision reduces certain health risks. It's not some cure all or a majic wand (although you could call what's left a majic wand if you really want).
Don't demonize parents who try to make the best decision based on the widely recognized medical benefits associated with circumcision. They are loving their child by doing what they think is in their child's best interest.
Some major complications are death from hemorrhage, infection, and cutting the penis off. Seems to not be worth the risk for cosmetic surgery. The baby's undeveloped penis is fuses like a fingernail to the finger. Doctors introduce infection by prematurely retracting the foreskin. Seeing as they aren't taught about the foreskin in school, this is why they do this. They have no clue. 25 years ago it was legal to circumcise a girl (clitoridectomy), the excuse for that was also the same parents tout circ for boys, 'cleaner', 'prettier', etc. Boys should be protected too, and let them decide to be circumcised when they are adults. What's the rush, no babies are gonna have sex!!
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!