.jpg)
The Centers for Disease Control have made a startling announcement: They are debating about whether or not to recommend that all newborn males be circumcised. Why the drastic measures? The CDC believes this will help curb HIV infections. This will undoubtedly infuriate many parents who do not believe in circumcision. Of course, the recommendation does not mean that it circumcision will be mandatory but it will certainly put parents who favor non-circumcision at odds with health officials who may suggest it.
The controversial move comes after a study revealed that men who are circumcised are less likely to be infected with HIV. Here's the catch: The study is based off of men having sex with HIV+ women, not men. In studies with men having sex with men, there is no difference in rates of infection. Regardless, circumcision is being seen as essential in the fight against HIV and AIDS.
Intact America, an anti-circumcision group, is going to Atlanta, Georgia this week because of the National HIV Prevention Conference being held by the CDC. As you might imagine, Intact America is not pleased with the news from the CDC and plan to circulate mobile billboards around the city to bring attention to their message, which is that HIV rates aren't lowered because of circumcision.
Circumcision has always been a hot topic among parents. Less than 40% of male newborns in 2007 were circumcised in the United States. Incidentally, the majority of countries across the world do not practice circumcision. Arguments for and against circumcision are notoriously heated. Many feel that it is a medically unnecessary procedure that should not be followed in the US and that it is inhumane. Proponents of the procedure state hygiene as a reason for it, as well as health benefits from studies that suggest circumcised boys have few urinary tract infections. In any case, what parents choose to do or not do to their sons when it comes to circumcision is their own business - and they shouldn't be ridiculed or scorned by advocates for "the other side."
What are your thoughts about this move by the CDC?
Source: Edge Boston
Related stories
Anti-circumcision activists rally to demand US ban circumcision
More from the Seattle Eastside Families Examiners
In honor of Ramadan, local Muslims donate food to the Northwest Harvest Sadaqaa
The Wiggles join PBS Sprout with 'The Wiggly Waffle'
Quick mom review: Disney's Ponyo is an adventure for the whole family
Buy Hannah Montana: The Movie for you kiddo with a $10 off coupon
Comments
United States: Most guys are circ'd. HIV rates are HIGH.
Europe: Most guys are lucky to be uncirc'd. HIV rates are LOW.
Wake up CDC!!! Circumcision is not the answer. It's barbaric.
Condom use & safe sex IS the answer along with promoting safe sex.
I hope the CDC does not recommend routine infant circ. It's wrong. Baby boys have Received Botched circ's, some even have lost the penis head. Why??? Because parents and most doctors can't keep their hands and knives off of perfectly healthy penises!! Leave your sons alone! Stop paying the doctor/obgyn extra cash (that's what it is in their eyes).
The CDC is blindly and ignorantly considering recommending circumcision, based on inconclusive studies not done in the US, even the American Association of Pediatrics, who has never recommended circumcision in its 70 year history is against them, this is bs, circumcision does not prevent HIV, I am circumcised and very unhappy about it, I am restoring my foreskin, and I will never circumcise my son, don’t you think if circumcision prevented anything, 80% of the world would not be uncircumcised.
Since when is a recommendation from the CDC concered a "drastic" measure? If data shows that there actually IS a slight health benefit it would be irresponsible for the CDC not to make that information available. Since the CDC's sole purpose is "disease control" (it is even in their title) anything that even has a slight impact on reducing disease transmission should be recommended by them. Parents should be able to make this difficult decision using ALL available information, including accident rates, post-op infection rates and all other health benefits and drawbacks.
I also wonder why the author chose to include information about HIV transmission in homosexuals. In most countries the vast majority of HIV infection is via heterosexual intercourse. And the reason circumcision doesn't impact rates in homosexual intercourse is because HIV is most often transmitted to the "receiver" by an HIV+ partner. The same holds true for heterosexual relationships.
I agree with Against Circ's post 100%. Circumcision does NOTHING for a penis except remove healthy nerve endings and line the pockets of physicians. It is a barbaric tradition that should be outlawed, just as female circumcision is outlawed. I imagine if the CDC recommended female circumcision to reduce rates of infections (keep in mind females have waaayyyy more infections down there), that there would be public outcry. Why the prejudice against men??? The human body is perfect as God designed it. Last time I checked, my newborn son wasn't at risk for HIV since he's not having sex, so why don't I let HIM make that decision when he's ready to have sex???? I bet we'd have fewer circumcised men in that case, wouldn't we? And perhaps less instance of HIV in the USA.
@What's the problem?: Recommending any surgery, with all its risks, up to death, for all newborns would be drastic. There are many procedures that would confer a slight health benefit, but we don't do them because the costs/benefits don't stack up.
In the US, most HIV transmission is still by male-male sex and shared IV needles. Even if circumcision works against HIV (and that's in doubt), the vast majority will be wasted.
Cutting healthy non-renewable parts of babies' genitals off is a human rights issue. We recognise that when the babies are girls, be the procedure ever so sterile, anaesthetised and minimal (nothing like Africa) and it's illegal to so much as pinpr!ck a girl's genitals without pressing medical need (and the law specifically excludes religion or culture as excuses).
Whose body is it? Whose choice? (And circumcision is NOT "a decision parents have to make". In most of the developed world, it's not offered and not missed.
Don't be blinded by fear of AIDS
I don't think anyone at CDC has properly considered:
- Infants aren't at risk for sexually transmitted infection.
- The foreskin is very valuable erogenous tissue.
- Amputating a body part without consent is a violation of basic human rights.
- Circumcision has a limited HIV-preventive effect. Condoms must still be used. With a condom the circumcision is of little marginal value.
- Most US men who have died of AIDS were circumcised at birth.
- Europe has much lower HIV incidence and very low circumcision rate.
- The African HIV trials showed the HIV+ cut men were 50% MORE likely to infect their partners.
- Nobody knows the rate complications from infant circumcision (just Google "circumcision damage.")
- US circumcision deaths range from 100-200 per year out of the 1.3 million infants cut. THIS MAKES INFANT CIRCUMCISION 27 TIMES DEADLIER THAN THE GARDASIL VACCINE at 32 possible deaths per 7.5 million treated.
There is no emergency. HIS body, HIS decision.
GRRRR! CDC that is the most uneducated & ridiculous thing I've read or heard in a while. Circumcising baby boys is not going to curb HIV. Do NOT recommend routine infant circumcision. It is absolutely unnecessary & unrelated.
Thank all of you who posted a comment for providing the facts.
Finally mandatory circumcision is here! No cut, no cut of the federal money. That will ensure that doctors, hospitals, and states make it mandatory. It should be mandatory to enter school. A foreskin is gross, and nobody should have one. It's just a flap of skin. The CDC says circumcision prevents infection with HIV. I bet every doc at the CDC has a good tight circ too, and they know the benefits. The anti-circ nuts have lost. Go CIRC USA!!!
You've got to be kidding.....
Hygiene? That would be a better argument for female circumcision! Avoidance of urinary tract infections? Only one study (That is known to be fraudulent) has found more than a 1% difference. In medical research, that's considered insignificant but that is something the circumcision advocates always use.
Circumcision preventing HIV? Consider the polio vaccine that has a similar efficacy as claimed for male circumcision. There is no polio in The US. Why didn't the 80% circumcision rate protect us as the polio vaccine did? Simply because male circumcision does not protect against HIV infection.
As a matter of fact, male circumcision protects against nothing and the only benefit is that it fills the doctor's bank account.
.
Circumcision is cruelty and child abuse, end of story. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
Agreed! 100%!
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!