Jump to content

CDC: Circumcision benefits outweigh risks


adannyboy
This topic is 3367 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

via Rawstory (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/12/cdc-to-parents-circumcise-your-sons-because-benefits-outweigh-the-risks/)

 

"According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the benefits of circumcising male infants outweigh the risks. The CDC suggested that parents consider the procedure for their sons and said that insurers should pay for it.

 

The Associated Press reported on Tuesday that the health organization released draft guidelines for circumcision and is opening the document to public comment for 45 days before finalizing them.

 

These are the first federal guidelines in the U.S. regarding circumcision. The agency has been studying the issue for nearly a decade to determine whether the practice is a truly beneficial measure or an outdated religious rite with no medical purpose."

 

That CDC document is available for public comment for 45 days here before being finalized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest countryboywny

I think whether or not to circumcise is a personal decision of the family. I know when my son was born, his mother and I took the decision very seriously. We carefully did research, considered the "pain vs. gain" ratio and in the end we decided that our son would be circumcised. The one thing that tilted us in favor of it was that 95% of the male babies being born in our community were being circumcised and we didn't want our son to be "different". I can't honestly say we made the "right" decision, I don't know. One thing I do know, NEVER TRUST ANYTHING THE GOVERNMENT TELLS YOU! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that the CDC finally weighed in on circumcision. The pendulum (no pun intended) has been swinging back and forth just a tiny bit each way over the past decade and the 2012 American Academy of Pediatrics Policy Statement fell short of the CDC's recommendation.

 

"8/27/2012

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. The AAP policy statement published Monday, August 27, says the final decision should still be left to parents to make in the context of their religious, ethical and cultural beliefs."

 

- See more at: http://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/Pages/Newborn-Male-Circumcision.aspx?nfstatus=401&nftoken=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000&nfstatusdescription=ERROR%3a+No+local+token#sthash.ELzyTKsZ.dpuf

 

We also make a recommendation that the baby be the same as Dad (unless the parents have strong feeling one way or another) so that as the child grows up and bathes or showers with dad, he won't feel "different".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't look as if the CDC has actually updated their website yet...

 

Yeah, it's not an official recommendation. They have a document out which is open to public opinion/comment for the next 45 days before they make their final decision.

 

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/12/02/2014-27814/recommendations-for-providers-counseling-male-patients-and-parents-regarding-male-circumcision-and

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one thing that tilted us in favor of it was that 95% of the male babies being born in our community were being circumcised and we didn't want our son to be "different".

 

Circumcised or not your son will always be different because he's an individual, one of his own self. I couldn't ever imagine considering circumcision for a child based upon what the Jone's or the Smith's were doing with their sons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Circumcised or not your son will always be different because he's an individual, one of his own self. I couldn't ever imagine considering circumcision for a child based upon what the Jone's or the Smith's were doing with their sons.

 

I had the same thought with that one. This is the age of "Born this way" and love yourself and whatnot, after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There may be more openness and less teasing based on differences in genitals than there used to be, just like people are getting more used to the idea of gay men in the locker room. But that isn't to say it wasn't more of a problem and a basis for bullying in the past, especially in a country that was much less diverse and where what diversity there was is less widespread than it is now. Just look at the assumptions made about intersex individuals and the need to "corrective" surgery at a young age when such individuals have asked physicians to stop pressuring parents to consent to such surgery and instead let patients make the decision when they're old enough. I've never known girls to actually take showers in gym class, but physicians routinely operate to reduce so-called oversized clitorises. For more about intersex individuals, see this post from Columbia University's health services' Q&A site "Go Ask Alice."

 

Fedssocr - It' s more nuanced than that and a matter of circumcised men running a lesser risk of acquiring STIs (the most studied one, I believe, being HIV), not that uncircumcised men are all dirty disease-carriers. As I understand it (as a woman, this is all secondhand information for me), uncircumcised men also need to take steps to clean themselves in places that circumcised men don't. Some don't bother, which increases the likelihood of bacteria collecting. (How much that has to do directly with the prevalence of STIs, I don't know.) There are advantages and disadvantages both ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My uncle had to be circumcised at age 72 due to medical issues. The procedure required an almost three day stay in the hospital. He called it the worst experience of his life. This from a man who served in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. After fully recovered he was glad he'd had the procedure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "cut" or "uncut" penis discussion was held on this Forum at least once before and probably can be found if anyone is interested in what members had to say at that time. Individual anecdoctal experiences---a 72 year old uncircumcised man having medical issues for example--can be countered by another 70 year old uncircumcised male (me) never having had any problems.

I have to agree with the posters who are suspicious of government "recommendations" which might lead to other kinds of pressure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think whether or not to circumcise is a personal decision of the family. I know when my son was born, his mother and I took the decision very seriously. We carefully did research, considered the "pain vs. gain" ratio and in the end we decided that our son would be circumcised. The one thing that tilted us in favor of it was that 95% of the male babies being born in our community were being circumcised and we didn't want our son to be "different". I can't honestly say we made the "right" decision, I don't know. One thing I do know, NEVER TRUST ANYTHING THE GOVERNMENT TELLS YOU! :D

 

I don't lose any sleep over it, unlike some anti-circumcision activists, but I would rather I had not been circumcised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...