American Academy of Pediatrics: Benefits of Circumcision Outweigh Risks - If circumcision rates keep falling, health costs and infections will spike!

0 votes
asked Aug 18, 2016 in Living by admin (21,720 points)
With
leftist/secularists waging a war on the symbol of the religious covenant
with God of both Jews and Muslims, male circumcision, the American
Academy of Pediatrics has come out in support of the practice, saying
its medical benefits outweigh any minor risks.

In
Europe judges have been holding that the practice amounts to
"mutilation" and have judicially barred the practice in many venues. In
Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel has proposed a statute that will
override any judicial bans, but in other European nations the ban is
gaining momentum. In the United States far-left communities such as San
Francisco have proposed bans on the practice, in obvious contravention
of the First Amendment.



Circumcision: Pediatricians Say Benefits Trump Risks

After
years of remaining neutral, the American Academy of Pediatrics has
revised its policy statement, saying that the risks of newborn
circumcision are outweighed by the health benefits
By Bonnie Rochman | August 27, 2012 |










The
newborn penis has been the subject of more than a little ink lately.
San Francisco tried in vain to curtail circumcision. Germany recently
ruled that the procedure constitutes “bodily harm.” “Intactivists” rail
against circumcision even as most baby boys born in the U.S still get
circumcised.


Until now, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has remained
fairly neutral on the subject. But on Monday, the influential
pediatricians’ group updated its policy statement from 1999, stating
that the “preventive health benefits of elective circumcision of male
newborns outweigh the risks of the procedure.”
The organization stopped
short of routinely recommending the procedure for all baby boys, noting
that the decision of whether circumcision “is in the best interests of
their male child”
should be left up to individual families. But they
added that those families that choose circumcision — and most U.S.
families still do, although the practice has been on the decline —
should be reimbursed by insurance.


“There has been a change in tone,” says Dr. Doug Diekema, a member of
the AAP task force on circumcision and a pediatrician at Seattle
Children’s Hospital. “We are saying that based on our review, male
circumcision does have significant health benefits that outweigh the
risks of the procedure.”


(MORE: Uncircumcised Boys Have a Higher Risk of UTI)


From 1999 to 2010, the CDC found that between 56% to 59% of newborn boys were circumcised. Circumcision has been on the decline in the U.S.,
from 63.5% in 1999 to 56.3% in 2008, according to the Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality’s National Inpatient Sample, which is
commonly used to track hospital procedures and outcomes.


A recent study in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine
projected a health-care doomsday marked by a steep rise in infections
and medical-related spending if circumcision rates continue to
fall. Already, Medicaid in 18 states doesn’t cover circumcision, and the
study’s author, Dr. Aaron Tobian of Johns Hopkins University, worries
that private insurance companies will be quick to follow suit. “[W]ith
private insurance carriers following the government’s rules, we are
implying there are no medical benefits to this procedure,” he told Healthland earlier this month.



In its updated policy, the AAP makes it clear there are medical
upsides to choosing circumcision. Since 1999 when the original policy
was written, nearly 1,000 new journal articles on circumcision have been
published. More evidence was suggesting that circumcision has a
protective effect against human papilloma virus (which, in turn, may
lead to fewer HPV infections in women), HIV, genital herpes and even syphilis. It’s also associated with a decrease in urinary tract infections in babies and boys, as well as a reduced risk of penile and prostate cancers.



The risks are mostly limited to bleeding or mild infection; there is
no clear evidence that either sexual function or sexual performance are
affected.


(MORE: If Circumcision Rates Keep Falling, Health Costs and Infections Will Spike)



Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2012/08/27/circumcision-pediatricians-say-benefits-trump-risks/?iid=sci-category-mostpop2#ixzz24lgdHBea

Your answer

Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.

31 Answers

0 votes
answered Aug 18, 2016 by Anonymous (2,293,500 points)
Well, if that's the case, ObamaCare will soon be mandating circumcision or they will be taxing you for non-compliance.

Welcome to the wonderful world of "Liberal" fascism.
0 votes
answered Aug 18, 2016 by Anonymous (2,293,500 points)
Well, this is certainly an interesting "snippet".

I understand the circumcised portion can be used for eye lid replacements, but the patient may later become a bit cockeyed..
0 votes
answered Aug 18, 2016 by Anonymous (2,293,500 points)
Well, if that's the case, ObamaCare will soon be mandating circumcision or they will be taxing you for non-compliance.

Welcome to the wonderful world of "Liberal" fascism.
0 votes
answered Aug 18, 2016 by Anonymous (2,293,500 points)
My generation too - my parents weren't religious at all.
0 votes
answered Aug 18, 2016 by Anonymous (2,293,500 points)
I didn't know it was a religious thing too. They circumcised just about all of us in my generation... but for health reasons. Ten years from now, the same group that's applauding it today will be crying to have it banned. :O\
0 votes
answered Aug 18, 2016 by Anonymous (2,293,500 points)
Why so one sided.
Let's circumcise all babies.
I do not think it is necessary, it is an "old wives tale".
0 votes
answered Aug 18, 2016 by Anonymous (2,293,500 points)
Virtually nothing "progressives" support is "progress" - most of their ideas have been tried and failed numerous times. They would be more accurately named "Regressives."
0 votes
answered Aug 18, 2016 by Anonymous (2,293,500 points)
That this is even a discussion speaks to the progressive dogma.

Give me a break. This is progress?
0 votes
answered Aug 18, 2016 by Anonymous (2,293,500 points)
Yes, I read it and i disagreed with it.
Next week they will be a alternative view.
0 votes
answered Aug 18, 2016 by Anonymous (2,293,500 points)
Did you bother to read the article? It seems the American Academy of Pediatrics disagrees with you - from a medical point of view.
0 votes
answered Aug 18, 2016 by Anonymous (2,293,500 points)
No, I just do not think it is necessary at all.
0 votes
answered Aug 18, 2016 by Anonymous (2,293,500 points)
Can we limit that to "male babies" with parents who make the decision? What is the "old wives tale" you are talking about?
0 votes
answered Aug 18, 2016 by Anonymous (2,293,500 points)
Why so one sided.
Let's circumcise all babies.
I do not think it is necessary, it is an "old wives tale".
0 votes
answered Aug 18, 2016 by Anonymous (2,293,500 points)
I couldn't resist.. :}
0 votes
answered Aug 18, 2016 by Anonymous (2,293,500 points)
LOL! Nice play on words, but seriously, the idea that circumcision is only a religious practice and serves no useful purpose has been debunked. Women who have *** with circumcised men are also less likely to develop cervical cancer.
0 votes
answered Aug 18, 2016 by Anonymous (2,293,500 points)
Let me see if I understand you - you make a reply on my blog, I respond, and you say "not that's it's any of your business." I could give a damned about the condition of your husband's penis - the studies indicate that women are less likely to have cervical cancer if their partner has been circumcised - one anecdotal story, even yours, doesn't change that. Circumcision also cuts the risk of AIDS and other STDs - those are facts -- in other words the story and the stance of the American Academy of Pediatrics is anything but "nonsense" or "BS." What's the extent of your "statistics" other than you, your husband and your 38 year-old son? Hardly enough for a statistical analysis.

What "enforcement" are you talking about? I haven't heard anyone wanting to "enforce" circumcision.

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/c...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/1...
0 votes
answered Aug 18, 2016 by Anonymous (2,293,500 points)
Published in the AAP's own medical journal, for your consideration. http://pediatrics.aappublicat...
0 votes
answered Aug 18, 2016 by Anonymous (2,293,500 points)
I know about Bris and I have no problem with that. I read the article and I think it's BS. Not that it's any of your business, but I've been married to the same uncircumcised man for 42 years next month and I've yet to get cervical cancer. So I respectfully disagree sign

ETA-My 38 year old son is also "hooded". No infections, no problems at all. It does NOT suprise me that their are those who would enforce such nonsense. Another right taken away soon.
0 votes
answered Aug 18, 2016 by Anonymous (2,293,500 points)
"Greedy doctors?" Jewish circumcisions are performed in a religious ceremony called a "Bris," by rabbis, not doctors. Did you bother to read the article, giving the reasons the American Academy of Pediatrics thinks the procedure is worthwhile, from a medical point of view. Not mentioned is the fact that women who have *** with a circumcised male are less likely to develop cervical cancer.
0 votes
answered Aug 18, 2016 by Anonymous (2,293,500 points)
What nonsense. The only worry here is from greedy doctors who are making alot less money these days because parents are opting to leave their son's penis in a natural state.
0 votes
answered Aug 18, 2016 by Anonymous (2,293,500 points)
thank god i don't live in california,i would never step foot there either
0 votes
answered Aug 18, 2016 by Anonymous (2,293,500 points)
It's damaging because it removes healthy, functional tissue from non - consensual minors with completely unsupported medical indication. "Damaging" is the very definition here.
0 votes
answered Aug 18, 2016 by Anonymous (2,293,500 points)
Your words: ". . .we should not make permanent, damaging decisions for helpless children. . ."

You make an unwarranted assumption in your statement that goes against the evidence, that it is a "damaging decision" for the child in later life. The AAP's recommendation is based upon studies of the results of circumcision that show it is beneficial, both to the male and to his future "partners." You are ignoring a major point of the post:

" Since 1999 when the original policy was written, nearly 1,000 new journal articles on circumcision have been published. More evidence was suggesting that circumcision has a protective effect against human papilloma virus (which, in turn, may lead to fewer HPV infections in women), HIV, genital herpes and even syphilis. It’s also associated with a decrease in urinary tract infections in babies and boys, as well as a reduced risk of penile and prostate cancers." The evidence clearly indicates that rather than being a "damaging decision" to have a baby boy circumcised, it is something that it is highly beneficial.

The fact is that no developed nations have abandoned the practice. Courts in some European nations have begun to respond to lawsuits by anti-Semitic groups and banned it judicially, but in Germany Prime Minister Angela Merckel is asking for a statute to bar their courts from doing so.
0 votes
answered Aug 18, 2016 by Anonymous (2,293,500 points)
Why is the AAP the only health organization in the world that is making this statement? Why is every other health organization in the world either neutral or against circumcision? The answer is simple: The AAP supports its MEMBERS (pediatricians), not their patients (children). The AAP and its members have a vested financial interest in promoting this quick, profitable surgery whose benefits have long been inflated by popular ignorance.

And, just for the record, this is not a leftist/liberal agenda issue. I am a Christian conservative, and oppose circumcision on the same grounds by which I oppose abortion: Simply put, we should not make permanent, damaging decisions for helpless children who cannot provide their own consent. I have many conservative Christian friends who also oppose this needless, optional cosmetic surgery for babies.

If even half the "evidence" in favor of infant circumcision held water, then surely at least ONE developed nation that has abandoned the practice would be experiencing some kind of general related health issues as a result. Surely they would begin to recognize the benefits of circumcision. But that hasn't happened. Rather, more international health organizations are taking a progressively firm stance AGAINST circumcision as a preventive measure. The AAP is very, very alone in their stance.
0 votes
answered Aug 18, 2016 by Anonymous (2,293,500 points)
As I stated on another page that stated the US will loose billions in healthcare costs if the trend to not circumcise baby boys continues:

"Funny how many in this string of comments appear to know so little on the subject! But that is to be expected.

First, the study ecouraging circumcision mentioned is but one, the results of which are summarily tossed out the proverbial window when one looks at dozens of far more impartial studies! Follow the dollars!

Secondly, I went through it in my late 20's after yrs of having lots of ***, and have had lots since, so I'm fairly well qualified to state that if people had even a remote idea of what *** feels like after circumcision compared to before, it would be gone by 6am tomorrow morning! Period! What it feels like is not even close to what it feels like before.

The problem as that it is usually done to infants, thereby safely (and mercifully!) removing any possible frame of reference. Yes, the human brain is plastic enough to adapt, deal with that loss and go on, but how sad is it that circumcised men will never have ANY idea of what it felt like had their bodies been left as they were at birth, and that the women they are with know that they can never be physically enjoyed as much either?... I hope sad enough to cause people to think before subjecting their babies to such a loss!"
0 votes
answered Aug 18, 2016 by Anonymous (2,293,500 points)
The fact that someone comes from a culture where circumcision isn't the norm doesn't mean that they necessarily oppose the practice. You say there are "billions" who oppose circumcision but there are approximately 7.2 billion people in the world, and I would hazard a guess that 99.9% of them, at least, have no opinion on the subject.

thinkprogress.org is George Soros' anti-American, anti-capitalist group and you can't trust a thing on their website, and you are giving me alleged rates of STDs among all American men, not a comparison between circumcised and un-circumcised.

In March 2009, scientists published a study in the New England Journal of Medicine, which reported that adult circumcision reduced - but did not prevent -- heterosexually-transmitted infections with HPV and herpes. In a high HIV-prevalence area of Africa, nearly 3,400 heterosexual men without HIV or HSV (herpes) were randomly assigned to either circumcision immediately or 24 months later. Rates of HSV, HPV and syphilis were compared in the circumcised and uncircumcised men over 24 months of observation.

The result? Approximately 10.3 percent of men in the uncircumcised group became infected with genital herpes, compared to 7.8 percent in the circumcised group. And, at 24 months, 18 percent of circumcised men were found to have HPV compared to 27.9 percent of the control group. That's a significant reduction in the number of infections.
0 votes
answered Aug 18, 2016 by Anonymous (2,293,500 points)
Europe is only a drop in the bucket when you're talking about attitudes toward circumcision. The majority of males worldwide are not circumcised and most foreigners from almost anywhere would find the practice bizarre, to say the least. I hope you're not accusing the majority of the world's population of anti-Semitism. Is anti-Semitism real? Absolutely. And it's thoroughly inexcusable. But circumcision is not Judaism (or Islam), and there are billions of people who oppose this practice (or have never even heard of it) who feel no animosity toward Jews whatsoever. I'm not accusing you of being an ignorant person, but saying that people who oppose circumcision are anti-Semitic is an ignorant thing to say.
And here are some links showing that "(t)he U.S. has the highest rate of STDs of any nation in the industrialized world".
http://thinkprogress.org/heal...
List of countries by HIV/AIDS adult prevalence rate (references at bottom of wiki for your perusal). Regardless of whatever trumped-up numbers "researchers" in Africa want to feed us, empirical, real-world evidence doesn't bear out their conclusions. Note that the US has twice the infection rate of the UK, Brazil and Canada, three times that of Australia and Mexico, and even countries like Belarus and Argentina have lo...
Europe is only a drop in the bucket when you're talking about attitudes toward circumcision. The majority of males worldwide are not circumcised and most foreigners from almost anywhere would find the practice bizarre, to say the least. I hope you're not accusing the majority of the world's population of anti-Semitism. Is anti-Semitism real? Absolutely. And it's thoroughly inexcusable. But circumcision is not Judaism (or Islam), and there are billions of people who oppose this practice (or have never even heard of it) who feel no animosity toward Jews whatsoever. I'm not accusing you of being an ignorant person, but saying that people who oppose circumcision are anti-Semitic is an ignorant thing to say. animosity jews accusing ignorant person people oppose circumcision anti-semitic ignorant
And here are some links showing that "(t)he U.S. has the highest rate of STDs of any nation in the industrialized world".
http://thinkprogress.org/heal...
List of countries by HIV/AIDS adult prevalence rate (references at bottom of wiki for your perusal). Regardless of whatever trumped-up numbers "researchers" in Africa want to feed us, empirical, real-world evidence doesn't bear out their conclusions. Note that the US has twice the infection rate of the UK, Brazil and Canada, three times that of Australia and Mexico, and even countries like Belarus and Argentina have lower rates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?titl...
(more)
0 votes
answered Aug 18, 2016 by Anonymous (2,293,500 points)
Muslims are also Semitic, and they also happen to practice circumcision, and the fact remains that Europe is notoriously anti-Jewish.

". . .[W]hy, when most of the world is not circumcised, do we not see higher levels of disease or disorders among that overwhelming majority?"

Do you have the statistics to back that up? From what I've read there are fewer STDs among men who have been circumcised and their female sexual partners as well.
0 votes
answered Aug 18, 2016 by Anonymous (2,293,500 points)
Anti-circumcision is not the same as anti-Semitic. There are many cultures around the world that practice circumcision (Muslims, Aboriginees, certain African tribes). However, if we say that man is born with certain rights, surely among them should be the right to retain ownership of all of its parts. I love the Jews in my own family, as well as my foreskin-cutting Christian siblings, but I don't agree that any religion or culture should allow any person to cut any part, no matter how small, off another person without their consent. Oh, babies can't consent, you say? Exactly my point. But it's full of benefits, I hear you say...

Consider this: if circumcision was so "necessary" for men's health, why, when most of the world is not circumcised, do we not see higher levels of disease or disorders among that overwhelming majority? It would seem pretty rational to conclude that the supposed benefits of circumcision have been trumped up to seem mightier than they actually are. You may argue against those plain facts, but the data simply do not show any appreciable benefits anywhere in the world. Other countries do not pay more in medical costs due to their men being biologically normal or intact. Sure, sometimes people have disease that affects certain parts of the body, a...

Anti-circumcision is not the same as anti-Semitic. There are many cultures around the world that practice circumcision (Muslims, Aboriginees, certain African tribes). However, if we say that man is born with certain rights, surely among them should be the right to retain ownership of all of its parts. I love the Jews in my own family, as well as my foreskin-cutting Christian siblings, but I don't agree that any religion or culture should allow any person to cut any part, no matter how small, off another person without their consent. Oh, babies can't consent, you say? Exactly my point. But it's full of benefits, I hear you say...

Consider this: if circumcision was so "necessary" for men's health, why, when most of the world is not circumcised, do we not see higher levels of disease or disorders among that overwhelming majority? It would seem pretty rational to conclude that the supposed benefits of circumcision have been trumped up to seem mightier than they actually are. You may argue against those plain facts, but the data simply do not show any appreciable benefits anywhere in the world. Other countries do not pay more in medical costs due to their men being biologically normal or intact. Sure, sometimes people have disease that affects certain parts of the body, and if we didn't have that part of the body it can't be affected. But you don't see people running around getting all their teeth pulled to avoid cavities, or more to the point, baby girls' breasts removed to avoid possible cancer.

The only reason the AAP hasn't come down against circumcision entirely is because the members of the AAP (America's pediatricians themselves) make a lot of money performing this procedure, and they don't want an uprising because they stepped all over their profit structure. And that's a fact.
(more)
0 votes
answered Aug 18, 2016 by Anonymous (2,293,500 points)
They have their opinion and it is partly based upon European physicians, and Europe is still notoriously antisemitic. Their conclusion was that the benefits of circumcision "do not represent compelling reasons for surgery before boys are old enough to decide for themselves." I believe they discounted many of the benefits to come to that conclusion, and for an adult male to decide on the procedure would be a very painful experience.
0 votes
answered Aug 18, 2016 by Anonymous (2,293,500 points)
OK
...