Log In Sign Up

Pediatrictions decide boys are better off circ'd than not


Forum: Heated Debates

Notices

Welcome to the JustMommies Message Boards.

We pride ourselves on having the friendliest and most welcoming forums for moms and moms to be! Please take a moment and register for free so you can be a part of our growing community of mothers. If you have any problems registering please drop an email to boards@justmommies.com.

Our community is moderated by our moderation team so you won't see spam or offensive messages posted on our forums. Each of our message boards is hosted by JustMommies hosts, whose names are listed at the top each board. We hope you find our message boards friendly, helpful, and fun to be on!

Like Tree51Likes

Reply Post New Topic
  Subscribe To Heated Debates LinkBack Topic Tools Search this Topic Display Modes
  #1  
August 27th, 2012, 08:47 AM
Frozenoj's Avatar Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: West Florida
Posts: 3,557
Pediatricians Decide Boys Are Better Off Circumcised Than Not : Shots - Health Blog : NPR

Thoughts?
__________________

Thanks Bokkechick for my wonderful siggy!
TTC Blog
10-21-12
Reply With Quote
  #3  
August 27th, 2012, 11:29 AM
K.A.T's Avatar Enjoying her Sticky Bun
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: NYC
Posts: 13,499
Very interesting research. To me, this is a personal decision that is no one's business. If parents want to circ boys, let them. If not, then they don't.
__________________

❤ Big Thanks to Vicki, trishosaurus, & Shortcake for the great siggies of my kids! ❤
Liz (36) Kev (35)
Tiana (16) Doni (14) Lil Kev (8) Ethan 7/23/12 Lil Roo 10/29/11



Reply With Quote
  #4  
August 27th, 2012, 12:08 PM
Frozenoj's Avatar Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: West Florida
Posts: 3,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by chillaxinbabe View Post
I've never understood how circumsion prevents HIV. Are men who are non-circ'd less likely to use a condom? That's really the only way I can think of. Do condoms work differently on non-circ'd men? I've never slept with an intact man so I really have no clue. Are men navie enough to believe that their forskin will protect them from HIV?
I really have no idea. From what understand those studies aren't even terribly relevant to western countries as they were done in Africa where HIV is much more prevalent.

I still don't think the risks of not circ'ing are enough for pediatricians to be suggesting everyone cut off part of their son. It seems like saying we should cut off our boobs at puberty because if we don't our risk of breast cancer and back pain go up. Other than choosing to BF breasts don't really serve any more of a purpose than foreskin and I imagine way more females get breast cancer than males have medical issues from not being circ'd.
MindyRambo likes this.
__________________

Thanks Bokkechick for my wonderful siggy!
TTC Blog
10-21-12
Reply With Quote
  #5  
August 27th, 2012, 12:17 PM
Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 10,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frozenoj View Post
I really have no idea. From what understand those studies aren't even terribly relevant to western countries as they were done in Africa where HIV is much more prevalent.

I still don't think the risks of not circ'ing are enough for pediatricians to be suggesting everyone cut off part of their son. It seems like saying we should cut off our boobs at puberty because if we don't our risk of breast cancer and back pain go up. Other than choosing to BF breasts don't really serve any more of a purpose than foreskin and I imagine way more females get breast cancer than males have medical issues from not being circ'd.

This, exactly. The studies aren't even relevant here. I also firmly believe that it should be a man's choice whether he wants to remain intact or not, so I believe that if a man does his research and decides he is at a higher risk for HIV or he is choosing to engage in (a) relationship(s) where his risk to being exposed to HIV will be higher, he can THEN make the choice to have himself circumcised, if that is something he feels strongly enough about.

Like you said, we don't cut off our breasts to prevent cancer, we make that choice when the choice needs to be made (if we have cancer). We don't cut out our appendix at birth to prevent appendicitis or our tonsils to prevent tonsilitis, we make that choice when we NEED to. So why would we circumcise infants "just in case" they might catch a disease later in life?
__________________
Shelley, mom to:

Reply With Quote
  #6  
August 27th, 2012, 01:11 PM
Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 19,171
Send a message via AIM to melkissa2004 Send a message via Yahoo to melkissa2004
Meh, I think some behind the scenes politics are at play with this statement from the AAP. I cant help but think of money this will bring in when they get paid by insurance companies. The data isn't sound, IMO, either.
With that being said, I do think parents should educate themselves and make the best decision for their family.
Fluffy Baby and Calendula like this.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #7  
August 27th, 2012, 01:50 PM
Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 9,059
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frozenoj View Post
I really have no idea. From what understand those studies aren't even terribly relevant to western countries as they were done in Africa where HIV is much more prevalent.

I still don't think the risks of not circ'ing are enough for pediatricians to be suggesting everyone cut off part of their son. It seems like saying we should cut off our boobs at puberty because if we don't our risk of breast cancer and back pain go up. Other than choosing to BF breasts don't really serve any more of a purpose than foreskin and I imagine way more females get breast cancer than males have medical issues from not being circ'd.

Oy! I hardly think a tiny piece of useless skin can be compared to a breast. Seriously get a real argument! It's not like you're cutting of the member.
__________________
Kris

My 2 miracles: Lucinda & Noah
Reply With Quote
  #8  
August 27th, 2012, 01:58 PM
HappyHippy's Avatar Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Pavia, Italy
Posts: 5,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babybear4 View Post
This, exactly. The studies aren't even relevant here. I also firmly believe that it should be a man's choice whether he wants to remain intact or not, so I believe that if a man does his research and decides he is at a higher risk for HIV or he is choosing to engage in (a) relationship(s) where his risk to being exposed to HIV will be higher, he can THEN make the choice to have himself circumcised, if that is something he feels strongly enough about.

Like you said, we don't cut off our breasts to prevent cancer, we make that choice when the choice needs to be made (if we have cancer). We don't cut out our appendix at birth to prevent appendicitis or our tonsils to prevent tonsilitis, we make that choice when we NEED to. So why would we circumcise infants "just in case" they might catch a disease later in life?
Yup, the studies are not relevent in parts outside of Africa. And any "benefit" that circumcision has has been shown to not even be 1%.

Quote:
Originally Posted by My2miracles View Post
Oy! I hardly think a tiny piece of useless skin can be compared to a breast. Seriously get a real argument! It's not like you're cutting of the member.
It's tiny on a newborn, but not on a full grown intact man. It's actually 1-2 inches big at that point. The foresking isn't just a piece of skin, it actually has a purpose and function. The foreskin serves to protect the glands (the head), it has it's own lubricant that helps with sexual intercourse and masturbation, the foreskin has over 200 nerve endings, the foreskin helps keep the glands moist (circumcised men have dry glands) as well as keeping things *out* of the glands.

Talking about breasts or breast tissue is actually very relevent since one of the main reasons they talk about removing the foreskin is to decrease the risk of penile cancer. Which is extremely rare anyways. The argument then would be we should remove baby girl's breast tissue to decrease the risk of breast cancer, which is more common.

Unless there is a true problem with the foreskin then there is no reason to remove it. Where I live circumcision is not common at all, the only people who get it done are American foreigners and those who get it done for medical reasons, which is usually not a newborn.

Proper hygeine and safe sex practices will take care of pretty much all the so called "benefits" (UTIs, STDs, etc).
__________________
Mama to G, L & twins F & M
Started off 2013 homebirthing suprise twins Fia Celesta & Maddalena Isabella
Reply With Quote
  #9  
August 27th, 2012, 02:08 PM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,201
--

Last edited by cybele; September 29th, 2013 at 10:34 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
August 27th, 2012, 02:34 PM
Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 9,059
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyHippy View Post
Yup, the studies are not relevent in parts outside of Africa. And any "benefit" that circumcision has has been shown to not even be 1%.



It's tiny on a newborn, but not on a full grown intact man. It's actually 1-2 inches big at that point. The foresking isn't just a piece of skin, it actually has a purpose and function. The foreskin serves to protect the glands (the head), it has it's own lubricant that helps with sexual intercourse and masturbation, the foreskin has over 200 nerve endings, the foreskin helps keep the glands moist (circumcised men have dry glands) as well as keeping things *out* of the glands.

Talking about breasts or breast tissue is actually very relevent since one of the main reasons they talk about removing the foreskin is to decrease the risk of penile cancer. Which is extremely rare anyways. The argument then would be we should remove baby girl's breast tissue to decrease the risk of breast cancer, which is more common.

Unless there is a true problem with the foreskin then there is no reason to remove it. Where I live circumcision is not common at all, the only people who get it done are American foreigners and those who get it done for medical reasons, which is usually not a newborn.

Proper hygeine and safe sex practices will take care of pretty much all the so called "benefits" (UTIs, STDs, etc).
We ARE NOT talking about grown men. We are talking about babies. I saw my son's before he was circumsize. I get exactly what it is.

Cutting a tiny piece of skin on a baby IS NOT the same as hacking off a full grown woman's breast. Let's stop comparing apples to oranges. No a woman isn't going to cut off her 15 year old daughters full-grown breast. But if there were an equivalent little skin coverage over an infant girls nipple that could be removed shortly after birth that would reduce breast cancer, she'd most likely do it. Apples to Apples see????
__________________
Kris

My 2 miracles: Lucinda & Noah
Reply With Quote
  #11  
August 27th, 2012, 02:42 PM
HappyHippy's Avatar Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Pavia, Italy
Posts: 5,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by My2miracles View Post
We ARE NOT talking about grown men. We are talking about babies. I saw my son's before he was circumsize. I get exactly what it is.

Cutting a tiny piece of skin on a baby IS NOT the same as hacking off a full grown woman's breast. Let's stop comparing apples to oranges. No a woman isn't going to cut off her 15 year old daughters full-grown breast. But if there were an equivalent little skin coverage over an infant girls nipple that could be removed shortly after birth that would reduce breast cancer, she'd most likely do it. Apples to Apples see????
You do realise though if your son kept his foreskin it wouldn't be tiny as a grown adult? That is what I said and ment. Foreskin might be small (I wouldn't say tiny, I have intact boys) as a newborn, but it grows with the baby.

We're not talking about cutting off a 15 year olds breast. The argument is removing the breast/breast tissue of a BABY, just like with foresking. A better argument would be cutting of tiny baby nipples so that they don't get nipple cancer which is about as rare as penile cancer. Both are in prevention of something RARE.

Also in your argument about the skin over a girls nipple at birth to prevent breast cancer it would only work if that nipple skin served a purpose. Because foreskin does indeed serve a purpose and it's benefits outweight the extremely small risks.
__________________
Mama to G, L & twins F & M
Started off 2013 homebirthing suprise twins Fia Celesta & Maddalena Isabella
Reply With Quote
  #12  
August 28th, 2012, 09:48 AM
Mollyjayne's Avatar Super Mommy
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: FL
Posts: 848
AIDS aside a 90% decrease in chance of uti's seems like a legit argument. I think they will make money on circs, but not as much as they would make on infections due to not being circ'd antibiotics and creams are inexpensive, but dr visits and lab visits add up. I feel like circ-ing would save the insurance industry money in the long run.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
August 28th, 2012, 10:03 AM
Frozenoj's Avatar Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: West Florida
Posts: 3,557
The risk of UTIs in boys is still low either way.
Babybear4, MindyRambo and Keakie like this.
__________________

Thanks Bokkechick for my wonderful siggy!
TTC Blog
10-21-12
Reply With Quote
  #14  
August 28th, 2012, 10:10 AM
MindyRambo's Avatar Super Mommy
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Quebec, Canada
Posts: 801
Quote:
Originally Posted by melkissa2004 View Post
Meh, I think some behind the scenes politics are at play with this statement from the AAP. I cant help but think of money this will bring in when they get paid by insurance companies. The data isn't sound, IMO, either.
With that being said, I do think parents should educate themselves and make the best decision for their family.
Exactly my thoughts. This is about politics and money, and nothing else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by My2miracles View Post
Oy! I hardly think a tiny piece of useless skin can be compared to a breast. Seriously get a real argument! It's not like you're cutting of the member.
"Little piece of skin" my butt, get a real argument! I have yet to hear of a single "benefit" that isn't a myth.
Fluffy Baby and Keakie like this.
__________________


You think the only people who are people, are the people who look and think like you, but if you walk the footsteps of stranger, you'll learn things you knew... you never knew.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
August 28th, 2012, 10:16 AM
MindyRambo's Avatar Super Mommy
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Quebec, Canada
Posts: 801
Quote:
Originally Posted by My2miracles View Post
We ARE NOT talking about grown men. We are talking about babies. I saw my son's before he was circumsize. I get exactly what it is.

Cutting a tiny piece of skin on a baby IS NOT the same as hacking off a full grown woman's breast. Let's stop comparing apples to oranges. No a woman isn't going to cut off her 15 year old daughters full-grown breast. But if there were an equivalent little skin coverage over an infant girls nipple that could be removed shortly after birth that would reduce breast cancer, she'd most likely do it. Apples to Apples see????
Alright, you asked for it then. Female circ.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyHippy View Post
Yup, the studies are not relevent in parts outside of Africa. And any "benefit" that circumcision has has been shown to not even be 1%.



It's tiny on a newborn, but not on a full grown intact man. It's actually 1-2 inches big at that point. The foresking isn't just a piece of skin, it actually has a purpose and function. The foreskin serves to protect the glands (the head), it has it's own lubricant that helps with sexual intercourse and masturbation, the foreskin has over 200 nerve endings, the foreskin helps keep the glands moist (circumcised men have dry glands) as well as keeping things *out* of the glands.

Talking about breasts or breast tissue is actually very relevent since one of the main reasons they talk about removing the foreskin is to decrease the risk of penile cancer. Which is extremely rare anyways. The argument then would be we should remove baby girl's breast tissue to decrease the risk of breast cancer, which is more common.

Unless there is a true problem with the foreskin then there is no reason to remove it. Where I live circumcision is not common at all, the only people who get it done are American foreigners and those who get it done for medical reasons, which is usually not a newborn.

Proper hygeine and safe sex practices will take care of pretty much all the so called "benefits" (UTIs, STDs, etc).
All of this, except there are actually closer to 20,000 nerve endings in the foreskin
HappyHippy likes this.
__________________


You think the only people who are people, are the people who look and think like you, but if you walk the footsteps of stranger, you'll learn things you knew... you never knew.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
August 28th, 2012, 10:26 AM
HappyHippy's Avatar Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Pavia, Italy
Posts: 5,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mollyjayne View Post
AIDS aside a 90% decrease in chance of uti's seems like a legit argument. I think they will make money on circs, but not as much as they would make on infections due to not being circ'd antibiotics and creams are inexpensive, but dr visits and lab visits add up. I feel like circ-ing would save the insurance industry money in the long run.
There isn't a 90% decrease in AIDS to due circumcision. That is a false claim. The AIDS studies that they used were done in Africa. These parts of Africa that were studied do not use as much safe sex practices as American men do, they also do not all have access to clean water and soap like most American men do. The studies that they used were already DEBUNKED several years ago and then again recently. Yet the AAP continued to use the studies even after they debunked them

The decrease in UTIs is not a legit argument since we know that healthy eating habits and proper hygeine reduces UTIs.

Majority of intact children and men do not get infections, nor do they pass infections on to their female sexual partners. So I don't really see how they'd make a ton of money on infections that don't happen anyways. Again, proper hygeine, safe sex practices and good eating habits will reduce everything they state is a benefit of circumcision. Except maybe penile cancer which is rare, and doesn't always happen on the foreskin (that would be foreskin cancer). So really, there is no need for circumcision.

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcisi...Commentary.pdf

Gloria Lemay | Homebirth, doula, vbac, intact boy, waterbirth, birth, vancouver

Those are some good reads, and I have more.

ETA: Also the foreskin is actually close to half of the skin on the penis, it is not just the tip of the penis. When a baby is circumcised they actually take much more than the top off, they take enough to expose the glands which goes almost half way down the shaft on a baby (and more more on a grown man or older boy).
MindyRambo and Keakie like this.
__________________
Mama to G, L & twins F & M
Started off 2013 homebirthing suprise twins Fia Celesta & Maddalena Isabella
Reply With Quote
  #17  
August 28th, 2012, 10:41 AM
MindyRambo's Avatar Super Mommy
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Quebec, Canada
Posts: 801
I was also thinking, maybe a part of the reason the AAP put this out is because there is such bad info out there about taking care of an intact penis, maybe they just feel it's easier for the boys to be circ'd as newborns instead of leaving them intact and parents forcefully retracting, creating scar tissue, and eventually "needing" to be circ'd.
__________________


You think the only people who are people, are the people who look and think like you, but if you walk the footsteps of stranger, you'll learn things you knew... you never knew.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
August 28th, 2012, 11:07 AM
HappyHippy's Avatar Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Pavia, Italy
Posts: 5,959
^ Yeah I wouldn't doubt it. I remeber reading something awhile ago about how places like Europe and UK where circumcision is not normal/routine where they have lower rates than in the US for all sorts of things. I'll try to look that stuff up later, my Midwife is on her way now for an appointment
__________________
Mama to G, L & twins F & M
Started off 2013 homebirthing suprise twins Fia Celesta & Maddalena Isabella
Reply With Quote
  #19  
August 28th, 2012, 12:45 PM
Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 10,538
I just wonder how people in other countries, where circ'ing is not common or normal, get by. Who teaches them to clean themselves and how do they handle ALL those infections that they must get?
__________________
Shelley, mom to:

Reply With Quote
  #20  
August 29th, 2012, 12:44 AM
Cereal Killer's Avatar I'm climbin' in yo window
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: next to Chuck Norris
Posts: 7,373
If you are going to remove your son's foreskin to mitigate his risk of penile cancer, you may want to tell you doctor he needn't stop there. Considering that a male's chance of developing penile cancer pales in comparison to his risk of developing breast cancer, you may as well ask him to remove those too. You should also nip your daughter's even higher risk of breast cancer in the bud (pun intended) and have her's removed too. Just schedule it with her hysterectomy. That is, if cancer is what we are in the game of preventing at birth. For that matter, why not remove every infant's tonsils and appendix. It's better if they don't remember the pain of recovery. If you are scared of UTIs, you should have your daughter's labia removed, as her chances of UTI are significantly greater than your son's.

The point being, prophylactic amputation of functioning body parts is ridiculous. If your doctor suggested removing your newborn's appendix to prevent future appendicitis, you would most likely think he/she had lost his/her mind but we don't blink an eye when parents remove a healthy, functioning part of a boy's penis under the guise of preventative medicine.
__________________
Wife, Mother of 4, Homeschooling, and wine drinking.


Reply With Quote
Reply

Topic Tools Search this Topic
Search this Topic:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:13 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0