Military Significant Others and Spouse Support - MilitarySOS.com
Page 1 of 7 1234 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 70

Thread: New news on Circumcision!!!

  1. Senior Member
    Guynavywife's Avatar
    Guynavywife is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    19,321
    Blog Entries
    2
    #1

    New news on Circumcision!!!

    Advertisements
    (If you are going to post with your own opinions on circumcision, please think of whether what you are posting will be insulting to those of the other opinion, ie "people who circumcise/don't circumcise are child abusers!")

    CDC Considers Counseling Males Of All Ages On Circumcision : Shots - Health News : NPR
    (and lots of other places on the 'net)

    Draft federal recommendations don't usually raise eyebrows, but this one certainly will that males of all ages, including teenage boys, should be counseled on the health benefits of circumcision.

    In the past 15 years, studies in Africa have found that circumcision lowers men's risk of being infected with HIV during heterosexual intercourse by 50 to 60 percent. Being circumcised also reduces men's risk of infection with the herpes virus and human papillomavirus.

    Those health benefits prompted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's proposed recommendation that doctors counsel parents of baby boys and teenagers, as well as men, on the benefits and risks of circumcision.

    "The compiling of the different data sources may really be sufficient for someone who is a heterosexual male to consider the benefit of circumcision," Dr. Susan Blank, a pediatrician and chairwoman of the American Academy of Pediatrics' circumcision task force, told Shots.

    In 2012, the American Academy of Pediatrics said for the first time that the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks, and that insurers should pay for the procedure.

    Social worker Shannon Coyne and her husband decided against circumcision for their son, now 11 months old. The nation's most influential pediatricians group says the health benefits of circumcision in newborn boys outweigh any risks and that insurance companies should pay for it.

    Pediatricians Decide Boys Are Better Off Circumcised Than Not
    But the pediatricians' focus was on parents considering infant circumcision. The CDC's proposal opens the door to circumcision becoming a topic of conversation any time an uncircumcised male goes to a medical appointment.

    Although several surveys have found a decline in circumcision rates since the 1960s, the majority of men living in the United States were circumcised as newborns. The prevalence of the procedure varies widely, with big geographical and ethnic variations. It is typically less common in Asian and Hispanic communities.

    Groups opposed to circumcision, such as Intact America, say the health benefits of circumcision in the U.S. remain unproven, and that the CDC is relying too heavily on studies done in Africa that may not be relevant here. The procedure, which removes the foreskin, has been criticized because infants can't consent to it.

    "Parents need to recognize that they're effectively removing that decision from their son," says Dr. Douglas Diekema, a bioethicist at Seattle Children's Hospital who served on the pediatricians' task force. "And there are some men who will grow up being unhappy with the decision that their parents made."

    The CDC's draft recommendation, which is open for public comment for 45 days, suggests that teenage boys be counseled along with their parents on the option, which presumably would give boys the option to say yea or nay.

    "I want to emphasize that it's a voluntary procedure, and really requires conversation between the doctor and the patient," says Dr. Eugene McCray, director of the division of AIDS prevention at the CDC. "Our role is to insure that physicians have the information that they can then use to counsel or inform patients about the risk and benefits."

    The risk of complications in infants is 0.4 percent, one large analysis found, 9 percent in boys ages 1 to 9, and 5 percent over age 10.

    "It's really important to emphasize that circumcision doesn't protect somebody from contracting any STD," Diekema says. "It simply reduces risk." In other words, sexually active men still need to use condoms or other methods if they want to avoid exposure to HIV and other STDs.
    If you want my opinion on your relationship or life issues, just ask Villanelle!
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleMsSunshine View Post
    I think it's really funny when people come on here, and automatically assume that everyone here is a gung-ho, hoo-rah, i-bleed-red-white-and-blue, kiss-my-military-ass, people-in-uniform-can-do-no-wrong, and i'm-entitled-to-everything bitch.
    "RIP Blackie, and Whitey, New Whitey. Goodbye Poopers and Momma Beige and Lady Grey. New Blackie and the Whitey Sisters rule the roost now!"
  2. aka Milfon2Wheelz
    BraveLilToaster's Avatar
    BraveLilToaster is offline
    aka Milfon2Wheelz
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Kings Bay Ga
    Posts
    10,109


    #2
    You know what else reduces transmission of those?

    Condoms.

    How about we counsel males on using condoms instead of hacking off part of their anatomy.
  3. MilitarySOS Jewel
    Procella's Avatar
    Procella is offline
    MilitarySOS Jewel
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    6,983
    #3
    I wonder what studies they referred to. The general gist I got from the last compilation of studies done showed that the health risks were actually statistically insignificant between circumcised and uncircumcised.

    I actually am a bit suspect of the whole political motivation. What areas of Africa did they study? Are these areas known to have strong homophobic agendas? What about their stance on women's rights? I only wonder that because 50%-60% reduction for heterosexual men only seems a bit strong and I think is way outside of any range reported before. I worry that the data may have been written to be interpreted that way with intent to support homophobic laws and/or continue to condone men asserting their right to not use condoms with their female partners. Then in the US we are capitalizing on the report to encourage insurance companies to continue to cover the procedure for convenience.
  4. Pour a little salt, we were never here
    [his] lobster's Avatar
    [his] lobster is offline
    Pour a little salt, we were never here
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    8,737

    #4
    I think this is silly. I read it the other day and it seems to be nonsense.
  5. Senior Member
    JaneSays's Avatar
    JaneSays is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,588
    #5
    I'm struggling so hard with this right now. I'm having a boy, and was planning on not circumcising my infant until this came out. Now I'm really on the fence. I tried to find the actual CDC draft and couldn't find it online. I'd love to see the studies, because like previous posters said, the difference reported before online was statistically insignificant. If there truly is a 50-60% decrease in transmission of HIV though, I'd definitely consider circumcision. Our son will definitely be taught about safe sex practices and condom use (something I have always considered a huge priority, and my parents did the same with me). However, as a parent, if there's something I can do that would help lower the chance of him contracting such a serious disease, I feel like I should definitely consider it. What if he's in a serious monogamous relationship and his partner cheats? Or he becomes serious with someone who initially tests negative (before the 6 month window when enough of the virus would show positive)? I know both these scenarios are unlikely--he's more likely to be a bonehead and not use a condom when he knows he should--but even then, I'd want to lower his risk.

    At the same time, I've watched a video of the procedure. It's horrible. And I don't really want my infant going through that.

    Ugh. I don't know. This is the only reason I was hoping for a girl, lol.
  6. Meet me underneath the Oklahoma sky
    LACY1020's Avatar
    LACY1020 is offline
    Meet me underneath the Oklahoma sky
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Bragg
    Posts
    5,009
    #6
    I took care of a uncircumcised patient once for penile cancer. Solidified my decision to circumcise if I ever had a son.
  7. Don't ever settle for less than you deserve.
    LoveMikeyBear's Avatar
    LoveMikeyBear is offline
    Don't ever settle for less than you deserve.
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Clearwater, FL
    Posts
    25,417
    #7
    Quote Originally Posted by JaneSays View Post
    I'm struggling so hard with this right now. I'm having a boy, and was planning on not circumcising my infant until this came out. Now I'm really on the fence. I tried to find the actual CDC draft and couldn't find it online. I'd love to see the studies, because like previous posters said, the difference reported before online was statistically insignificant. If there truly is a 50-60% decrease in transmission of HIV though, I'd definitely consider circumcision. Our son will definitely be taught about safe sex practices and condom use (something I have always considered a huge priority, and my parents did the same with me). However, as a parent, if there's something I can do that would help lower the chance of him contracting such a serious disease, I feel like I should definitely consider it. What if he's in a serious monogamous relationship and his partner cheats? Or he becomes serious with someone who initially tests negative (before the 6 month window when enough of the virus would show positive)? I know both these scenarios are unlikely--he's more likely to be a bonehead and not use a condom when he knows he should--but even then, I'd want to lower his risk.

    At the same time, I've watched a video of the procedure. It's horrible. And I don't really want my infant going through that.

    Ugh. I don't know. This is the only reason I was hoping for a girl, lol.
    To the bolded just wanted to say in my experience it really wasn't that bad at all. It was hard to see it after since it was a little bloody, but even then he didn't seem to care/feel it much at all. The worst part was seeing him strapped to this thing to keep him from moving his arms/legs. Past that though it was quick they numbed my son up good enough that he slept right through the whole thing. May of helped that he had eaten right before, and they did numb it so he didn't feel it. He cried for all of maybe 4 seconds for the shot, and then the nurse and I got him calmed back down. So he passed right back out and then the doctor started and DS stayed asleep the whole time.

    I got it done because everything I read online, and got told by the OB, my primary care, and the staff at the hospital all said it would help limit some risks like cancer and infection. Which after my son spending his first 2 months out of the womb in and out of hospitals, seeing specialists, and in/out his primary cares office. All because he had a kidney infection, something circumcising supposedly should help lower the risk of happening again. Yeah I was totally on board with getting it done between that, and every single medical professional I came across. When I asked them their opinion on it they all said they'd have it done. Don't regret it one bit since I feel it was the best thing to do. It was also totally healed within a week and he never once acted like it was bothering him. Healed very nicely too with no complications what so ever.
    Signature removed due to size.
  8. aka Milfon2Wheelz
    BraveLilToaster's Avatar
    BraveLilToaster is offline
    aka Milfon2Wheelz
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Kings Bay Ga
    Posts
    10,109


    #8
    Quote Originally Posted by LACY1020 View Post
    I took care of a uncircumcised patient once for penile cancer. Solidified my decision to circumcise if I ever had a son.
    My mom had to go through breast cancer. Solidified my decision that if I ever had girls I'd get them mastectomys.


    I really hate the "it's not so bad" crap too. It's an open wound, with feces and urine coming into contact with that. I can't imagine how much that has to hurt.
  9. aka Milfon2Wheelz
    BraveLilToaster's Avatar
    BraveLilToaster is offline
    aka Milfon2Wheelz
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Kings Bay Ga
    Posts
    10,109


    #9
    My OB also pointed out when my sons were born that it's completely a cosmetic or preferential decision, there isn't medical basis that supports it.
  10. Keep Calm and Ride Unicorns
    Twinderella's Avatar
    Twinderella is offline
    Keep Calm and Ride Unicorns
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    48,082


    #10
    Yeeeeeah... still not cutting my son.
Page 1 of 7 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •