Yes and no. It's interesting in context, but it's likely not directly applicable to other cultures and circumstances.
Yes and no. What these studies suggest is that a circumicised male is statistically at less risk of HIV infection and statistically is less likely to transmit HPV, genital herpes and other STIs to a partner.
There's no insinuation that circumicision should replace safe sex practices. These statements are no less factual, because the majority of trials were conducted in Africa. You apply this summary to your own culture when weighing risks and benefits.
Male circumcision reduces the risk that a man will acquire HIV from an infected female partner, and also lowers the risk of other STDs , penile cancer, and infant urinary tract infection.
For female partners, male circumcision reduces the risk of cervical cancer, genital ulceration, bacterial vaginosis, trichomoniasis, and HPV. Although male circumcision has risks including pain, bleeding, and infection, more serious complications are rare.
Source:
CDC - Male Circumcision - Research - Prevention Research - HIV/AIDS
This is the most up to date position of the AAP:
Since the last policy was published, scientific research shows clearer health benefits to the procedure than had previously been demonstrated. According to a systematic and critical review of the scientific literature, the health benefits of circumcision include lower risks of acquiring HIV, genital herpes, human papilloma virus and syphilis. Circumcision also lowers the risk of penile cancer over a lifetime; reduces the risk of cervical cancer in sexual partners, and lowers the risk of urinary tract infections in the first year of life.
The AAP believes the health benefits are great enough that infant male circumcision should be covered by insurance, which would increase access to the procedure for families who choose it.
“Ultimately, this is a decision that parents will have to make,” said Susan Blank, MD, FAAP, chair of the task force that authored the AAP policy statement and technical report. “Parents are entitled to medically accurate and non-biased information about circumcision, and they should weigh this medical information in the context of their own religious, ethical and cultural beliefs.”
The medical benefits alone may not outweigh other considerations for individual families. The medical data show that the procedure is safest and offers the most health benefits if performed during the newborn period. The AAP policy recommends infant circumcision should be performed by trained and competent providers, using sterile techniques and effective pain management.
Source:
http://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-...inal-Say-is-Still-Up-to-parents-Says-AAP.aspx
Let's back up a moment. Here's the summary for the study cited by the CDC:
Male circumcision and risk of HIV infection amo... [J Infect Dis. 2009] - PubMed - NCBI
If you're correct and circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection, then there should have been a positive correlation in both groups, not just one. In people who visited the clinic who were unsure if they'd been exposed to HIV, the prevalence rate ratio was exactly 1.00... i.e. circumcision provided no benefit at all. Why do you think this is?
Jeff, you and I are going to find statistics to support our own views.
Ultimately, the CDC makes no recommendations, as you've reminded me in the past. We will intrepet this info as we see fit. HIV statistics have to be approached differently in the United States. I don't argue this, but, that which studies have yielded are no less relevant to those in the United States who are exposed or part of high-risk groups.
No, that's not what the studies say. You have to think a bit more about what's going on. The study group and the control group are both made up of a variety of men with a variety of characteristics: some engage in high-risk practices, some don't. Some use condoms consistently, some don't. If the study was done well, then they would have controlled for these sorts of variables by doing their best to ensure that the study group and the control group are the same except for the variable being studied.
Now... only certain people in those groups will become infected; a 1% infection rate doesn't mean that each person is "1% infected" with HIV; it means that 1% of the people are 100% infected and the rest aren't infected at all.
Other evidence we have shows that consistent condom usage provides very good protection against HIV infection, so odds are that in that study group, more often than not, the people that are getting infected will be the ones who don't use condoms consistently.
Why are you attempting to argue this with me, when I don't disagree?
This does not null the statistical probability of a man who is uncircumcised and engaging in unprotected sex, being at higher risk for certain STIs and transmission of STIs.
Sure, I'd consider it. But why vaccinate babies against HIV? Why not take a cue from the other vaccine we have for an STD: HPV vaccines don't get given out until early adolescence. At that age, yes, the parent can still override the child, but at least the child is old enough to express an opinion.
It's quite different, actually:
- there's a need for immunization in childhood to protect the child himself/herself. There are also compelling public health reasons not to let unvaccinated children run around infecting other people.
- when wisdom teeth need to be removed, it's a time-critical thing. If it's delayed, the patient will suffer quite a bit later. If they don't need to be removed, the dentist usually won't recommend that they be removed.
Also, wisdom teeth aren't removed until the child is able to express an opinion on the matter... if it isn't in adulthood anyhow - I got mine taken out at 19.
Again, this is you imposing your opinions on how parents should make decisions for their children.
I respect your right to refrain from making certain decisions. I don't have a problem with you deciding that circumcision would be wrong for your child and that you would refrain from having certain procedures done if you didn't have weigh in from your child.
I'm not arrogant enough to impose my personal thoughts on how your children should be raised.
Again, I am a proponent of parents making educated choices for their children.
I think you do exactly the same thing, only with different (and IMO arbitrary) lines for what's acceptable and what's not. When analogies get thrown around like cutting off a child's earlobes, tribal scarification, tattooing , or just giving a baby a good hard slap, you're happy to whine and complain that they're trying to equate circumcision with child abuse. Well, if you really believe what you're arguing here, then who are you to call those things child abuse?
You might have a point here, if earlobe mutiliation, tribal sacrification and the like were deemed practices per the AAP, pediatricians and physicians - that parents could make for themselves confidently through unbiased education and consultation with medical professionals. These are not acceptable practices in America, period.
You can't compare them to male circumcision, because in my country, these types of practices are not common or lawfully accepted.
I'm glad you agree. Now remember it and apply some common sense to the statistics you like to throw around.
Same thing goes for you. At the end of the day, you disagree with the procedure primarily because it causes pain. You reject the policy statement of the AAP. Got it.
So as long as the complication rate of circumcision is less than 50%, it's irrelevant?
Did I say that? No.
But, how can you expect me to have the same emotional reaction to this, when I've had more exposure to circumcision than you have, and the complication rate amongst my peer group is much less than 50%, if not null?
What do you want me to say?
There are actions that are beneficial for children, even though they cause pain. There are also actions that cause pain to children without an associated benefit.
Per you. You don't acknowledge any benefit of infant male circumcision, which is fine.
I respect the rights of those parents who do construe benefit. That's all there is to it.
I don't think that his parents were evil, if that's what you're getting at. If his parents were brought up to think of circumcision as normal, and if his father was circumcised himself, I'd probably be inclined to see them as victims, too.
I'm looking forward to FH responding to this on his own.
Well, with any luck, generations that follow us will continue to be less and less exposed to circumcision than you have been. It will be a win-win: you can keep on believing that you know better than everyone else while fewer and fewer children get hurt.
You slay me with your dramatics.
If anything, YOU are the one who is projecting as if you know better than everyone else. I'm not interested in imposing my opinions on the decisions of other people in regard to their parenting when they are acting lawfully and in what they feel to be in in the best interest of their child. You however, are.
