I didn't realise the impact until I remembered how common circumcision is in the US.
Parents should have to sign a statement like this before it's performed. It should no longer be the default, and parents should understand that they don't have to be railroaded into the decision.
Source? Especially that this risk reduction outweighs the risks of the procedure is not proven as far as I know.
"Male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection among heterosexual men in sub-Saharan Africa [..] The effectiveness of using circumcision to prevent HIV in the developed world is unclear;" [2]
Since newborns are unlikely to have sex [3], there should be no harm in waiting until puberty, and getting the boy's input on what is an irreversible change.
[1] http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision
[3] C'mon man.
Parents have autonomy to make medical decisions for their infant children, and many are forced to make significantly more difficult decisions than a routine circumcision.
I was curious about the CIRP site you linked to and the policy statements they are referencing. I double checked just the first referenced policy statement, which is from the Australian College of Paediatrics. [1]
Interestingly, they reference a statement from 1996 which is no longer the current position. Evidence for the medical benefits of circumcision have gotten stronger, and the procedure has gotten safer and more likely to be performed with anesthesia. The updated statement [2] while still not advocating for routine circumcision for all male children, is, in particular, missing the passage which CIRP specifically highlighted in the 1996 position.
This calls into question whether CIRP is interested in presenting a factual list of current statements, or if they have a particular agenda they are attempting to serve in presenting cherry-picked out-dated statements with a specific viewpoint.
[1] - http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/acp1996/
[2] - https://www.racp.edu.au/docs/default-source/advocacy-library...
Parents do make medical choices -- these would be situations where there is a benefit to treatment and where there is medical consensus that the treatment is worthwhile.
That's not the case for circumcision where most doctors agree it shouldn't be performed other than for actual medical reasons like phimosis.
The WHO states, “There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%.”
Here’s what the abstract does say;
> Following the three randomized trials in Africa demonstrating the protective effects of male circumcision on HIV infection, studies have reported other benefits of circumcision including protection from certain STIs, including human papillomavirus and herpes simplex virus 2. With data accumulating on the public health benefits of circumcision and the endorsement of circumcision from WHO, investigators have begun to evaluate the feasibility, safety and cost of implementation of large-scale circumcision programs. Limitations of circumcision have also been explored.
So the child is being exposed to risk of death or disfigurement for a hypothetical benefit for one STI where there are existing better protections for that, and other STIs.
Here’s another one that appears after a quick Google search;
Male Circumcision Reduces Risk of Genital Herpes and HPV Infection, but Not Syphilis
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/male-circumcis...
When you google for circumcision risk of death, on the one hand is CIRP claiming over 100 infant boys die each year from complications arising from circumcision, and in the other hand the CDC saying they looked at every single infant death in 2010 and could not find a single one related to circumcision.
So I’ll be done with this topic for the day!
The broader application of this procedure to other areas of the world with different population, infrastructure and disease characteristics warrants further investigation.
Similar to the HPV vaccine which is given to 9 year olds, presumably long before they have started having sex.
I’m really not interested in ideological battle here.
> I’m really not interested in ideological battle here.
You're defending zero-benefit mutilation of children, in the face of overwhelming medical advice. It's hard to see that as anything other than ideological.
They reference both current and historical statements, I assume on purpose to show how the position has evolved. For the case of Australia, the newest statement is on top, and the statements are clearly dated, so there is no room to confuse a newer one with an older one.
It takes very motivated reasoning to conclude they are biased just because they present a historical timeline.
It appears the link to the most recent statement is broken (404) which could be why I missed it.
However, the way the timeline is presented also raises eyebrows;
> In September 2002, under the lead of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP), Paediatrics and Child Health Division, six major medical societies of Australasia developed a unified position statement on male circumcision. All six medical societies (...) have now corroborated the Canadian Paediatric Society, declaring that circumcision of newborn males should not be routinely performed. The new statement firmly declares: "There are no medical indications for routine male circumcision." This statement was slightly revised in September 2004. This statement was retired in 2010.
“All six have now corroborated...” is a peculiar way to describe historical statements which are no longer considered medically accurate.
That’s a particularly odd way to conclude that new studies have provided compelling evidence of important health benefits of circumcision in certain contexts.
The fact that many commenters here seem to be entirely unaware that there do exist some demonstrable medical benefits in terms of resistance to and transmission of STDs and STIs reflects this.
What are those studies? It is very uncommon to cut off parts of children in Europe, Russia, South America and China (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_circumcision) and such serious deseases should be much more common there. So what are they? On this scale we should see a pattern.
I have no deep trauma, no lingering issues. I'm just a normal boring guy, kind of like most guys who are circumcised too.
Personally I've only known women and uncircumcised men to have a problem with. I've never met a circumcised man who cared.