Should Circumcision Become Public Health Policy?

Reader Comments
Back to blog

How in the Worlld could something as beneficial as circumcision come under rejectiion by anybody. I

Linda of GA 4:19PM January 17, 2012

The studies pointing to decreased rate of STIs are in sub-saharan Africa, not our backyard. Chances are that circumcision may reduces STI transmission rates in the U.S. as well, in addition to other penile infections, but what about simple education on safe sex and hygiene? Education may be just as effective and maybe even more cost-effective.
Furthermore, as people against mandating Gardasil for all teenage girls would say, wouldn't this be condoning unsafe sex (i don't really believe that though)?
I did not circumcise my baby boy because it really seems medically unnecessary for him at this time. If he later CHOOSES it is in his best interest, personally, medically, sexually, whatever, I'll support his decision and even help him pay for circumcision. But he won't be getting one until he can say that he wants one and why. It's just not worth the risk.

Chitz of CA 6:44PM November 17, 2011

in system 2 2 pencils black 8 christmas custom for 2011 la mouth of fruits http://www.payunlimited.tk
http://www.bestshoop.tk

cannaexcawMus of AL 12:09AM February 08, 2011

Whose body, whose choice?

Kent of CA 4:57PM January 11, 2011

It's about time, since the advantages of circumcision have been underestimated recently. It"s cleaner and better looking!!

Linda of GA 5:46PM May 06, 2010

Nice post, thanks for writing!

seolace of AL 12:04PM May 06, 2010

How can CDC possibly justify condoning injuring healthy newborns to reduce a potential risks that will persist after the harm has been inflicted. They wish to trade the health of newborns for the health of the adults they will eventually grow-up to be? That is sordid logic circumcision maybe simple, but plenty of doctors get it wrong- it is not harmless.

woo879 of CO 10:41PM February 25, 2010

Since the foreskin is an organ and a nerve plexus, and even if it were 'just' a piece of skin, consent with understanding of it's complete function should be the pre-requisite for circumcision. Circumcision is prima facia wounding, no infant is able to make consent and should be protected from such molestation.

BMW if Montreal 5:23PM January 22, 2010

damn my chart failed... looked good in the comment window haha

booo of NY 3:17PM January 22, 2010

The CDC has no business recommending circumcision for a boy, any more than it does for a girl. There is no American data. The reason for this, is because circumcision in the US is both a cultural and a cash cow. It brings in an estimated 1 billion $ a year. And for what? The removal, or permanent damaging, of the two most sexually responsive parts of a male human body, the frenulum (ejaculatory trigger) and the inner foreskin. The AMA, AAP, and CDC refer to 'potential benefits'. Why not do a study in the US, and prove or disprove its value? Because they risk looking stupid, after over a century of propaganda against the male foreskin, and because they would open themselves to lawsuits, for
a) having known better. There is data from hundreds of countries, and only those three poorly designed African studies show a benefit. The others show circumcision to be ineffective, to useless. The HIV infection rate was lower in uncircumcised men than in circumcised men, in studies in 6 African countries.
How much did circumcision help the Americans who have died of AIDS?
Why chop for HPV, when innoculations are available for both sexes, as the absurd companion article to this one suggests?
b) violating the Hippocratic Oath (first, do no harm)
c) it is clearly unethical to remove a healthy body part from an unconsenting person, with no medical need for it.
Here is a study from a more impartial country, Australia.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/circumcision-health-benefit-virtually-nil-study-finds/article1427972/
Australia, Canada, Britain, New Zealand, and others used to practice circumcision, but found it to be ineffective. Why is its effectiveness never studied in the US, and we simply make policy based on someone else's incomplete study?
Absolutely absurd. No wonder people lose faith in American institutions.
The CDC is as busy protecting us, as the EPA was a few years ago.
I don't know how they look in the mirror, especially when they are entrusted with the public health, and do clearly boneheaded moves such as this.
The money can be better spend actually fighting disease. Yet, they choose to play games, both with our health, and our money.

Tom Tobin of MA 3:11PM January 22, 2010