Infant circumcision benefits outweigh the risks according to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).?

5 Answers

Relevance
  • Dawn
    Lv 5
    8 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    The headline of the article is misleading. If you go to the AAP website and read the literal statement, they say there is insufficient evidence to support routine circumcision, BUT there are enough health benefits for 3rd party payers to compensate for the procedure. Basically, in recent years insurances have stopped paying for it because many now consider it a cosmetic procedure. But the AAP wants insurances to continue paying for circumcision.

    Otherwise, the article is pretty unbiased and informative.

    But consider this: no other country in the first world supports routine circumcision in any way. The World Health Organization has noted that in some countries in Africa where AIDS is epidemic, circumcision helps reduce the rate. But this only seems to apply in Africa, not in first world countries where AIDS is mostly related to promiscuity and intravenous drug use.

    The AAP based their changes on the WHO's findings. But other countries such as Sweden, the UK, and Australia have looked at the same data and have not changed their recommendations. The US remains the only first world country where circumcision is common.

  • Anonymous
    4 years ago

    definite yet additionally they say they do no longer recognize the risks. in the intervening time the Pediatricians of different countries have stated that the benefits are not from now on genuine and the risks are huge. the US job rigidity has 0 reference. Do ANY medical doctors which have all of their organic genitals recommend that babies have aspects decrease off? Many decrease adult males do no longer remorseful about circumcision as they haven't any clue about what they lost. and that is the point, those adult males do not omit the 20000 excitement nerves because they haven't any reference? Like a colour blind individual no longer recognize-how the price of colour sight or a one eye individual no longer recognize-how the price of three-D sight. This crew of people making statements about reward vs disadvantages, even as they don't comprehend the harm (how might want to they), might want to be humorous yet for all the mutilations and sexual ailment that they are going to reason. How can human beings have an opinion in this and yet imagine that what's decrease is a flap of epidermis? The aspects have thousands of truly professional nerve endings. those are the most innervated aspects of the HUMAN MALE. The aspects decrease off close down an excellent area of the toddler’s/guy’s sensory gadget. that could under no circumstances be back (it truly is close down for good). also, many decrease adult males have sexual function themes from the starting up of sexual sex. even with the indisputable fact that, maximum receives ED at a a lot youthful age than they could otherwise (decrease adult males are 4.5 situations as probable to get ED). disgrace on the AAP for no longer pondering the harm! Have they no experience of decency? exceedingly pediatricians ought to First do no harm!

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    Certain people will agree, others will disagree. I feel this is a personal issue and no one choice fits all.

  • 8 years ago

    It doesn't really matter. The benefits are really small, but we did it for our son anyway because I am. We are British though.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 8 years ago

    for me it is somewhat of a non issue,, off the boys that it has been done to, nothing medical bad has happen to them, (with the exception of when the procedure was done wrong,) most times, if any, are cosmic reason to wish they had not had it done.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.