Do you support the AAP"s stance on Infant Circumcision?
The American Association Of Pediatrics reversed it's official view on infant circumcision a couple of years ago, and now fully supports it acknowledging that the benefits of male circumcision far out-weight the negatives that affect uncircumcised males.
This was a very long and drawn out decision for them that took them years of researching and studies before they conceded that their previous view as wrong and inaccurate.
This being done.........how many mom's out there have now changed their mind and view on male circumcision and have now acknowledge the benefits of it?
It just ticks me off how some moms leave their poor boys to suffer the consequences of having a foreskin which does nothing but cause problems for the boy. I mean do they get off on knowing their son can suffer infections and pain and humiliation by having a foreskin? Do they get some sort of strange satisfaction knowing they are leaving their boy in such a terrible situation?
- Anonymous7 years agoFavorite Answer
As a pediatric nurse who has assisted in countless circumcisions..................
Yes of course I support the AAP's stance on male infant circumcision.
Parent's who leave their children uncircumcised are not looking out for the health and safety of their children.
At my hospital it is almost unheard of for a boy to go home without being circumcised, and I can only remember a small handful of times it has happened. I felt bad for the boys who were going home without being circumcised cause I knew what terrible things were in store for them.
The A.A.P's stance comes from research and studies done within America where a boy is circumcised every 7 seconds. And to think that some people out there believe it is a procedure that is getting less common LOL. Well they don't actually believe that, they just say it because it makes them feel better.
- OwenLv 57 years ago
I think the AAP's stance is appropriate. It stops short of recommending circumcision universally, but does acknowledge (correctly) that in the past few years a series of studies have continued to show some benefits of circumcision in reducing the risk of HIV, HPV and UTIs.
That being said, I do believe circumcision is a personal choice that each family needs to make for itself. All of the benefits of circumcision can be achieved with 1) good hygiene and 2) safe sex practices. Since circumcision is NOT universally preventative against HIV (it reduces transmission 60% but not 100%), these methods need to be used anyway.
I think it's also worth remembering that a majority of men worldwide are not circumcised. Within the United States that number has dropped to 50% of newborn boys, so really parents who choose to not circumcise their sons are not leaving them to a life of humiliation - rather they'll be part of the half that just isn't cut. Eventually, if current trends continue, circumcised boys will actually be in the minority.
- WaltzLv 47 years ago
The AAP is not a scientific organization and the AAP also failed to explain how a circumcised penis is able to "magically" deter STD's. You are also failing to describe how a circumcised penis can deter any STD's or infections. Don't tell me what you think. Give a thorough explanation. You can't do it and the study the AAP cited couldn't explain it either. It was just one statistic from one study. The worst part is that the AAP doesn't even say that circumcision is better or enhances sexuality. I don't see how you're spinning this in a positive direction. It merely states that the "benefits MAY outweight the risks."
In fact, I would refer you to any scientific study from China and any other countries where almost NOBODY is circumcised and they have countless journals documenting how the penis works and what its functions in sexuality are. How about you read about actual scientific studies that study the natural human penis, if you're so interested in the human penis?
I hope you realize how everything you state is also used to justify female circumcision in large parts of Africa where these studies that you cling to come from. I don't see how you can logically absolve female vaginas from circumcision, either. If I believed that smegma and skin would harm the penis, then I would believe the same for women. Why would a circumciser allow women to have smegma and skin? Of course, the AAP, which once held a neutral stance on female circumcision eventually acquiesced and accepted female circumcision as abhorrent when it became illegal in United States of America. So much for the AAP's guidance on circumcision.
Unfortunately the American scientific community refuses to research the human penis and settle the debate and let's be honest, I don't blame the fact that so little research has done, considering that the majority of the men in America were being circumcised when many of these textbooks were written and a great majority of the scientists were circumcised.
The science is clear. The human body evolved the human genitals over millions of years and the natural vagina and natural penis are made for maximum sexual pleasure. We have names for each of the parts of the penis that is cut off and if you actually took the time to research scientific observations that document these functions you would learn a lot more.
To address your concerns, it has not been a "long, drawn out decision" from the AAP, they've been flipping and flopping for years now. The penis skin is completely natural and every animal on Earth and billions of men live just fine with the natural penis skin. The vagina typically has more infections than the average penis does and I hope you're not using your line of reasoning to justify cutting off the vagina. Just treat the infection, if you do get one. There's no humiliation in being able to experience intense orgasms or being able to have sex with no lubrication.
Circumcision casts as victim every single one of the penises that it touches with the permanent removal of the sexual pleasures from foreskin movement, the dessication and hardening of the penis head and the tightening of the penis skin which makes sex uncomfortable for both the man and woman when it literally rubs against the vaginal wall. Circumcision causes the disfigurement and imperfections in several thousands of babies and adults who are accidentally circumcised incorrectly. Is it really worth it?
Circumcision has always been understood to be a sacrifice in every way. This is how Jews view it. The Jews take their commandments seriously and understand what they are getting into. The native tribes that practiced ritual circumcisions with stones understood the risks as well. Circumcision is not a toy to be played with.
- BryanLv 47 years ago
Do you honestly think that the AAP would say that circumcision is damaging when a large portion of US males are circumcised? The outrage would ruin their reputation. As such, I seriously doubt that it was a "very long and drawn out conclusion."
I have been restoring my foreskin for nearly four years, and the gains in sexual pleasure are simply outstanding. Orgasms used to be numb and localized; they are now explosive and full-bodied. I know from experience that circumcision is damaging, so I do not trust the AAP when they say it isn't.
Mothers who have left their children intact have at least given their sons the decision to do what they want with their own bodies. If they do not like being intact, they can have themselves circumcised later. The same is not quite true with men who do not like being circumcised. Even with foreskin restoration, there is still irreversible damage, and the man had no choice in the matter.
The foreskin is not a vestigial piece of skin; it is erogenous tissue that is essential for proper sexual pleasure and function. The foreskin has three major functions:
1. It prevents the glans (head) from becoming dry and numb. The glans is a mucous membrane and is not meant to be exposed to the outside environment.
2. The foreskin reduces friction during sex, increasing pleasure for both partners.
3. The foreskin itself is enriched with tens of thousands of specialized nerve endings that directly contribute to most all of a man's sexual pleasure. If these are removed at infancy, the man will be forever cheated out of a huge portion of what he will be able to feel during masturbation and sex.
The foreskin is fused to the glans at infancy and does not loosen until late puberty. A man can loosen his foreskin via stretching exercises and does not need genital mutilation. Having a tight foreskin may be annoying at times, but it is not permanently damaging.
A foreskin is not magically prone to infection any more than a woman's clitoral hood is prone to infection. Proper hygiene is the proper way to prevent infections, not genital mutilation. This is by no means a "terrible situation."
For boys who are circumcised, that is a different story. The wounds from circumcision can themselves become infected. The boy can die from bleeding, shock, infection or the anesthetic itself (which is not meant to be used on infants). The circumcision puts the infant at a far greater risk of life-threatening complications than leaving him intact.
The procedure itself causes enormous pain for the infant (yes, infants feel pain). You can see this by looking up videos of infantile circumcisions. This is an absolutely sick "procedure" to force on a defenseless infant, especially since his parents are responsible for letting it happen.
Overall, circumcision is a brutal and unnecessary procedure, and there is evidence to support this. Regardless of what the AAP says, foreskin restorers report from experience that circumcision is damaging.Source(s): http://norm.org/lost.html http://www.livestrong.com/article/420732-how-to-tr... http://circumstitions.com/Clean.html http://circumstitions.com/Utis.html http://circumstitions.com/Complic.html http://circumstitions.com/death.html http://circumstitions.com/Pain.html http://circumstitions.com/#pictures
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- MinnowLv 77 years ago
Actually... you've got your information wrong.
Originally the AAP said that routine infant circumcision should not be done (that's when the doctors just circumcise without leaving it up to the parents) due to risks and benefits not outweighing one another. However some doctors didn't get the message and kept routine infant circumcision or pushing the parents to choose circumcision for their sons.
A handful of years ago the AAP said there was no benefit to circumcision that outweighed the risks, and recommended that parents be advised accordingly but that in the end it was up to them. This led to a lot of insurance companies (including some states with medicaid) to no longer fund circumcisions, which took the decision away from MANY parents.
The AAP, which has always said that a parent should have the right to choose based on the information they're given, but not pressured by doctors or anyone else, looked at available research and reversed their position, saying that there were more benefits than risks, but not by much. This was based on research also showing there were some benefits, and research on actual studies showed even less risks. It also was based on research showing that the costs of circumcising infants as opposed to costs associated with leaving a boy intact (infections, cancers, etc, no matter how rare they do cost in a population assessment. see first link)
When a parent can't afford a circumcision for their son then they usually opt out of it, which can increase medical costs through the life of the child. But there's also the parents who decide to circumcise at home or have someone else do it. These types of circumcisions are EXTREMELY risky. In a doctor's or hospital office the circumcision has less than 1/2 a percent of a risk, and most of those are easily and quickly fixed. When someone does it at home they're likely to hide it, and there's all sorts of dangers. As long as there are benefits then supporting a parent's choice it's just wiser to make sure that insurances and medicaid will cover it. Hopefully they will start reversing their choices not to cover soon.
Add: AAP's statement "New scientific evidence shows the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks of the procedure, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all newborn boys, according to an updated policy statement published by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). The revised policy, like the previous one from the AAP, says the decision whether or not to circumcise should be left to the parents in consultation with their child’s doctor." So definitely far outweigh, but also definitely do outweigh.Source(s): http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/21/science/la... http://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-r...
- Suzy QLv 77 years ago
The AAP's stance is supposed to be that the benefits of circumcision FAR outweigh the negatives?
Source please. I've not heard that particular claim before.
You seem very ignorant about the subject. Where I live (like in most of the civilized world I might add) the vast majority of men are uncircumcised. Do you know how many men and boys I know that "suffer infections and pain and humiliation by having a foreskin"? None. Having a foreskin is not a "terrible situation".
- LizBLv 77 years ago
The alleged "benefits" of circumcision come from studies done in 3rd world counties where access to clean water, routine medical care, and safe sex practices are not the norm. The findings of those studies have not been repeated in the industrialized world, and so should not be relied upon for parents who want to make an informed decision.
Furthermore, the majority of men in the world, including most industrialized counties other than the US, are NOT circumcised. Being left intact does not cause constant infections or pain or humiliation for these men, and why would it? The foreskin evolved for a reason -- a number of reasons, actually. Although there are some true medical reasons for why a boy or man might require a circumcision, they are quite rare.
I'm expecting a baby boy any day now, and we will not be circumcising him. I wouldn't unnecessarily alter a baby daughter's privates, so why would I do it to my son? I'm hoping us leaving him whole will also later in life help from avoid some of the problems his father has faced from his own circumcision as an infant, and if decides down the road to have it done anyway, then it will be HIS choice and not something we forced on him when he was too young to even have a say.
- Anonymous7 years ago
I suggest you actually READ the AAP's full statement before making such claims.
I agree with their stance that benefits are cultural rather than medical or hygienic. I agree that they've found no benefit which warrants recommending routine circumcision, that intact penises should not be forcibly retracted.
I dislike that the entire documented is worded in a sense to create a legal fiction rather than offer medical advise. I dislike the fact that the AAP's President openly brags about cutting his own son on his father's kitchen table in the Jewish custom, and I find it hard to believe their claim they don't know the sexual harm of circumcision. I know not one of the members who was voting actually has a foreskin, but any intact man and any woman who's been with an intact man as well as a circumcised man knows the harm. There is so much evidence it's been deemed "Empirical".
I dislike the fact they only paid attention to a mere 1500 studies mostly from Kenya and Uganda while ignoring data from other African countries as well as many other studies from those very same countries they claim studies show there are benefits of circumcision, USA, Canada, Europe, UK, Australia, Japan and the rest of Asia and India. In other words, the rest of the world. I dislike the fact they overlooked the fact that in Israel over 20% of urology appointments are for circumcision-related issues.
I dislike the fact that they downplayed and omitted the fact that cultural benefits only apply to believers who believe the act of circumcision is more important than an infant's life, and failed to mention the fact that circumcising infants is customary to Jews because of their belief that if an infant dies it's easier on the boy's father than if an older boy or man died because of circumcision. I dislike the fact that while discussing cultural and aesthetic benefits they omitted the fact that currently for infants intact is more common than cut, so it's not an issue, and if anything cutting a baby puts him in a minority among his peers.
I dislike the fact that they ignored the fact a lot of women prefer intact over cut, and many women think cut looks funny and naked. I dislike the fact that they barely mentioned any of the risks, and that they don't push for circumcision deaths being reported as such to be made mandatory.
- StevenLv 47 years ago
No, the AAP alone in world in support of Infant Circumcision. Circumcision should be a personal choice when the person is old enough to decide for themselves. I was circumcised as a infant and wish I wasn't. Just let it be your son's decision.
National Health Service (UK)
”Many people have strong views about whether circumcision should be carried out or not. It is not routinely performed in the UK because there is no clear clinical evidence to suggest that it is has any medical benefit.”
Dutch Medical Association
"The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organisations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children’s rights to autonomy and physical integrity. Contrary to popular belief, circumcision can cause complications – bleeding, infection, urethral stricture and panic attacks are particularly common. KNMG is therefore urging a strong policy of deterrence. KNMG is calling upon doctors to actively and insistently inform parents who are considering the procedure of the absence of medical benefits and the danger of complications." 2010
South African Medical Association
"from a medical point of view, there is no medical justification for routine circumcision in neonates and children." 2007
Royal Australasian College of Physicians
"After extensive review of the literature, the Paediatrics Child Health Division of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians has concluded that there is no medical reason for routine newborn male circumcision."
- 7 years ago
Your questions are so stupid. Circumcision is a barbaric practice. Less can go wrong with your body if you remove fingers too. How about legs? Less chance of cancer, infection, etc. See the problem? If it being a mutilation is not enough, then know that foreskin does have benefits. It preserves nerve endings on the penis, as well as protects it. That's what skin is for. It also makes masturbation much more pleasurable.
- ILoveChocolateLv 57 years ago
lol...people only hear what they want to hear. AAP does not recommend the procedure. They said that the benefits outweigh the risks but not enough to recommend it. Someone even quoted it and people like to cover their ears and go "lalalalalal I can't hear you...Circumcision is necessary and right". And the AAP is likely very alone in even that stance worldwide. No other medical body I know of even says that much good about it.