Politicians in San Francisco are attempting to get between your doctor and your baby. They want to outlaw a medical procedure that pediatricians call beneficial.
The nation’s most influential pediatricians group says the health benefits of circumcision in newborn boys outweigh any risks and insurance companies should pay for it.
In its latest policy statement on circumcision, a procedure that has been declining nationwide, the American Academy of Pediatrics moves closer to an endorsement but says the decision should be up to parents.
“It’s not a verdict from on high,” said policy co-author Dr. Andrew Freedman. “There’s not a one-size-fits-all-answer.” But from a medical standpoint, circumcision’s benefits in reducing risk of disease outweigh its small risks, said Freedman, a pediatric urologist in Los Angeles.
Recent research bolstering evidence that circumcision reduces chances of infection with HIV and other sexually spread diseases, urinary tract infections and penis cancer influenced the academy to update their 13-year-old policy.
Wait. I thought politicians deciding on which medical procedures can be done and which couldn’t was a bad thing? Did I miss a memo?
Isn’t this just going to create a situation where mothers seek back alley circumcisions?
The big argument from these liberal types is that circumcision amounts to “genital mutilation.” Ironically, many of these same people support the mutilation of the rest of the child in utero.
August 28, 2012 at 3:59 am
Pattymelt: It is actually unecessary to pull back the forskin in order to clean the penis. It is a self-cleaning organ on the inside. On the outside you just wipe it clean (no pulling needed). Just like a vagina, clean the outside and you are good!
August 28, 2012 at 4:07 am
Ear piercing does not remove or harm an actual organ. I also would not pierce an infant, since they cannot request it themselves.
http://www.drmomma.org/ the foreskin serves a real purpose, and conventional circumcision removes much more of it than used to be removed.
As for washing, I meant to add, if he wishes. Someone may decide to retract and wipe later in life, but it is not necessary. http://www.drmomma.org/2009/09/functions-of-foreskin-purposes-of.html
And lastly, even if the verses that I mentioned reference Mosaic law,
Do they not still say that we aren't required to follow these traditions? Can you prove to me exactly how this isn't mutilation? And furthermore, why we should subject our newborn sons to this practice?
August 28, 2012 at 12:21 pm
So, we're supposed to take the recommendations of the very people who would financially benefit from an increase in this unnecessary surgery? Huh. That sounds familiar. (Notice how the AAP's statement is lacking in real scientific references.)
Sorry, Matt…I agree that you're making blanket statements and you're off on this one. There's a whole ton of Catholic and medical support for disagreeing with routine unnecessary circumcision.
Cutting off a part of the body routinely in order to prevent a possible (and not that serious) negative makes about as much sense as routine tonsillectomies. I'm sure you could find a group of ENT surgeons who would endorse that, too.