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 27, 2012 at 4:50 pm
Aside from the question of legality, it is a good thing to address the nature of the issue of circumcision itself. May I suggest reading an alternate view on the subject at Catholics Against Circumcision? There really is a moral question involved here: http://www.catholicsagainstcircumcision.org/
Isn't it bizarre…we give birth to a boy, and say: "Welcome to the world, let's do a completely unnecessary medical procedure to cut skin off of the most sensitive part of your body." Kind of strange thing we Americans do. At least now they use anesthetic. The question of "mutilation" can actually be addressed from a theological point of view–and it is opposed by the Church.
August 27, 2012 at 5:09 pm
Keep your laws off my (son's) body! Circumcision is not a decision made lightly, and we need to make sure it's safe, legal, and rare.
It's a war on babies!
August 27, 2012 at 5:31 pm
And another thing, circumcision was routine, back in the 50s and 60s, but in more recent history, I seem to recall that doctors had recanted their position on the "benefits" and that it had ceased to be a routine practice. Now we are to believe that it is needful?
This is, as in so many cases, not a decision for the state to render.
August 27, 2012 at 6:02 pm
It's a matter of connoisseurs trying to preserve the sort of penis they look forward to seeing more of in future years.
August 27, 2012 at 7:19 pm
Joe W. said: "The question of "mutilation" can actually be addressed from a theological point of view–and it is opposed by the Church." Mutilation is always opposed by the Church. We were talking about circumcision. Do we have to accept your definition or can we think it through for ourselves? Using the Church to support your ideas is rather unscrupulous.
August 27, 2012 at 7:26 pm
Circumcision is practiced for cleanliness. Religiously, circumcision of the male member signifies circumcision of the heart, purity of heart.
August 27, 2012 at 7:47 pm
"The question of 'mutilation' can actually be addressed from a theological point of view…." I should have said IF indeed circumcision is mutilation, then it is opposed by the Church. Until Victorian Protestants got involved, it was assumed that no Catholics needed to be circumcised. In fact, Pius XII specifically mentioned that it was not IMmoral to be circumcised in cases of medical necessity…the presumption being that unnecessary removal of parts of the body was indeed mutilation.
The question of the necessity for circumcision in relation to the heart/religious grounds was settled long ago…in the time of the apostles. And the cleanliness argument is a complete fallacy. Our armpits would be cleaner if we cut off our arms, but that is not a reason to remove them. We know how to use soap and water!
If an adult wants to be circumcised, indeed he has the right…if there is medical need, then it is indicated. But doing surgery/amputation on a newborn who cannot consent as a matter of thoughtless action because "we always do it"… or "it's cleaner" is not right…a routine, unnecessary surgical procedure requires more serious consideration.
Here's a quote from "The Question Box," October, 2004, by Father John J. Dietzen
"Today, while nontherapeutic male circumcision remains common in some places, as a general practice it is forbidden in Catholic teaching for more basic reasons of respect for bodily integrity.The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against moral law" (N. 2297)."
August 27, 2012 at 8:22 pm
Can partial-birth circumcisions be far off?
August 27, 2012 at 9:00 pm
Circumcision, as far as I'm concerned, is just a religious ritual. Unless the foreskin is diseased or infected to the point that life is endangered, there's no need to cut it off. If Jews or Muslims wish to practise this old blood rite, the US constitution gives them that right. Just be sanitary, no female mulations please, and don't bother us Christians with bogus health claims. After all, Adam was created with a foreskin and he was never circumcized.
August 27, 2012 at 10:03 pm
Watch the blanket statements, Buck. I'm devoutly Catholic, but also strongly anti-circumcision. My views are supported by the Bible and the catechism, so this is not some willy-nilly decision. Not to mention that there are those claiming that the AP decision has mostly been made due to the loss of money from the decline in circumcisions in the US. There are many parents realizing that it is not such a benign procedure.
August 27, 2012 at 10:34 pm
Luke 2.21 And at the end of eight days, when he was circumcised, he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
August 27, 2012 at 11:25 pm
Mary W, Jesus also keep kosher while he lived on earth. So, do we have to buy Hebrew National while we're here too?
August 27, 2012 at 11:26 pm
Mary: 1 Cor 7
18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.
19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
August 27, 2012 at 11:49 pm
Having both circumcised and uncircumcised grandsons, and having changed many a poopy diaper, it is the circumcised that I am most sure of getting all the poop cleaned off. I was told not in the hospital by the nurse not to pull the foreskin back when cleaning the penis, but never told when it would be okay to do so. I wonder at what age and if the parents will actually teach their sons to clean themselves.
August 27, 2012 at 11:50 pm
That sentence should read that "I was told in the hospital by the nurse not to pull the foreskin back when cleaning…..
August 28, 2012 at 12:04 am
The Church is neutral on the subject and leaves it up to the parents' discretion. Is there anyone here who remembers Jan. 1st Holy Day of Obligation used to be called The Feast of the Circumcision?
Church does not consider it mutilation.
August 28, 2012 at 12:16 am
The Church does not oppose circumcision in those African tribes where it is customary as a rite of passage.
Well it's customary in America. That's the end of the story, right there.
August 28, 2012 at 12:21 am
Joe W. what is your point?
August 28, 2012 at 2:19 am
For a nation that insists on being so forward-thinking, isn't it a little backwards to claim that infant circumcision is cultural, and we should leave it at that. The supposed 'benefits' don't outweigh the risks. Should we circumcise girls to for cleanliness and fewer uti's? Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?
This is flat out mutilation. And, you will find many more references in the new testament that lean against it, or considerable it unnecessary than prescribe it. If it isn't necessary for salvation, then for what possible reason would you suggest it? Aesthetics? Seems invalid to me.
As for cleanliness mentioned above, there is much miseducation. It is a self-cleaning organ, much like female organs. You would no sooner teach a girl to douche than need to teach a boy to clean. Once they are old enough to shower, they are old enough to wash it, no different than a finger.
August 28, 2012 at 2:42 am
How do you feel about ear-piercing, Me:)?
As for the New Testament: that's cute.
The discussion of circumcision in, e.g., Paul's epistles, is not actually about the physical act of circumcision at all. Rather, it's purely in the context of whether Jewish Law is incumbent on Christians—"circumcision" being used, as it had been in Jewish discourse since at least the time of Antiochus the Helenizer, as shorthand for "conformity with Mosaic law".
Finally, if it's a self-cleaning organ, then why do they need to clean it in the shower?