And Now For Something Completely Different ....
And Now For Something Completely Different ....
Since we're skipping the serious, let's go with the American Medical Association:
To the one, the AMA "says the decision for neonatal circumcision should be determined by parents in circumstances in which the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being". But they also demand the parents be informed according to "accurate and unbiased information".
Meanwhile, the American Academy of Pediatrics is currently re-evaluating its stance on infant male circumcision. Since 1999, the AAP's outlook has been "that there is insufficient data to recommend routine neonatal circumcision". The position was reaffirmed seven years ago, but the AAP is revisiting the issue with the expectation of issuing a position statement by the end of the year.
Dr. Douglas Diekema, of the University of Washington, is a member of the AAP's Task Force on Circumcision. In late 2011, he explained of infant male circumcision, "There are some very real preventive benefits. The data is pretty clear about that." He acknowledged that the procedure comes with risks, "but most are minor". Additionally, he said "there was no question" that the Academy needed to update its position. He also serves as the director of education for Seattle Children's Hospital Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics.
In March, Diekema said the Task Force had reported to the Academy board of trustees, and suggested they would act before the year is out.
We'll have to see what comes. It is believed that the AAP's standing position is likely one of the factors driving a dramatic decline in infant circumcision, from 62.7% in 1999 to 54.5% a decade later.
____________________
Notes:
Moyer, Christine S. "Male circumcision ban defeated; health benefits lauded". AMedNews. October 18, 2011. AMA-Assn.org. July 10, 2012. http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2011/10/17/prsd1018.htm
O'Reilly, Kevin B. "Male newborn circumcision rate falls to lowest level". AMedNews. March 2, 2012. AMA-Assn.org. July 10, 2012. http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2012/02/27/prse0302.htm
And Now For Something Completely Different ....
Since we're skipping the serious, let's go with the American Medical Association:
The latest controversy occurred in San Francisco. Circumcision opponents collected more than 10,000 signatures to bring a proposal before voters to ban circumcising men younger than 18 unless medically necessary.
County of San Francisco Superior Court of California Judge Loretta M. Giorgi on July 27 struck the measure from the ballot. On Oct. 2, Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation that prevents local authorities from prohibiting or restricting male circumcision.
The same week, an editorial by Johns Hopkins University researchers published in the Oct. 5 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association highlighted the medical benefits of circumcision (jama.ama-assn.org/content/306/13/1479.extract).
The authors cited previous research that shows circumcised men are up to 60% less likely to contract HIV from a female partner than adult males who have not had the procedure.
The editorial said studies found that male circumcision also lowers men's risk of acquiring genital herpes by more than 30% and reduces their chances of contracting high-risk human papillomavirus by up to 35%. Infant males who are circumcised are less likely to get urinary tract infections than those who do not have the procedure, the editorial said.
Any ban on neonatal circumcision would deny religious freedoms to Jews and Muslims, who consider it a ritual obligation, the editorial stated.
Circumcision opponents question the validity of some of the studies cited in the editorial because they were halted early. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said the studies ended after an analysis found a significant reduction in male participants' risk for HIV infection from circumcision.
(Moyer)
County of San Francisco Superior Court of California Judge Loretta M. Giorgi on July 27 struck the measure from the ballot. On Oct. 2, Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation that prevents local authorities from prohibiting or restricting male circumcision.
The same week, an editorial by Johns Hopkins University researchers published in the Oct. 5 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association highlighted the medical benefits of circumcision (jama.ama-assn.org/content/306/13/1479.extract).
The authors cited previous research that shows circumcised men are up to 60% less likely to contract HIV from a female partner than adult males who have not had the procedure.
The editorial said studies found that male circumcision also lowers men's risk of acquiring genital herpes by more than 30% and reduces their chances of contracting high-risk human papillomavirus by up to 35%. Infant males who are circumcised are less likely to get urinary tract infections than those who do not have the procedure, the editorial said.
Any ban on neonatal circumcision would deny religious freedoms to Jews and Muslims, who consider it a ritual obligation, the editorial stated.
Circumcision opponents question the validity of some of the studies cited in the editorial because they were halted early. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said the studies ended after an analysis found a significant reduction in male participants' risk for HIV infection from circumcision.
(Moyer)
To the one, the AMA "says the decision for neonatal circumcision should be determined by parents in circumstances in which the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being". But they also demand the parents be informed according to "accurate and unbiased information".
Meanwhile, the American Academy of Pediatrics is currently re-evaluating its stance on infant male circumcision. Since 1999, the AAP's outlook has been "that there is insufficient data to recommend routine neonatal circumcision". The position was reaffirmed seven years ago, but the AAP is revisiting the issue with the expectation of issuing a position statement by the end of the year.
Dr. Douglas Diekema, of the University of Washington, is a member of the AAP's Task Force on Circumcision. In late 2011, he explained of infant male circumcision, "There are some very real preventive benefits. The data is pretty clear about that." He acknowledged that the procedure comes with risks, "but most are minor". Additionally, he said "there was no question" that the Academy needed to update its position. He also serves as the director of education for Seattle Children's Hospital Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics.
In March, Diekema said the Task Force had reported to the Academy board of trustees, and suggested they would act before the year is out.
He could not divulge specifics on the task force's work because it is under embargo while the board considers it.
However, Dr. Diekema said the policy on routine circumcision will probably shift away from strict neutrality because of new data about the procedure's health benefits.
(O'Reilly)
However, Dr. Diekema said the policy on routine circumcision will probably shift away from strict neutrality because of new data about the procedure's health benefits.
(O'Reilly)
We'll have to see what comes. It is believed that the AAP's standing position is likely one of the factors driving a dramatic decline in infant circumcision, from 62.7% in 1999 to 54.5% a decade later.
____________________
Notes:
Moyer, Christine S. "Male circumcision ban defeated; health benefits lauded". AMedNews. October 18, 2011. AMA-Assn.org. July 10, 2012. http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2011/10/17/prsd1018.htm
O'Reilly, Kevin B. "Male newborn circumcision rate falls to lowest level". AMedNews. March 2, 2012. AMA-Assn.org. July 10, 2012. http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2012/02/27/prse0302.htm