Tuesday, September 4, 2012

Pediatricians Decide Boys Are Better Off Circumcised Than Not

After hearing this NPR story, I realized I am not so torn, after all, on the debate on circumcision. It would seem that I am, indeed, an intactivist. I was absolutely outraged when I read this!

 

I do feel that people's whose religious beliefs dictate they must circumcise their sons should have access to circumcision. But, in doing my OWN research, I did not deem it medically necessary for our son. I think what the AAP has done here is terribly irresponsible. I don't know if they felt pressured to make this declaration to ensure insurance companies and Medicaid would cover the procedure in their polices or what.

I don't like to think that there is some evil plot afootbut I can't help but wonder how the United States is the only developed nation to come to this conclusion. The research is all the same so how is it being interpreted so differently in our country than in others? First of all, foreskin does not cause HIV and/or other STDs - unprotected sex with strangers does! And UTIs, seriously? Is God so stupid that He created genitalia that causes it's own infections? Or that we are the fittest (by Darwin's theory) and have survived DESPITE our ticking time-bomb penises? Come on! The plain and simple fact is that the human penis was designed to PROTECT itself from infections, diseases, etc. My religion tells me that we are created in God's image. Why do American doctors feel a need to cosmetically change that image as soon as a baby is born?

Moms and Dads everywhere are working tirelessly to make decisions on what is best for their child(ren). They trust the medical community to guide them on how to keep their child(ren) healthy and safe. By putting out this "research", the AAP does parents and their sons a gross disservice. Parents are not getting the accurate information they need to make an informed decision, and that is simply unfair. We parents need (and deserve) help, support, and the truth.

awesome float at a SF gay pride parade
  I don't like how angry this post is becoming. I do apologize. I guess my hope is that parents out there will do their OWN research, look beyond this AAP document, to get a full picture of the decision they are making for their sons.

Side note: I guess I also get really irritated because the US likes to pick and choose when we want to emulate other countries. As a teacher, I am always badgered about how schools in other countries are outperforming us. The news is always rattling on about how the business models of other countries surpasses our own. I am not disagreeing with these points. I am making the point that maybe it's time we follow suit on this issue, as well.

2 comments:

  1. I believe that baby boys (and girls) don't need to be circumcised... it's purely cosmetic surgery, we don't do it for girls (it's illegal), why would we do it for boys?
    (we almost put in our birth plan for our little girl that we didn't want her to be circumcised... but we ran out of room ;)

    Even if insurance didn't cover it, people would still pay for it to be done, as far as I know, Jewish families use a Mohel to perform the circumcision, and that generally isn't covered by insurance, it's not stopping Jewish people from performing circumcisions because they strongly believe in it... if you believe strongly enough in something, then you'll be willing to pay for it... I say AAP should not support circumcision (since it's a cosmetic procedure & painful & unnecessary &&&...) and let insurance not cover it, families will figure it out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good point about the Mohel! I guess it doesn't relaly make sense for insurance to cover it. It's amazing, too, since it seems Big Insurance finds any excuse it can NOT to cover medical procedures, but it doesn't fight this one?

      I love that you wanted to put no circumcision in your birth plan for your girl! That would have gotten some people talking!

      Delete