Rss
Email Us
Follow Us 
VideosRecent
Popular
Comments
-
Kimberly: wow this is not going to turn out good. Kim why did you do this
-
donnab: Shame on the company who hired her to model! I'm a parent with a daughter w
-
Spicoli: How many sacks did she have in her carrer? Get a job you lazy freeloader.
-
David Beatty: OK she's hurt, they lost but what does she know about catching a football?
-
Sara McAtee: Since when it is bad form to mock an obese person but okay to mock someone
CDC Proposing Circumcision to Reduce Rate of HIV
Boston (DbTechNo) – Officials with the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) are pondering the idea of making circumcision manditory for all newborn baby boys in America.
By doing this they say, the rate of new HIV cases would be drastically reduced.
Circumcision has been proven in previously performed studies to reduce the rate of HIV in Africa and US health officials have taken note of this fact.
In those studies, it was proven that men who have intercourse with women cut their risk of contracting HIV by half if they were circumcised.
According to critics of the proposed initiative, subjecting baby boys to an “unnecessary” medical procedure is not ethical because they can not consent to it.
Numbers from the CDC show that in 2006, more than 56000 new cases of HIV were reported.
Author: Staff
The idea that circumcision be mandatory would be a violation of the child’s human rights when they have no opportunity to object. As well, it is not necessary. This would also be a violation of medical ethics when the physcian is supposed to “do no harm”.
Mike Hollenbeck
Ontario, Oregon
This is an interesting suggestion, but I don’t think it goes far enough. What may improve the success rate is to have surgeons just cut off the entire penis. Then the rate of HIV infection would be close to zero.
I agree with the above comments. Mass circumcision would be an ethical disaster. Circumcision does not prevent HIV and the few studies which suggest lower risk are questionable and countered by other studies. Besides, this is permanently removing a healthy, functioning part of an infant’s body just to *possibly* lower risk of a disease later — and a disease which can be prevented by other means! How can that ever be considered ethical?
One can only imagine the outrage were the CDC to suggest circumcision of all baby girls …
I am circumcised and very unhappy about it. I would love to have retained my foreskin.
I think this is a sinful idea.
In the UK, and other countries such as Ireland, Italy, Germany and France , they do not circumcise at all for non-religious reasons.
Yet they have lower rates of STI’s than we do. They use condoms and sex education to prevent against STI’s.
Infant circumcision is a violation of the child’s rights. It would never be allowed with girls.
Circumcision should be a choice, not mandated. I am not sure I am getting this. What do you propose to do with the men that are already circumcised and have HIV? And if men and women would learn what condoms and abstinence are about, the numbers would dwindle dramatically as well.
Note: Article states “PROPOSED” no one is making anything mandatory.
I think the best way to stop a lot of new cases is to educate students not to have sex until they are married. Stop funding out of wedlock mothers and babies. Let the parents of both boy and girl that have a child out of wedlock pay all expenses that come with it instead of going to the government for financial assistance. I’ll guarantee that if the parents had to foot all the bills, you would see a huge decline in prenancy and then a decline in HIV.
But that’s my opinion.
Being a physician myself, I opted not to get my son circumcised. I did read articles on the UTI risks in circumcised vs uncircumcised boys, and decided that my son could live without the “c”. I admit, that I have not researced the HIV risk, but I do intend to instil the importance of safe sex in him when he is of age.
HIV risk would not increase if everyone practised safe sex.
Also, the risk of breast cancer would be negligible if mandatory mastectomies were performed; and cervical cancer would be non-existant with cervix removal and so on.
This is ridicuolous!!
If you think it is just skin, you don’t have it. 20,000 FINE TOUCH AND STRETCH nerve endings should NOT be amputated from baby boys without asking the owner. The CDC wants to take their main pleasure zones and expose them to staph infection. This is such crap.
There is a greater chance of the baby boy getting MRSA staph from this in a US hospital than the same kid getting HIV through his life. This is such a strange idea that one wonders why the US Meds have this obsession. We have higher HIV and very high Circ rate as compared to natural uncut EU and JP. Could it be cut male Drs and female MDs that are from cut tradition are trying to find a way to keep this barbaric practice going in the US? No other developed country is saying this! They think we are obsessed with choping off baby boy genitals.
The alleged risk change (not seen in non african studies) is from 3.2% risk to about 1.78 % risk. Oh and BTW, circumcision raises (makes transmission more likely) the HIV for women. It is not undetermined if circ has value for women, male circ raises a women’s risk. Look it up the same Africa studies found cut transfered HIV at a much higher rate. The individual does not get much from this. One needs to avoid risk and use a condom.
This is a fraud pushed by people that don’t have it or don’t know the main male pleasure zones are in the parts cut off by circumcision. One thing is certain, no person should have pleasure zones amputated without being asked. Stop doing this to babies.
The US isn’t a 3rd world country where we don’t have access to protection and healthcare. If heterosexual men were running around contracting HIV like they are in Africa, I could see the CDC’s interest in taking drastic measures to reduce the epedemic, however, that isn’t happening here. I circumcised my first son out of social pressure and would NEVER do it again unless it was medically necessary. The government has no place imposing mandatory decisions regarding the health and wellbeing of my unborn child’s genitalia.
The views above by the vocal extremist anti-circ minority, who have once again leaped to the defense of their failed cause, should be ignored. The CDC are the authority on disease prevention, not the former. The CDC are correct. Male circumcision (which has nothing in common with female genital mutilation) prevents infant, childhood and adult urinary tract infections, penile skin disorders, phimosis, paraphimosis, poor hygiene, especially with age, STIs such as HIV, HPV, HSV-2, penile cancer, sexual problems with age, and in the female sexual partners, HPV and thus cervical cancer, HSV-2, chlamydia (and thus infertility, pelvic inflammatory disease and ectopic pregnancies), bacterial vaginosis as well as other problems. Research also shows that women prefer the circumcised penis for sex, the reasons being better hygiene and appearance. Infancy is the best time for circumcision since it is cheaper, more convenient, lower risk, simple, quick, can be completely pain-free (by the Russell method that invovled 2 h EMLA prior and a Plastibell), gives the best cosmetic outcome (no stitches are needed) and most importantly, provides a lifetime of benefits.
In response to the gentleman above who wants his foreskin back- what in the name of god for? Nobody actually wants to suck a guy sporting a flap- the Q-tips and peroxide would be such a nasty hassle! Do you also mourn the loss of your placenta as well? Dude, a foreskin serves no purpose, circumscision helps you be a better lover (longer endurance) and flaps really look revolting- do you want your partner to gag when he/she first sees you naked, or is that just another saturday night in your life?
Um. What’s with the meat cleaver clip art? My son wasn’t circumcised and I guess if they do it with a meat cleaver, I’m awfully glad.
Sex education might be more effective than circumcision if we’re talking about decreasing the incidence of HIV or any other std. They can get it foreskin or not if they don’t protect themselves every. single. time. no. exceptions.
I disagree with this “proposed” procedure on someone who has no say in the matter. Happened to me – at 5 years old to “correct a condition” – one that persists today. Went in for a tonsillectomy and came out with both ends hurting. I must admit I really don’t miss it but it was at the time an unwelcome surprise. I believe better results will come from teaching abstinence, safe sex, responsibility and telling kids how valuable their lives are. Stop government funding of out-of-wedlock births, make parents pay for the decisions of their underage children. Let’s stop enabling what we all know is unsafe and improper behaviour.
I don’t believe that circumcision could prevent and reduce HIV rates. I would suggest them to improve their behaviour change strategies which will have a better impact on populations.
In the three famous (non-double-blinded, non-placebo controlled) Random Controlled Trials, they circumcised a total of 5,411 men and left a similar number intact, and after less than two years, 73 of the circumcised men didn’t have HIV who might have caught it. (64 circumcised men were infected. That’s the sum total of the “up to 60% reduction”.) They don’t tell you that 327 circumcised men dropped out, their HIV status unknown, so the truth could be anything.
This has not been tested in field conditions – which would probably not include the intensive counselling these men got. (And rather tellingly, a CDC spokeswoman said yesterday it would be unethical to hold the trials in the US!) There are many stories of men thinking because they are circumcised, they no longer need to use condoms. This is a recipe for disaster.
A trial in Uganda of male-female transmission was stopped early because it showed no protective effect. If it had continued, it might have found that circumcision itself increases the rate. (18% of the circumcised men’s partners were infected, 12% of the intact men’s partners.)
With most HIV infection in the US from male-male sex, shared drug needles, and male-female transmission, to say “the rate of new HIV cases would be drastically reduced” is just nonsense.
The crazy thing about this report is the idea that circumcision should be mandatory. That idea is as wrong as spelling it “manditory”. Whoever wrote that should go back to journalism school and learn two things: first, how to spell, and secondly, that people have rights.
Circumcised or not will not make any difference in South Africa. The fact is that most Africans are circumcised and the HIV rate among African men is the highest.
It is estimated that one of the Townships (Xhosas) in the City where I live 95% of the people are HIV positive and Circumcision is compulsory in the culture of the Xhosa people (as well as in most of the other tribes in South Africa).
What worries me the most is an article in a News Paper, about a boy of 16 who went for a circumcision. He stated to the Reporter that he went to be circumcised “because he will not get sick”. The whole aspect about circumcision is scaring. If the message is understood that HIV cannot be contracted if you are circumcised the HIV rate in South Africa will increase considerably in the next few years.
I agree with William: “I think the best way to stop a lot of new cases is to educate students not to have sex until they are married.” My question is: Is this not only a moneymaking business? I was circumcised as a baby due to medical reasons but I would have preferred to not circumcise.
Stop and think about this for a minute. Circumcision is something that’s already quite common here in the states, at about 80 of males already circumcised, yet we have a higher HIV rate than countries in Europe where they don’t. Keep thinking. There are already studies that say that FGM reduces the risk of HIV. But we would NEVER allow the CDC to even consider this as any kind of tool against HIV. Furthermore. Newborns aren’t having sex. The decision should be HIS to decide when he is a mature adult. HIS body, HIS choice.
The CDC is basing its consideration on completely flawed “studies.” Circumcised men were told to abstain from sex for 6 weeks following their operation and were instructed in the use of condoms. Look at the study abstract for more details. Furthermore, the “studies” were ended early, while the numbers were “solid.” Not to mention information from other countries where circumcised men with HIV far outnumbered intact men with HIV were deliberately omitted. One needs to question the validity of “studies” that seek to find a problem for a solution, and not a solution to a problem.
A word of caution to readers, Brian J Morris is a self-proclaimed circumcision evangelist. It is HE who is the “extremist minority” woh has “leaped out” in the defense of the failed cause of circumcision and should be ignored. If the CDC goes through with this, they should be forever regarded as a circle of quacks who don’t know what they’re talknig about. No health organization should EVER recommend the forced mutilation and violation of the human rights of infants. No, circumcision does NOT prevent UTI; studies in Israel show this. Not to mention it doesn’t make sense to mutilate a child’s body to prevent a rare and perfectly cureable disease. Circumcision “prevents” “poor hygiene” Mr. Morris? The mere act of having a foreskin prevents me the knowledge of using soap and water? Really? Let it be known that the American Cancer Society, of all authorities, has laid the circumcision/cancer myth to rest. However it is not surprising that Morris is plugging this age-old lie. Mr. Morris needs to be reminded that there are now vaccines against HPV. The circumcision argument is moot. What “women prefer” is irrelevant. A long time ago, men in China “prefered” bound feet. This is the most disgusting argument in the world. The choice should be made by concenting ADULTS. Forcing it on infants not only violates their individual human rights, it is GENITAL MUTILATION, plain and simple. It is NEVER “simple,” “quick” or “completely pain free,” and the risks include an amputated glans, infection with MRSA, and even DEATH. Morris lies with deliberate misinformation and obstruction of knowledge, and should not be given the time of day. You have been warned.
In response to Lynn Morgan:
“Nobody actually wants to suck a guy sporting a flap.” Who’s “nobody?” I suppose women in Europe, China and Japan all dread having to go down on their partners? Get educated. The foreskin isn’t just a “flap,” anymore than the labia are just “flaps.” They are normal, healthy pieces of tissue. “…the Q-tips and peroxide would be such a nasty hassle!” Tell me Lynn, is it that much of a hassle to clean the smegma out of your vulva? Or are you actually going to argue with me that the female vulva never smells or develops smegma? If women can take a bath, then so can men. “Do you also mourn the loss of your placenta as well?” So the foreskin is now like a placenta? Comparing the foreskin to the umbilical cord and placenta, which left to their own devices FALL OFF AND SHRIVEL UP, is comparing apples to oranges. “Dude, a foreskin serves no purpose…” Really? What if I thought the labia served no purpose? Should it be OK for me to demand my doctor remove those from my wife and daughter? “Circumscision helps you be a better lover (longer endurance)” actually, I know women who tell me it’s hard to have sex with their partners because they wonder when they’ll finish. Invariably their partners turn out to be circumcised. “…and flaps really look revolting- do you want your partner to gag when he/she first sees you naked, or is that just another saturday night in your life?” Again, what a sick and disgunting alibi to impose mutilation on healthy newborns. In China, unbound feet were considered “revolting” and men would “gag” at the sight of them. But that wasn’t enough of a reason to continue the practice. I bet you’re one of those people who call defenders of human rights “foreskin fetishists.” That was your next post, wasn’t it. Well what do you think of women against FGM? Might they have some sort of “labia fetish?” Circumcision to please hypothetical women that might be disgusted at the foreskin is the most abhorent alibi for circumcision ever. It is sad that this passes for “medical reason” to mutilate an infant newborn.
The only way the CDC could make circumcision manditory is if they recommend to congress that they pass a law making it manditory. The CDC is not considering to make it manditory though, and I don’t think they are considering to recommend it either. I believe that they are just considering what should be their policy statements regarding circumcision.
The real issue is the dwindling supply of neonatal foreskin tissue available to the medical industry. One small vial of neonatal keratinocytes goes for $300. Neonatal foreskin tissue is processed into cosmetics, skin graft material and various assorted products. As circ rates drop, the medical industry needs to find a new boogeyman to scare parents into mutilating their children. The African AIDS studies this is based on are flawed to the point of laughability. Say NO to these greedy fools! Enough is enough! We have to protect our children from this abuse!
If the CDC does recommend that baby boys be circumcised, they would be the only national medical organization in the world to recommend that baby boys be circumcised. I can’t believe that the CDC really would put themselves in the position of being the only national medical organization in the world to recommend it.
In much if not most of Europe it is practically illegal to circumcise baby boys, with an exception for Muslims and Jews to do religious circumcisions. In Canada the main medical organizations recommend against circumcising baby boys. So in my opinion if anything the CDC should be recommending against circumcising baby boys.
Circumcised males are missing about 15 square inches of skin and many thousands of high pleasure giving erogenous nerve endings. In my opinion it is not right to make that huge of an alteration to any non-consenting human beings.
I think this social experiment has gone on for more than long enough, and it’s been proven to fail at that and cause psychological harms on the side. Just let it die already. Circumcision doesn’t prevent a thing and can in fact cause problems. It’s just another of those antiquated slow-to-die practices that aren’t ethical but is relied upon as a source of income for those few overly greedy physicians whose living is practically based off of it.
(Don’t believe me? Go ahead and research it for yourself; there are some out there focusing SOLELY on infantile circumcising and literally nothing else! One has to wonder exactly what kind of mindset it takes in order for a person to make that their entire lifes work.)
It is a misconception that men do not complain about being circumcised; some even go so far as to endure a multi year-long process (compare that to the 5 minute procedure it takes to mess all that nature/god designed which took months up…) that involves tissue expansion in order to regain a semblance of what this twisted and cruel system took from them.
I was circumcised as an infant, and I do not like it. When I first discovered years later exactly what was done to me, I was thrust into severe depression at the realization that something entirely unnecessary and permanent was performed on me. I felt (and still do) inferior and envious of those that have all their parts. When will people wake up to the harms this CAN do?! I’m barely the only one to feel this way. There are MANY more sharing the same feelings.
If you want to prevent disease, you behave safely. I don’t engage in risky behaviors, and I wash myself thoroughly all over, including that area. I do not consider it a hassle. So just where is circumcisions supposed “benefit” to one with habits such as myself? Nowhere. All it did was screw up an aspect of my life.
Do NOT rely on the novelty and placebo of a surgery to prevent transmission. A circumcised penis is STILL flesh and as such innately vulnerable to infections of all kinds. The bottom line is to be safe, and that forcing this on non-consenting newborns is plain unethical and a double standard when girls are protected.
Professor Brian J. Morris is a radical circumcision proponent who would love to take the choice from parents and men. He maintains a website filled with misrepresentations, myths and out right lies as evidenced here. For instance, he says male circumcision prevents HPV infections but with 80% of adult American males circumcised, there is also an estimated 70% HPV infection rate. Little good circumcision has done to eliminate HPV infections. Morris also totally disregards the HPV vaccine that will actually eliminate the disease from the population in favor of a failed program of male circumcision.
This is the tactic of male circumcision proponents. The issue has been clouded by outrageous claims from the very begining in America in the 1970′s and they continue to this day. If male circumcision were even slightly effective in preventing HIV/AIDS, there would be no HIV/AIDS problem in America today. We would see similar results as observed from the polio vaccine. Instead, America has the highest HIV infection rate of the developed nations. Even within the country, the segment of the population with the highest circumcision rate, African Americans also have the highest HIV infection rate. African American males represent 48% of infected males and African American females represent 80% of all infected females. In actual practice, male circumcision has been a miserable failure in protecting Americans. More American males will die of the circumcision procedure than will be protected from HIV. Three separate studies over a 20 year time span show an average of 230 babies die as a result of their circumcision. Since the first study, more babies have died than all that died as a result of 9/11.
Morris takes his advocacy to the point of sexual perversion.
.
BABIES DO NOT HAVE SEX OR DO IV DRUGS!!! They are the lowest risk group for HIV, and studies have shown that circumcising in infancy does NOT reduce STD risk in adulthood. I have seen reports that the CDC is considering recommending circumcision, but this is the first I’ve seen claiming they want to mandate it. Forcing parents to subject their child to a risky, unnecessary procedure that will permanently disfigure their child is completely immoral and unethical. Many parents hold their child’s right to genital integrity to be very important, and some unconstitutional legal requirement to violate that right would not be tolerated.
I was circumcised as an infant , there were no complications (urologists have confirmed that mine was pretty standard), but it caused me long term sexual relationship problems. Thanks mom and dad for ruining my sex life. Needless to say it ruined our relationship as well. Is that a risk worth taking instead of teaching your son safe sex?
Australia just released a new policy statement on circumcision. In their new policy statement they state that circumcision is not justified medically, even in light of recent HIV findings from Africa. In my opinion the CDC should be saying the same thing as Australia.
Prof. Brian Morris appeals to the authority of the CDC, but closer to his home, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians has just issued new circumcision guidelines that say : -
“the RACP does not recommend that routine circumcision in infancy be performed, but accepts that parents should be able to make this decision with their doctors. One reasonable option is for routine circumcision to be delayed until males are old enough to make an informed choice.”
That sounds just like what the CDC is saying when it says circumcision should be “completely voluntary”.
As the RACP says ” … ethical concerns have focused on recognition of the functional role of the foreskin, the non-therapeutic nature of the operation, and the psychological distress felt by some adult males circumcised as infants. The possibility that routine circumcision contravenes human rights has been raised because circumcision is performed on a minor for non-clinical reasons, and is potentially without net clinical benefit for the child.”
Prof. Morris gives a long list of diseases, but doesn’t mention their rarity. Penile cancer is so rare it’s hard to get good statistics, but it’s rarer than male breast cancer, and men need their breasts less than their foreskins. It would take hundreds of circumcisions to prevent one case. Most of the other diseases he tries to frighten you with are readily treatable by other means.
Nobody should be deciding on circumcision who hasn’t see one. Videos (from Stanford University, by two different methods) are here: http://newborns.stanford.edu/Gomco.html and here http://newborns.stanford.edu/Mogen.html
Prof Morris specifies another method, the Plastibell. Here are some outcomes of circumcisions by this method. http://www.circumstitions.com/Botched4.html#bell [Not for the squeamish] Sure, they’re rare, but also unnecessary.