U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-03-2011, 11:56 AM
 
Location: somewhere
4,264 posts, read 7,930,262 times
Reputation: 3129

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnotherTouchOfWhimsy View Post
Appendixes and tonsils are not routinely removed. They're only removed when they are causing a problem.

You are correct. I stand corrected.

 
Old 02-03-2011, 12:04 PM
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
3,388 posts, read 3,226,271 times
Reputation: 2387
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADVentive View Post
^Ditto that. I don't see any reason to prophylactically remove a functioning body part if it isn't causing a problem. If it starts causing a problem, deal with it then. I still have my wisdom teeth, my tonsils, and my appendix.

I don't know if it's true that more educated people circ less, though that rings true to me because I think that of people who do the research, more of them choose not to. But I do know that many lower income people are not circ'ing as much because in many states Medicaid no longer pays for it, and many insurance companies are not paying for it anymore either, because it is deemed a cosmetic procedure. Therefore, if you want it, more and more, you have to pay for it out-of-pocket.
As I mentioned earlier, I am actually interested to see if there are stats on this - I have never seen any. Anecdotally, my social group (certainly not representative) is comprised mainly of folks with MDs, PhDs, and MAs and we're at about a 50-50% split for circumcising our sons.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

IMO, since the AAP stance is there is not enough evidence to routinely recommend circumcision (not that there is evidence to discourage it per se) at this time, the advice several posters gave about researching thoroughly and making an informed decision for your own family seems to be the way to go. If the evidence over time points to the AAP coming out against circumcision, that will be another story, but we're not there yet.
 
Old 02-03-2011, 12:32 PM
 
Location: somewhere
4,264 posts, read 7,930,262 times
Reputation: 3129
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastwesteastagain View Post
As I mentioned earlier, I am actually interested to see if there are stats on this - I have never seen any. Anecdotally, my social group (certainly not representative) is comprised mainly of folks with MDs, PhDs, and MAs and we're at about a 50-50% split for circumcising our sons.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

IMO, since the AAP stance is there is not enough evidence to routinely recommend circumcision (not that there is evidence to discourage it per se) at this time, the advice several posters gave about researching thoroughly and making an informed decision for your own family seems to be the way to go. If the evidence over time points to the AAP coming out against circumcision, that will be another story, but we're not there yet.
I agree with you, we researched and discussed it in regards to our decision and made what we felt like was the best choice for our boys. I don't regret our decision and do not feel like my boys suffered any worse from the circumcisions than they did when they got their immunizations.
 
Old 02-04-2011, 08:27 AM
 
1 posts, read 993 times
Reputation: 13
Most docs don't circumcise their sons and they will tell you it is NOT necessary. It's an option, that's all. According to the CDC, the current infant circumcision rate is 32% and still dropping. It is quickly going out of favor. It's really just a 100-year-old American fad. Think of it as your parent's body mod!

Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 02-04-2011 at 08:33 AM.. Reason: No links for new members, please
 
Old 02-04-2011, 09:40 AM
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
3,388 posts, read 3,226,271 times
Reputation: 2387
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Bollinger View Post
Most docs don't circumcise their sons and they will tell you it is NOT necessary. It's an option, that's all. According to the CDC, the current infant circumcision rate is 32% and still dropping. It is quickly going out of favor. It's really just a 100-year-old American fad. Think of it as your parent's body mod!
I thought this article was interesting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/he...ch/17circ.html

It addresses the current stance of the CDC and AAP (noted quite a few times on the thread), as well as their commissions that will make reports in the near future on circumcision (whether their recs will remain the same or change). IMO, more info is never a bad thing.

Interestingly, the article also quotes the CDC as saying the 32% rate doesn't include circumcisions performed outside of clinic settings (i.e., religious ceremonies) or those not covered by insurance. Additionally, the prevalence rate of circumcision was not the primary goal of the study; the rate of complications was. I believe that the data supports that the rate of circumcision has declined in the past decade or two, but perhaps not to as low a level as 32%.

I am still curious if anyone has a source for level of parental education and/or MDs frequency of circumcising their own sons? I've done a few cursory lit searches and haven't found anything, but maybe someone in the field knows?? Appreciative of any sources you may be able to share.
 
Old 02-04-2011, 11:29 AM
 
Location: somewhere
4,264 posts, read 7,930,262 times
Reputation: 3129
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastwesteastagain View Post
I thought this article was interesting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/he...ch/17circ.html

It addresses the current stance of the CDC and AAP (noted quite a few times on the thread), as well as their commissions that will make reports in the near future on circumcision (whether their recs will remain the same or change). IMO, more info is never a bad thing.

Interestingly, the article also quotes the CDC as saying the 32% rate doesn't include circumcisions performed outside of clinic settings (i.e., religious ceremonies) or those not covered by insurance. Additionally, the prevalence rate of circumcision was not the primary goal of the study; the rate of complications was. I believe that the data supports that the rate of circumcision has declined in the past decade or two, but perhaps not to as low a level as 32%.

I am still curious if anyone has a source for level of parental education and/or MDs frequency of circumcising their own sons? I've done a few cursory lit searches and haven't found anything, but maybe someone in the field knows?? Appreciative of any sources you may be able to share.
So would you think that parents that are less educated are more likely to circumcise their boys or would parents with higher education be the ones asking for the circumcisions?
 
Old 02-04-2011, 11:47 AM
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
3,388 posts, read 3,226,271 times
Reputation: 2387
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajzjmsmom View Post
So would you think that parents that are less educated are more likely to circumcise their boys or would parents with higher education be the ones asking for the circumcisions?
I don't think there is a relationship that has been documented, which makes me think that either researchers haven't found it to be an important enough variable to study or haven't found it to be a predictive variable. IMO, I know plenty of well-educated people who do and do not choose circumcision and I know plenty of less-educated people who do and do not choose circumcision. I fall in the "make an informed choice that fits your family" camp.

Several posters have expressed the opinion that better educated parents choose not to circumcise or implied as much (i.e., saying most doctors choose not to circumcise their own children). I am just curious where this knowledge is coming from, as I have been unable to find studies/stats supporting or denying. No one has answered me so far, so I'm guessing either no one knows or the opinions are just that.
 
Old 02-04-2011, 03:09 PM
 
Location: THE USA
3,254 posts, read 5,259,104 times
Reputation: 1982
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastwesteastagain View Post
I thought this article was interesting.
It addresses the current stance of the CDC and AAP (noted quite a few times on the thread), as well as their commissions that will make reports in the near future on circumcision (whether their recs will remain the same or change). IMO, more info is never a bad thing.

Interestingly, the article also quotes the CDC as saying the 32% rate doesn't include circumcisions performed outside of clinic settings (i.e., religious ceremonies) or those not covered by insurance. Additionally, the prevalence rate of circumcision was not the primary goal of the study; the rate of complications was. I believe that the data supports that the rate of circumcision has declined in the past decade or two, but perhaps not to as low a level as 32%.

I am still curious if anyone has a source for level of parental education and/or MDs frequency of circumcising their own sons? I've done a few cursory lit searches and haven't found anything, but maybe someone in the field knows?? Appreciative of any sources you may be able to share.

The things that jumped out at me from that article are as follows:

Despite a worldwide campaign for circumcision to slow the spread of AIDS, the rate of circumcision among American baby boys appears to be declining.

So even though it may help to prevent AIDS spreading, we as Americans are not circumcising, perhaps this is because our AIDS problem is under control so we feel no reason to consider ourselves a part of "The World".



Last week, officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cautioned that the figures in the presentation were not definitive.

We are not sure about numbers, but I am sure it has decreased - although the method and accuracy of documenting such information is not regulated.

The numbers are based on calculations by SDI Health, a company in Plymouth Meeting, Pa., that analyzes health care data; they do not include procedures outside hospitals (like most Jewish ritual circumcisions) or not reimbursed by insurance.

We have to manual add any of these numbers to the total even though that number is not accurate in itself.


The study found a very low rate of complications associated with newborn circumcisions; most were considered mild and no babies died.

Good to know.

Officials from the pediatrics academy said its new policy would be issued by early 2011; a task force that studied the topic has completed its report, which is being reviewed by several other committees, said Dr. Michael Brady, chairman of pediatrics at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, who served on the task force. The academy is likely to adopt a more encouraging stance than its current neutral position and to state that the procedure has health benefits beyond H.I.V. prevention, Dr. Brady said.

We will have to wait and see what they say. We will also be waiting for the study in 20 years that tells us if more people in their teens and 20s have developed HIV because of the trend to not circumcise in the late 2000's or if it has remained the same. We currently know it would not be lowered from keeping one intact.
 
Old 02-04-2011, 03:19 PM
 
9,056 posts, read 6,723,723 times
Reputation: 11008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taboo2 View Post

The things that jumped out at me from that article are as follows:

Despite a worldwide campaign for circumcision to slow the spread of AIDS, the rate of circumcision among American baby boys appears to be declining.

So even though it may help to prevent AIDS spreading, we as Americans are not circumcising, perhaps this is because our AIDS problem is under control so we feel no reason to consider ourselves a part of "The World".
Is that why you did it? To be socially and globally responsible about the spread of HIV?
 
Old 02-04-2011, 04:54 PM
 
Location: THE USA
3,254 posts, read 5,259,104 times
Reputation: 1982
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinsterRufus View Post
Is that why you did it? To be socially and globally responsible about the spread of HIV?
Well, living in San Francisco which has a large population of foreigners as well as large gay population, global social awareness is something I am very sensitive too. As some of you know, much of the area's opinions seem to resonate more with a global view rather than a United States view. So I would have to say yes, part of the reason I did it is to protect my son and his future sex partners and giving them a lesser chance of catching HIV which would spread the virus further. It is also why I vaccinated my children on schedule. Aside from personal benefits outweighing the negative, I feel a responsibility to not intentionally spread life-threatening diseases. I also believe we don't provide enough services for the disabled, mentally ill, homeless, substance abusers, underage runaways forced into prostitution, and a variety of other discarded human beings that parts of society tries to ignore or make out to be villains. I am extremely socially conscious and do feel it is my responsibility to contribute to making this world a better place to the best of my ability. I know I don't always succeed, but I am trying.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top