Why do parents get their son's circumcised even though the AAP now recommends against it?

Question

Aside from religious reasons ~ why would parents have the procedure done knowing that there are no benefits?

The majority of men in the world (85%) aren’t circumcised. And now it is more like 50-50 in the U.S. So the uncircumcised boys certainly will not be alone in the locker room anymore.

People can no longer use the excuse that it's cleaner, prevents infections, less penile cancer rate, better for partner... because these have all been debunked. My spouse is circumcised and obivously doesn't remember the procedure... and he doesn't have the preoccupation with having our sons penis "look like Dad's" since they probably won't be comparing them.

In response to the recent study claiming a reduction in the chance of contracting HIV…

The Kenya report spotlighted a 53% reduction of HIV acquisition in circumcised men relative to genitally intact men. However, only 47 of the 1,391 (one in 30) genitally intact men in the study contracted HIV, compared to 22 of the 1,393 (one in 63) circumcised men. These figures show that about 55 circumcisions were needed to prevent one HIV infection, and 54 out of 55 circumcised men received no benefit. In addition, an association between circumcision and HIV infection does not prove a cause and effect relationship. The study does not account for confounding variables such as changes in sexual behavior connected with circumcision and cultural bias on the part of researchers. If a similar study were reported on the effects of cutting an equivalent amount of genital tissue from females, would American observers respond with equal approval?

http://www.circumcision.org/hiv.htm

Answer 1

First of all, the AAP do not recommend against circumcision. Here is what they say:

"Scientific studies show some medical benefits of circumcision. However, these benefits are not sufficient for the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) to recommend that all infant boys be circumcised. Parents may want their sons circumcised for religious, social and cultural reasons. Since circumcision is not essential to a child's health, parents should choose what is best for their child by looking at the benefits and risks." (see 1)

Secondly, while nobody knows the true percentage of men circumcised worldwide, Muslims alone account for 21%, and 7-10% of men are circumcised for medical reasons, so it is likely that at least 25% are circumcised.

Thirdly, it is a common misconception that US rates are 50/50. This is based upon statistics showing the percentage of boys circumcised in hospitals (approx 65%). However, these statistics underestimate the true rate. A recent study found that 83% of males born in the 1980s were circumcised (see 2).

You also claim: "People can no longer use the excuse that it's cleaner, prevents infections, less penile cancer rate, better for partner... because these have all been debunked."

Actually, most of these are well established facts, cited by the AAP. See 3.

Finally, referring to recent HIV research, you state "The study does not account for confounding variables such as changes in sexual behavior connected with circumcision and cultural bias on the part of researchers."

Although the most recent studies have not yet been published, had you read the 2005 Auvert study, which used the same methodology, you would have noticed that they did control for these factors:

"When controlling for behavioural factors, including sexual behaviour that increased slightly in the intervention group, condom use, and health-seeking behaviour, the protection was of 61% (95% CI: 34%–77%)."

As for "cultural bias on the part of the researchers," what are you suggesting? That they deliberately infected the participants? This is simply a ridiculous excuse to reject the findings.

Answer 2

Uh? Where did you find all the info you provide in your question?

1) The APP never said they are against circumcision. They only say they leave parents to choose, though this may change now that studies have firmly proved that the procedure greatly reduces the risk of AIDS-HIV infection.

2) About 70 to 75% of the male population are uncircumcised, not 85% as you state.

3) It is not true that current rate nowadays in the U.S. is 50/50.
At this time about 65% of all newborns are circumcised *at birth*.
It is very likely that some other 10 to 15% are circumcised at a later stage, some because of cultural or parental reasons, some due to religious reasons (Jews and Muslims do not circumcise at birth usually) and some because of medical reasons.
So the accurate rate is most probably 85/15.

4) None of the studies you mention have been ‘debunked’.
In fact last week the U.S. National Institutes of Health confirmed that circumcision reduces the risk of AIDS- contraction.
The fact that a circumcised penis is much easier to keep clean is obvious and needs no further comment.
Penile infections in circumcised men are extremely rare, whereas in uncircumcised men are more than frequent. Same for penile cancer.

5) You mention some possible errors in the studies carried out by the NIH.
If I were to trust scientists and researchers from prestigious institutions such as the NIH, the University of Columbia, the World Health Organisation or the UNO, or some biased and prejudiced organisations that advocate against circumcision with no serious or trustful data, I would definitely choose the former.
These studies have been carried out by very prominent researchers, and have been reviewed by other scientists, so their accuracy and independence is guaranteed.

It seems that you have been brain-washed by those who fanatically and irrationally oppose circumcision without providing any valid evidence.

Answer 3

I Just had my first baby on Dec 2. I had an appointment booked for him to be circumcised last week and I did some research after booking that appointment and I am glad that the day of the appointment I called and canceled. I have never seen a penis that was not circumcised and was unsure why people did it and the facts just don't add up these days to back it. Our health care in Canada paid for this procedure before baby boys even went home from the hospital after birth. But now our government and health care have come to the realization that it isn't important to ones health to do it anymore it is only personal preference. I know that all my friends and family have opt out on getting there sons done in the last few years also because the facts are not what the health care professionals thought back 10-20 years ago. It is definitely something a person needs to really think about before doing. My baby is beautiful the way he is and I am glad he is here and very healthy.

Answer 4

cuz they have been taught alot of stupidness and think it's true, like how masturbation caues hair to grow on your palms or if you tie rocks to some woman and throw her into the lake and she surfaces then she's a witch but if she doesn't then she's not a witch. Just because this is 2006 doesn't mean they're still isn't stupidness, only 30 years ago woman didn't have much of a voice and about 50 years ago black people werrn't really consider to be much of a 'person' but animals, what the hell?? circumcision is just another retarded belief system that sprang from the cures masturbation rumour that started about 100 years ago. But pretty well the rest of the world doesn't do this and they dont' have a problem

Answer 5

Because for most of is in the US .. this seems to be the norm . Even though throughout the word there are more uncircumcised penises. ( My ex husband wanted our son circumcised so he would look like dad and I think that's the stupidest reason there is) As a parent on an uncircumcised son, you jut have to teach cleanliness, just as you teach with little girls. Its really not that big of a deal.

Answer 6

My son turned 2 on September 10th and he had a circumcision done August 4th, because of medical reasons. His condition was called phimosis, its where the tip of his penis was so small that the head could not come through at all. This had to be done as per Head of urology recommendations and if not as he got erections when older it would have been very painful.

In Ontario OHIP will only cover the cost IF IT IS A MEDICAL REASON, not cosmetic choice. It can cost from 150-200 dollars

Answer 7

TOTALLY FALSE that the APP does recomend against it.


Is it NOT true that the AAP (American Academy of Paediatrics) does not recommend circumcision. They simply say they leave the decision to parents. But recently, and specially after the New Zealand study, the AAP has been discussing if it may be necessary to change their policy and recommend circumcision to all newborns as they used to do, so in the future we may see that the AAP advocates again circumcision.
Have a look at: http://www.baby-health.net/articles/381.html


CIRCUMCISION IS VERY BENEFICIAL, its cleaner and several research bodies have concluded that circumcised men have less risk of contracting STD's such as AIDS-HIV or herpes.

Uncircumcised penises are difficult to keep clean, and more prone to infections and penile cancer, studies have shown.
A circumcised penis is naturally clean and virtually free from urinary infection. You will not have to worry again with careful washing of your penis.

About STD's:

As I said, several studies carried out by prestigious research bodies have concluded that uncircumcised penises are more prone to infections and contraction of STD's, including AIDS-HIV. Circumcised men have been proved to be up to seven times less likely to be infected than those who are uncircumcised. Have a look at this site: http://icuxbridge.icnetwork.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=14095142&method=full&siteid=53340&headline=-circumcision-protects-against-aids--name_page.html

As for women, studies also show that circumcision also protects female partners from AIDS-HIV and other STD's. Browse this article: http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/Press_releases/2006/02_08_06.html

About sensitivity of a circumcised penis:

No medical or physiological study has proved that circumcision reduces sensitivity, opposed to common belief. It is completely FALSE that circumcision reduces penis sensitivity. The American Academy of Paediatrics (AAP) confirms this on their web site; have a look at: http://www.aap.org/pubed/zzzjzmemh4c.htm

Circumcision is an easy and nowadays *painless* procedure, which has many benefits, and virtually no risks.
Circumcision is NOT an amputation. Circumcision is NOT comparable at all to female circumcision, which is something completely different.

Circumcision rates are INCREASING nowadays, both in the United States and overseas. Many African and South American countries with little circumcision tradition are starting to promote the procedure to help to reduce the AIDS-HIV infection rates.

Finally, this site has a lot of useful and *unbiased* information. Make sure you have a good look: http://www.circinfo.net

Answer 8

My second son was circumcised to prevent urinary infections. He has hydronephrosis and bacteria from a forskin could cause bladder or kidney infections.

Answer 9

I'm so sick of hearing the locker room thing. My son is 17, not circumcized and has to be in locker rooms all the time. I asked him a few months ago if he feels funny or different because he's circumcized and you know what he told me? "Ma, nobody cares. Boys don't go looking at boys private parts. The ones who look get made fun of" So, enough said. I'm satisfied with that answer. Any parent who circumcizes their poor boys for that reason should not be parents. *mocking* "I want my son to look good for the other boys in the locker room. I don't want him to get made fun of" So pathetic.

Answer 10

My son isn't circumcised. My sister's an OB nurse as well and says that the majority of parents in our area aren't circumcising their sons either. They don't even suggest it in the hospital and my pediatrician didn't even bring it up. We opted to leave it how it is after doing quite a bit of research into the benefits/functions of the foreskin. It was enlightening. I don't think people are aware of why it's there.