CDC: Circumcision Benefits Outweigh Risks

[FunkyLeprechaun]

259. The rest of the world's major health organizations disagree with the AAP/WHO/etc

WHO has also published pro-circumcision statements as well as AAP. The opposite reaction to these statements from medical organisations in Europe, Canada, Australia and Asia is quite telling.

Here is a paper from the AAP's own Pediatrics magazine written by doctors representing various European medical communities- http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/12/peds.2012-2896.full.pdf

The doctors, in the PDF, say there may be SOME evidence that circumcision prevents UTIs but this is what they have to say about it- "To these authors, only 1 of the arguments put forward by the American Academy of Pediatrics has some theoretcal relevance in relation to infant male circumcision; namely, the possible protection against urinary tract infections in infant boys, which can easily be treated with antibiotics without tissue loss." I/E there might be SOME evidence it prevents UTIs but it's not quite enough (to warrant amputating healthy tissue).

Women get UTIs more readily than men and yet, they don't get circumcised. They get antibiotics and the matter is resolved within a week.

I don't think the subject of my education/training is relevant to the discussion but I did a lot of research with the last two degrees of mine relating to history/psychology (for my BA, MA was scientific as well but relating to the environment of the museum) and usually when I find issues that are interesting I try to do lots of research so I don't come out of any argument with egg on my face.

BTW I am a 30-something white American female as well, women my age and demographic in the US are more likely to lean towards circumcision for their children.

Before you tell me that due to my sex, I shouldn't even be discussing this matter, I also have a foreskin and I know what it's like to have a foreskin so I am more than qualified to have an opinion in the matter.