It is basically the same as the Royal Australian College of Paediatricians.
There's no reason for routine circ. The UTI thing is overrated - we're talking about a 1% decrease in risk of a minor infection and a 5% complication rate.
The HIV stuff is overrated. If you're a promiscuous truckdriver in Africa and you won't use/don't know about condoms then maybe it helps you. Or maybe it just marks you out as one of the few from your village who has seen a Dr ever, hence less likely to get HIV.
I don't even buy religious reasons since I have 2 close jewish friends (both Drs) who braved the wrath of their families and did not circ their son. They found a rabbi who agrees with them that what's required under archaic law is not what circ is done these days, and it is not necessary. They call it mutilation.
I just think its sad that people do it and think it is no big deal, or something to do to look like daddy. If daddy was an amputee?
I think in the First World it actually undermines public health to give people a false sense of security.
I wouldn't want my son growing up thinking he was in any way protected from HIV inherently, and thus more able to take risky behaviour lightly. I think teenage boys are exactly the group to do that. Same for UTIs. They need to learn to wash, then no boys will get UTIs (much harder for them to get than for us). Washing is not optional just because you cut off your foreskin. People who say they want to make it easier for their kids not to get UTIs make me wonder - what about the poor women who end up with those boys, who think washing is optional.
Re: MMML: What exactly IS your POV on
It is basically the same as the Royal Australian College of Paediatricians.
There's no reason for routine circ. The UTI thing is overrated - we're talking about a 1% decrease in risk of a minor infection and a 5% complication rate.
The HIV stuff is overrated. If you're a promiscuous truckdriver in Africa and you won't use/don't know about condoms then maybe it helps you. Or maybe it just marks you out as one of the few from your village who has seen a Dr ever, hence less likely to get HIV.
I don't even buy religious reasons since I have 2 close jewish friends (both Drs) who braved the wrath of their families and did not circ their son. They found a rabbi who agrees with them that what's required under archaic law is not what circ is done these days, and it is not necessary. They call it mutilation.
I just think its sad that people do it and think it is no big deal, or something to do to look like daddy. If daddy was an amputee?
INDEED!
I found it odd in the hospital when the nurse asked what we'd decided about circumcision since I had a boy-
I said No.
and she said Hooray! you made the right choice! ( What if I had said we wanted to circ?! It was a bit weird...)
My doc also said she was really glad we were not doing it...
I realize that the HIV thing is a plus, but not so much in the States and not so much with regular condom users- which i hope my son will be.
I think in the First World it actually undermines public health to give people a false sense of security.
I wouldn't want my son growing up thinking he was in any way protected from HIV inherently, and thus more able to take risky behaviour lightly. I think teenage boys are exactly the group to do that. Same for UTIs. They need to learn to wash, then no boys will get UTIs (much harder for them to get than for us). Washing is not optional just because you cut off your foreskin. People who say they want to make it easier for their kids not to get UTIs make me wonder - what about the poor women who end up with those boys, who think washing is optional.