August 27, 2012

The American Academy of Pediatrics says the medical benefits of circumcision outweigh the small risks.

"The new policy could bring about a shift in affordability. The guidelines now make plain that the benefits of circumcision are great enough to 'justify access to this procedure for families choosing it and to warrant third-party payment for circumcision of male newborns.'"

It's about insurance.

86 comments:

The Drill SGT said...

tell it to the Germans :)

The Drill SGT said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
t-man said...

In all discussions of circumcision, I've never heard what women think. My only reference on this point is from Seinfeld, where Elaine expressed a preference for circumcision.

Let's hear from the ladies (although a real lady would probably not discuss this topic in public).

Surfed said...

Lifevest aquisition for sleeping. use one on my solo sails all the time. Beats drowning if a little uncomfortable..

Tyrone Slothrop said...

This issue has been coming to a head for a long time.

TWM said...

I thought it was already covered? I don't recall slipping the doctor any bills when he circumsized my sons.

Matthew Sablan said...

Insurance is just the tip of the iceberg.

elkh1 said...

Uh-oh, aren't we, in the eyes of the Euros, a bit savage? Are our Progressives abhorred by such uncouth, unEuropean, savagery? Will a free lunch, i.e. insurance, unconcern their concerns?

Ignorance is Bliss said...

The new policy could bring about a shift in affordability.

Very true. The shift would be towards less affordibility. Not in terms of out-of-pocket cost for the proceedure, but in terms of the cost of the insurance which covers it. And the total increased cost of the insurance will outweigh the total saved out-of-pocket. It always does.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

The new policy could bring about a shift in affordability.

Very true. The shift would be towards less affordibility. Not in terms of out-of-pocket cost for the proceedure, but in terms of the cost of the insurance which covers it. And the total increased cost of the insurance will outweigh the total saved out-of-pocket. It always does.

AllieOop said...

Circumspect about circumcision, but if you really want to know, snipped preferred.

Pogo said...

It's not about insurance except in that all healthcare is now about insurance. For example, obesity was never previously paid for as a diagnosis, and therapies directed towards it were minimal. Now that it is covered, interest has increased in healthcare management of obesity.

In any event, I have previously expressed here favoring circumcision, only to be met with anti-circumcision ideologues and their vilification efforts. They often used the Academy's recommendation against circumcision as evidence against its use.

Now that that recommendation has been rescinded, what will they do?

The Drill SGT said...

t-man said...
In all discussions of circumcision, I've never heard what women think.


let's see:

- cleaner
- less disease
- longer lasting
- 1mm thinner

what's not to like. I'm snipped and the women I've asked preferred cut, though it is obviously a biased sample...

Matthew Sablan said...

What's important is that the investigation into the science behind is not cut short.

Palladian said...

Women also, apparently, prefer men to shave their pubic hair off so that they look like 11-year-old boys. Who cares what women think about anything?

Circumcision, like abortion, leaves out the preferences of the child altogether.

purplepenquin said...

Badgercare will pay for circumcision if done within one week of birth.

Should tax-dollars be used for elective procedures?

Roger J. said...

hmmm--does this mean that the rabbi (or person doing the bris/brisk) can file for expenses?

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Badgercare will pay for circumcision if done within one week of birth.

Should tax-dollars be used for elective procedures?

8/27/12 11:45 AM


No.

Roger J. said...

purple penguin--my understanding is that for observant Jews it is performed 8 days after birth.

Pogo said...

"Should tax-dollars be used for elective procedures?"

Asks the penguin who demands free condoms, free oral contraceptives, and free healthcare, all paid for by "rich" people.

Curious George said...

Cost isn't important!

Ignorance is Bliss said...

purplepenquin said...

Should tax-dollars be used for elective procedures?

No. Same with non-elective procedures.

AllieOop said...

Gawd Palladian, that's pretty sick. Perhaps heterosexual men do care what women think, or prefer anyway.

purplepenquin said...

my understanding is that for observant Jews it is performed 8 days after birth

Heh.

Further review shows that Badgercare might cover it after one week, but only with prior authorization.


Asks the penguin who demands free condoms, free oral contraceptives, and free healthcare, all paid for by "rich" people

Pogo must be drunk again, 'cause I've never said such a thing.

ndspinelli said...

My uncircumsized adopted son had numerous bladder infections which lead to him being circumsized @ age 10..poor kid!!

Circumcision for all boys could help achieve a smegmaless society, certainly a laudable goal.

furious_a said...

hmmm--does this mean that the rabbi (or person doing the bris/brisk) can file for expenses?

They usually just take tips.

Molly said...

A similar report on female circumcision is expected out next month.

Molly said...

A similar report on female circumcision is expected out next month.

Pogo said...

Of course you have, purple.

You're a standard issue lefty.

Sorun said...

On the preference issue, I'd like know if there are circumsised men who wish they were not. It's hard to imagine.

Ralph L said...

Circumcision, like abortion, leaves out the preferences of the child altogether
True, but there's a little more left of the child with the former.

edutcher said...

So the Jews were right, after all.

Don't anybody tell Cedar.

Palladian said...

Women also, apparently, prefer men to shave their pubic hair off so that they look like 11-year-old boys. Who cares what women think about anything?

Apparently doing that, regardless of gender, is also a bad idea.

SteveR said...

Women also, apparently, prefer men to shave their pubic hair off so that they look like 11-year-old boys.

Not mine

Erika said...

My uncircumsized adopted son had numerous bladder infections which lead to him being circumsized @ age 10..poor kid!!

Yikes! My son, also adopted, is uncircumcised. We would have preferred that it be done, but we didn't have the legal authority to arrange for it so when he was a newborn. He's almost three and he's never had a bladder infection; knock on wood that he doesn't develop a tendency toward them.

As to the larger question of circumcision: for my own partner, I prefer snipped (seems cleaner), for our sons I prefer snipped but would defer to my husband if he felt differently because he is the resident penis expert, and I will share that my mother insisted that my brother not be circumcised, and he went and had it done in his twenties.

damikesc said...

Circumspect about circumcision, but if you really want to know, snipped preferred.

At the risk of being crude --- have you ever actually "been" with an uncut guy?

I'm asking because I don't know of any women I have known who have actually seen an uncut one in person.

Talking as a dude, the whole issue is silly. Circumcision causes few problems and clearly doesn't impact sex on the part of the man. We manage to make do nicely snipped.

Women also, apparently, prefer men to shave their pubic hair off so that they look like 11-year-old boys.

I thought it was because a mouthful of hair is unpleasant. Having never played the skin flute, however, I cannot claim to know.

rana said...

Geez, Louise--anyone ever hear of soap and water! No smegma or bladder infections in my household of three uncircumcised males because they have knowledge of those two wondrous products. Having said that, to each his own. I prefer the uncut version.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

Sorun said...

On the preference issue, I'd like know if there are circumsised men who wish they were not. It's hard to imagine.


I like the way I am (circumcised) but then I have no way of making the comparison.

On another note, I clearly remember my first day of gym class in eighth grade, when I saw an uncircumcised schlong for the first time. I was appalled, thinking the guy had a birth defect.

jr565 said...

I suppose we should wait till Crack weighs in to tell us this are cultish rituals with no health benefits.

Methadras said...

So they were against it and now they are for it. Fascinating.

t-man said...

Who are these women who prefer their men to have shaved groinal areas? I thought it was far more common for women to shave, but I've been out of the dating pool for 25 years, so kids today may be different.

Also, there are a million things that parents decide for their children which have life-altering consequences, in which the children (and so far, the government) havet no say.

That is the point of being a parent. I, for one, do not wnat every aspect of how I choose to raise my children (or how they may choose to raise their own) subject to the whims of 50.01% of the electorate. "Bodily integrity" vs. "better health" vs. accommodation of religion vs. whatever.

Lyssa said...

Glad to hear this, as I've already had someone (female) try to urge me not to have my (up and coming)boy cut. I told my husband that it was up to him, he being the expert on the subject, and he said that he would prefer that we circumsize because of the cleanliness issue. I'm fine with that, and I've heard of way to many males who have to get it done later in life to be entirely comfortable with not doing it to start.

To answer t-man's question, my experience with the un- version is rather limited, so it might just be what I'm used to, but I prefer cut. /TMI

BarryD said...

AAP says that the $150 its members can get for each quick, easy procedure outweighs all other factors.

Dante said...

On the preference issue, I'd like know if there are circumsised men who wish they were not. It's hard to imagine.

Dr. Dean Edel (sp?) has made a big deal about how he wishes he were not snipped, because there are nerve endings in the foreskin that yield pleasurable sensations.

But, now that the Uganda studies of ten years ago are verified that there is lesser chance of AIDs infection, and HPV transmissions for the snipped folks, perhaps it's a WHO question.

Let's face it. The Jews were right.

Dante said...

One word.

Smegma.

MadisonMan said...

Lyssa, just one data point here. We did not have our son done (I was). I haven't regretted it. I haven't regretted that my parents had me done. I figure it's an un-needed cost even if it was "free". So why bother?

And as for people who regret that their parents did or did not have it done to them: Get a life. This is what you torture yourself worrying about? What might have been?

furious_a said...

Anteater or Cyclops?

YoungHegelian said...

One of my friends in High School had to be circumcised for a health problem at age 16!.

When we, his buds, visited him in the hospital, we told him that we had paid one of the cheerleaders to come by later and she was going to kiss it and make the hurtie go away.

We all laughed, but he was clearly relieved when it became clear that we were joking.

furious_a said...

One of my friends in High School had to be circumcised for a health problem...

Local anaesthetic? (!!)

Oclarki said...

t-man,

Once men started requested their ladies keep it neat down there, it was only a matter of time before the ladies asked for reciprication. It's been pretty common going on a decade or so.

wef said...

Neolithic mutilation ritual, generally considered of minor harm at worst. It's never been clear, however, how one could argue with a straight face that various millions of years of biological evolution could not have discovered what a relatively recent custom for tribal identification has revealed to have "medical benefits." It’s possible, of course, but the ex-post rationalizations about circumcision lie thick on the ground. It is rejected or simply never thought of by the rest of the world. American Exceptionalism.

Paco Wové said...

"I'd like know if there are circumsised men who wish they were not."

Seeing as how Googling "foreskin restoration" returns many hits, even its own Wikipedia article, I would answer that question in the affirmative.

Paco Wové said...

"Once men started request[ing]..."

Slippery slopes everywhere.

Pogo said...

Contra C4, thank God for the Jews.

Peter said...

Can't the AMA or someone just declare that all medicine is preventive medicine?

Moose said...

Sully bait.

Moose said...

I think someone needs to make Sully a wallet. Or am I the only one that remembers that old joke?

furious_a said...

...I thought it was far more common for women to shave.

'Playboy' anymore ought to be re-named 'Moppets'. Ick.

...thank God for the Jews.

There's no people like the Chosen People.

Jay said...

Seeing as how Googling "foreskin restoration" returns many hits

Ah great.

Another thing life's losers can blame all their problems on.

t-man said...

The slope generally hasn't been that slippery for other sex differences in shaving. I just spent a week at the beach, and it didn't seem that men were shaving their armpits or legs. There were a few guys who looked like they spent far too much time at the gym who looked like they shaved their chests, though. I put that down to vanity, rather than expectations from women.

FleetUSA said...

A woman friend some years ago asked on behalf of another woman what sex with an "uncut" man was like, I confessed I wouldn't know as I had been snipped at birth.

I think from what I have heard that some English prefer uncut as maybe it isn't Jewish.

I have been quite happily snipped and it didn't hurt at all at birth.

Kylos said...

In general, I don't have a problem with parents deciding to circumcise their newborns, but I do think the concern over cleanliness is overdone. Lyssa, I think your likely to hear more "horror" stories than of those who never had a problem (and really, how do you have a story about nothing).

To be honest, I've always been a little irked by those in favor of circumcision for cleanliness ever since my mom started discussing circumcision when I was twelve. Thankfully, she gave up on that.

Jim S. said...

It's never been clear, however, how one could argue with a straight face that various millions of years of biological evolution could not have discovered what a relatively recent custom for tribal identification has revealed to have "medical benefits."

Dude, evolution isn't magic. Your argument would apply to any medical procedure. Evolution could have removed tonsils and appendices. For that matter, it could just provide little organs filled with medicine that release it whenever we get sick. The fact that evolution didn't provide such an organ proves -- according to your argument -- that such medicinal cures are suspect.

purplepenquin said...

Of course you have, purple.

No, I have not.

Liars like you are destroying our country. Please stop your destructive behavior.

Ralph L said...

It is rejected or simply never thought of by the rest of the world.
Except for a billion Muslims.

t-man said...

I did read a few years ago that an uncircumsized penis results in less wear on the vagina, because the foreskin stays somewhat in place and acts as a barrier lessening friction against the vaginal wall. I don't know if that is true, or what effect it may have on female pleasure during intercourse.

gadfly said...

Circumcision is cruel and unusual punishment imposed on male new-borns.

I always thought that since I had not been circumcised, I could save my sons from occasional infection and soreness of the glans.

I will never know for sure, but my reading tells me that the infant is not protected from pain during the surgery - and not having foreskin cuts down on sensitivity.

ndspinelli said...

I'm pretty sure Johnny "Wad" Holmes was uncircumsized.

Bruce Hayden said...

I am happy with this - my understanding is that this was a running war between pediatricians and gynecologists. This used to be one of the biggest pet peeves of the ob/gyn who delivered my kid - her view, from interviewing her patients, was that while circumcision doesn't directly benefit males, it does benefit their female partners significantly in reducing infections transmitted during sex. Yes uncircumcised males can, supposedly, clean themselves sufficiently - but many do not. Something like that. She would see certain types of infections, which would get cleaned up, then recur, and almost invariably, the woman's partner was not circumcised.

Pogo said...

@purplepenquin


Hilarious.

jr565 said...

gadfly wrote:
I will never know for sure, but my reading tells me that the infant is not protected from pain during the surgery - and not having foreskin cuts down on sensitivity.

By how much? ITs not as if those without foreskin can't achieve orgasms nor have pleasure while doing so.

wef said...

Your argument would apply to any medical procedure. Evolution could have removed tonsils and appendices.

Jim S., dude, you are missing the point about evolution.

Is the foreskin a sickness? Obviously not. Should we preemptively, soon after birth, remove tonsils and appendices? Obviously not. Especially just because it is some tribal atavism harking back to some Neolithic ritual?

Medical advances are about illness and lesions and correcting problems when the body is not functioning correctly. It is not impossible that civilization and science occasionally can improve on the human body – think nutrition and hygiene, and drugs that help us think faster. In fact, feminists would think that abortion is an advance.

The point is that circumcision is a practice that did not arise from some medical advance. It is very old, pre-Semitic, an ancient vestigial religious practice - a cultural habit like the continuing massive belief in a great daddy sky god accessible via your local church, mosque and synagogue. We are seeing ex post rationalizations of circumcision dressed up in medical terms. As I said, it is not impossible that some Neolithic ritual mutilation just so happens to be a medical advance, but it strains the imagination.

By the way, how was it that the wise Neolithic shamans got male circumcision correct and clitoral circumcision wrong? Or maybe clitoral circumcision will be found to have - magically - medical benefits.

In fact, contemporary medicine defaults or defers to the “natural.” In the past, anesthetics were more heavily used in child birth. Today, a more natural childbirth is preferred for medical reasons. In the past, tonsils were yanked out more frequently than today, because today medicine recognizes that the tonsils are there for a reason. And so on. The foreskin is there for a reason, and in most of the civilized world medicine defers to nature’s design.

jr565 said...

Wef wrote:
By the way, how was it that the wise Neolithic shamans got male circumcision correct and clitoral circumcision wrong? Or maybe clitoral circumcision will be found to have - magically - medical benefits.



Comparing circumcision to female genital mutilation is like comparing piercing someone's ear to chopping off their ear. It's ludicrous.
And the health benefits are not insignificant. Lower rate of aids and stds, 90% lower rate UTIs in babies formative years.
Have you ever heard of a circumcised man complain of lack of sensation when getting some from their signifant other? Except in the rarest of cases, there is no noticeable impact on a mans ability to have a fulfilling sex life. You may not choose to have it performed on your kid, but lets not get into false comparisons.

jimbino said...

The facts:

In infant circumcision, an atheist kids is sexually mutilated against his will. Jews and Muslims have no right to mutilate an unwilling atheist baby. By the time they infuse his brain with superstition and religion, he will be old enough to decide for himself or, as Einstein did at age 15, repudiate Judaism, German nationalism and the German public school system.

My dad said I'd have to wear it off.

jr565 said...

Here's a link that says adult circumcision has the effect of making it take significantly longer for males to achieve orgasm, with no noticeable issue in sexual function.

"We can say with more certainty that adult circumcision does not adversely affect sexual function," writes Senkul. The increase in time to reach ejaculation "can be considered an advantage rather than a complication."

That sounds pretty ok to me.

http://men.webmd.com/news/20040202/adult-circumcision-affects-sexual-performance

jimbino said...

Regarding

"The American Academy of Pediatrics says the medical benefits of circumcision outweigh the small risks."

Who died and left the AAP the right to the final word on risk/benefit analysis?

Physicians are generally deficient in math and science; I know, I tried teaching them Baby Physics and Baby Math, which they took because taking a real science course might threaten their GPAs.

Most physicians can't even speak proper English: they mangle English syntax when they say things like "you are at risk for high blood pressure.

The last person you should trust your health care to seems to be and Amerikan-trained physician and you only enter a hospital if you don't value your life.

At least, you need to vet your healthcare providers for English, science and hand-washing skills and stop listening to their opinions on risk/benefit in your lifestyle choices.

jr565 said...

jimbino wrote:
In infant circumcision, an atheist kids is sexually mutilated against his will. Jews and Muslims have no right to mutilate an unwilling atheist baby. By the time they infuse his brain with superstition and religion, he will be old enough to decide for himself or, as Einstein did at age 15, repudiate Judaism, German nationalism and the German public school system.


It's a lot harder to circumcise adults then children.How do you know that the kid WILL in fact repudiate religion? And while waiting to decide how do you know that he wont give his gf/bf the HPV virus from his uncircumsised shlong.

jr565 said...

jimbino wrote:
"The American Academy of Pediatrics says the medical benefits of circumcision outweigh the small risks."

Who died and left the AAP the right to the final word on risk/benefit analysis?

You're not one of those anti vaccine wackos are you?

bagoh20 said...

Men should only have to clean their car. Anything that reduces other cleaning responsibilities for men is just pragmatic good sense.

John Lynch said...

This is bizarre. People who would happily abort a baby one day earlier are now upset about circumcision.

I don't believe that the objection to male (not female, which is a whole different thing) circumcision has anything to do with child welfare.

I think it has a lot to do with hatred of Jews and/or Muslims. They've been practicing circumcision for thousands of years without ill effect, and I'm to believe that all of a sudden this is a problem?

bagoh20 said...

It's reassuring when people I rarely agree with like Jimbino go off the deep end and prove that it's actually not me that's nuts.

bagoh20 said...

"People who would happily abort a baby one day earlier are now upset about circumcision."

Exactly. What a strange set of values. The mother can decide to violently murder you one day, but can't have a tiny piece of skin removed even if it's good for you the next. I don't follow that logic either. Can someone explain?

Aridog said...

furious_a said...

Anteater or Cyclops?

Thread winner.

AllenS said...

I could tell you a really good war story, but I'll just say that uncircumcised men caught the clap a lot more often than circumcised men when I was in the Army. Or, so it seemed.

Freeman Hunt said...

"I will never know for sure, but my reading tells me that the infant is not protected from pain during the surgery"

The reading material is, in that case, incorrect. The infant is given a local.

T J Sawyer said...

Reccommended:
Google: uncircumcised men make better sex partners

Very interesting reading.

ken in sc said...

When I was growing up in Alabama, the boys were equally divided between helmet heads and ant eaters. We were also equally divided between Baptists and Methodists. We didn't know any Jews or Catholics.

In Jr. High, a girl from New Jersey saw my dick when the boy's room door was open for too long. She started telling everyone that I was a Jew. I didn't know why. I was a Methodist. She was a Catholic. I wonder how she knew the difference.