Benefits of RIC Confirmed (Again)

D

deleted15807

Guest
Well it seems the neutrality stance is ending (finally) over at A.A.P.

Benefits of infant circumcision reconfirmed


In a study out Monday, researchers say falling infant circumcision rates could end up costing billions of U.S. health care dollars when men and their female partners develop AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections and cancers that could have been prevented.

Separately, the American Academy of Pediatrics is about to issue a new policy statement that says infant circumcision has "significant" health benefits, replacing a statement that takes a more neutral stance.​
 

MickeyLee

Mythical Member
Staff
Moderator
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
Posts
33,705
Media
7
Likes
49,842
Points
618
Location
neverhood
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
didn't doctors once think Thalidomide was a really good idea?

yeah.. i am kinda all about moving away from sex-based shame. better sex education for our young people. a return to massive public awareness on the issues of STIs/sexual health.

i mean, i would rather let grown-ass people decide what to do with their junk *safer sex practice* than strip that right away from a child.
:smile:

cultural familiarity don't make right.
 

someperson

Legendary Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2011
Posts
4,091
Media
9
Likes
1,845
Points
198
Location
Los Angeles, California
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
Well it seems the neutrality stance is ending (finally) over at A.A.P.

Benefits of infant circumcision reconfirmed


In a study out Monday, researchers say falling infant circumcision rates could end up costing billions of U.S. health care dollars when men and their female partners develop AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections and cancers that could have been prevented.

Separately, the American Academy of Pediatrics is about to issue a new policy statement that says infant circumcision has "significant" health benefits, replacing a statement that takes a more neutral stance.​
if it did have
"significant" health benefits wouldn't europe have a higher STD rate then the US.
 
S

SirConcis

Guest
Actually, the statement isn't to increase business, it is to decrease it. It all has to do with insurance companies lowering their costs. If baby circs end up costing less than treating adult patients (costs to the insurance companies) then the medical associations will come out in favour of it.

So this isn't about doctors making more money by cutting all boys at birth, it is about insurance companies spending less to treat insured patients.

The problem with adding HIV/AIDS to the equation in the USA is that it is a preventative prediction: circumcise now, just in case the disease spreads from the gay/drug user niche onto the general population. This has not happened yet so there cannot be any hard numbers to back that decision.

This could also be due in part to the anti-circers campaigns to have parents never retract/wash under their son's foreskin (europeans know they need to retract/wash) which may have resulted in USA statistics showing foreskin cause more problems than in europe.


Focus should be more on preventing HIV from spreading outside of gay/drug users.
 

JTalbain

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Posts
1,786
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
258
Age
34
A momentary setback, nothing more, and maybe not even that. The CDC was considering coming out in favor awhile back, and then backed out under the criticism, and the same could happen here. If it doesn't, the policy can be easily dismantled later. This policy change is utterly reliant on a couple of assumptions being accepted as truth: the foreskin does not contribute to sex, there is no sensitivity loss due to circumcision, circumcision decreases the spread of HIV, and HIV/AIDS has no known cure. The third will get convincingly disproven soon enough, like all the other ailments circumcision has been said to cure/prevent. The 4th could happen at any time, because it's unknown what is going on with the vaccine developed in Thailand. And if the first two are convincingly proven in the US, the policy will crumble immediately, possibly through legislative intervention.

I had hoped that the AMA was merely taking its time, waiting for public favor of circumcision to drop low enough to come out in favor against it, but oh well. I do find it kind of disconcerting that the study upon which this is based declares a lifetime savings of about $400 per male, and I'd happily pay over 100 times that amount to have the rest of my penis back.
 

travis1985

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 22, 2011
Posts
835
Media
1
Likes
103
Points
288
Location
Coeur d'Alene (Idaho, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
I do find it kind of disconcerting that the study upon which this is based declares a lifetime savings of about $400 per male, and I'd happily pay over 100 times that amount to have the rest of my penis back.
Yes.
 

erratic

Loved Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Posts
4,289
Media
0
Likes
508
Points
333
Sexuality
No Response
if it did have
"significant" health benefits wouldn't europe have a higher STD rate then the US.

For real, yeah? I mean, wouldn't Berlin be a ghost town? France? Would there be a man left in France? Italy...it'd be some kind of herpes-annihilated wasteland.

There's this thing in research called "variables." And another thing called "external validity." They're important.
 

Infernal

Superior Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2008
Posts
3,564
Media
7
Likes
5,138
Points
593
Age
54
Location
Phoenix, Arizona, United States of America
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
didn't doctors once think Thalidomide was a really good idea?

They used to encourage people to smoke too. This is nothing more than a cash cow for hospitals. What is the purpose in removing something we are born with and obviously serves a purpose. Washing it and wearing a condom seems to be just as beneficial and far less likely to give people mental issues over it.
 

Petrolhead

Admired Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Posts
7,344
Media
40
Likes
881
Points
298
Location
London, UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
a german court ruled that this was a form of child abuse. if it does have health benefits why do infants have to have it? why not let people choose on the basis of informed decisions when they become sexually mature?
 

JTalbain

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Posts
1,786
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
258
Age
34
It's all about easy money for the U.S. medical community.
Not entirely. Most of the doctors who are responsible for making policy are circumcised as well. How many times do you find people in these debates saying that they are circumcised and they are "NOT (all caps necessary) mutilated". It's a bitter pill to swallow, and people that don't want to acknowledge a painful truth take refuge in denial. The doctors are no different than the rest of us.
 

Incocknito

Sexy Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2009
Posts
2,480
Media
0
Likes
67
Points
133
Location
La monde
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
If it did have "significant" health benefits wouldn't Europe have a higher STD rate then the US?

a german court ruled that this was a form of child abuse. if it does have health benefits why do infants have to have it? why not let people choose on the basis of informed decisions when they become sexually mature?

/Thread

Well done you two. The fact is that studies and statistics can be manipulated to support any point of view.

And if circumcision was so bad Europe would have a much higher incidence of "infection" of the genitals, which so many people seem(ed) to be worried about.

I think it is a form of child abuse. Unless your child is deformed why can't you allow them to grow up with all the parts they were born with and let them choose if they want to get rid of anything which is a part of their anatomy.

Glad I live in the good ol' U of K.
 

mandoman

Cherished Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Posts
3,454
Media
0
Likes
324
Points
148
Location
MA
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
Actually, the statement isn't to increase business, it is to decrease it. It all has to do with insurance companies lowering their costs. If baby circs end up costing less than treating adult patients (costs to the insurance companies) then the medical associations will come out in favour of it.

So this isn't about doctors making more money by cutting all boys at birth, it is about insurance companies spending less to treat insured patients.

The problem with adding HIV/AIDS to the equation in the USA is that it is a preventative prediction: circumcise now, just in case the disease spreads from the gay/drug user niche onto the general population. This has not happened yet so there cannot be any hard numbers to back that decision.

This could also be due in part to the anti-circers campaigns to have parents never retract/wash under their son's foreskin (europeans know they need to retract/wash) which may have resulted in USA statistics showing foreskin cause more problems than in europe.


Focus should be more on preventing HIV from spreading outside of gay/drug users.

Once again, utterly clueless.
Compare the urological costs of Americans, to Danes.
Then, compare the number of circumcisions that have to be redone (10% and higher). Then factor in meatal stenosis, which requires surgery most of the time, and almost never occurs in boys with foreskins.
This is the same propaganda war I have seen played out, my entire lifetime.
I can remember when they said the foreskin caused cervical cancer, and cancer of the penis. These guys know how to manipulate figures, and totally discount the considerable human costs...like having to use Viagra, the pain caused to the newborn, the people who are never quite the same afterward, hidden penis, etc.
 

Frodo46888

Admired Member
Joined
May 11, 2010
Posts
761
Media
0
Likes
777
Points
248
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
I'd say that the jury is still out on this one, and there are strong feelings on both sides of the issue. If there are medical benefits, a comprehensive international study should show the differences, but I haven't seen one that I have confidence in.
 

Endued

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Posts
1,858
Media
0
Likes
29
Points
133
Sexuality
No Response
Well, at least Sargon is starting his own threads rather than stinking up the other ones. We have that, at least.
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
Well, at least Sargon is starting his own threads rather than stinking :23:

Fascinating as 'you guys' would 'stink' up a thread on chopped broccoli moaning how cutting something up was not how nature intended it to be.

Nevertheless the American Academy of Pediatrics is about to change the policy and years of disinformation will be squelched. But it's not too late for all the obsessors out there might still be able to change their minds.