As the year 2009 draws to a close, history may judge this year as the "turning point" in the movement to achieve universal circumcision -- a world in which the foreskin no longer poses a health threat to a male, his partners, or society as a whole.
Aided by one medical study after another this year, more governments than ever have embraced the goal of 100% male circumcision, knowing that this simple health procedure can reduce the risk of HIV by 60% and dramatically curb the spread of STDs, HPVs, cancers, and other ailments that afflict society.
When the data is finally collected for the year 2009, it will show that more males world-wide are circumcised now than ever before in world history. To be circumcised is not only the "norm" in the USA, it has become the desired norm across the world simply because "the cut" is healthy.
Even in those countries where governments have been reluctant to embrace circumcision (i.e., many European countries), the populace as a whole is joining the circumcision movement. Men are opting for the cut, and parents are wisely choosing to circumcise their sons at birth, knowing this is the safest, most reliable, and inexpensive way to protect their boy for life.
We have also seen a growing appreciation of the value of circumcision in Asia and the Indian subcontinent. I would bet, once the data is in, that more Japanese, more Indians, more Chinese are circumcised than ever before -- joining their counterparts in Korea, Philippines, and Indonesia who are already clean-cut. The best news on that front this year have been reports that Chinese health officials may encourage universal circumcision in the near future. The world's largest country could set a powerful example if it would promote newborn circumcision as an important health measure.
The year 2009 also saw the growing hysteria of the anti-circumcision fanatics, as they try to pressure governments to ignore the medical science and to scare parents against this life-preserving procedure. In my view, the fanaticism of these groups only marginalizes them among the mainstream. That is certainly true in the USA where, despite millions of anti-circ dollars spent on lies and mischaracterizations, I have no doubt that more baby boys were circumcised this year than last year.
Just ask the normal person on the street here in the Midwest about circumcision and the answer is always the same. "Of course. It's the healthy thing to do." -- a statement usually coupled with "Yeah, it prevents AIDs." The latter is not quite accurate -- it reduces the risk of AIDs -- but the public is getting the basic message.
Even those who may be confused on the issue because of anti-circ propaganda usually return to the basics. "It's cleaner. It's easier." -- with the variation "If it was so bad, why does everyone do it?" They do it because, deep down, nobody really wants a filthy foreskin that can cause so much medical havoc.
If 2009 becomes the turning point in the medical goal of achieving universal circumcision, there is still one disappointment which can be remedied in the remaining weeks of this year. Where is the American Academy of Pediatrics? Where is the CDC, Centers for Disease Control? We began the year with hope that -- based on medical science alone -- the AAP and CDC would declare that every male should be circumcised. While insiders say they want to do this because they know it is medically right, pressure from the anti-circs have delayed action. Nothing would complete 2009 more as the "Year of Circumcision" than a strong backbone at the AAP and CDC and a year-end statement encouraging ("voluntarily") the circumcision of males!
So what do you think? Do you agree that, in general, this has been a terrific year for circumcision? I welcome your thoughts.
Showing posts with label CDC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CDC. Show all posts
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Africans Show America How to Implement Universal Circumcision
While the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics, to say nothing of the U.S. government, dithers over whether to do the obvious -- embrace universal circumcision of all males -- African nations are showing western nations exactly the way to do it.
The latest news comes out of Kenya, which hopes to achieve 100% foreskin-free country by 2013. Under a news article just issued by IRIN, the humanitarian news and analysis service of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the Kenyan government is doing exactly what the United States government ought to do.
The article is headlined: "The Million Man Cut." And that, of course, expresses the goal -- to circumcise one million uncircumcised males by 2013. According to this article, the circumcision rate in Kenya is good -- around 85%. But it's not high enough to provide the societal protection that circumcision gives. At least 1.2 million foreskins are still amongst them, foreskins that serve as portals for HIV, STDs, HPV, herpes, and other preventable diseases.
Here are excerpts from the news article. Don't you think it's time for the USA to learn the lesson from Africa?
"KISUMU, 17 November 2009 (PlusNews) - The Kenyan government is expanding services to meet the growing demand for voluntary medical male circumcision after the launch of a national campaign a year ago.
"We believe the launch of a rapid results initiative to scale up what we are already offering will help meet the demand; our target is an ambitious one to see to it that at least 1.1 million of the uncircumcised men in this country get the cut by the end of five years," said Jackson Kioko, director of medical services in western Nyanza Province.
Results of three random trials in South Africa, Kenya and Uganda in 2005 and 2006 demonstrated that medical male circumcision reduced the risk of HIV infection among men by up to 60 percent. According to the Kenya AIDS Indicator Survey 2007, 85 percent of Kenyan men are circumcised; HIV prevalence is higher by three-to-five times in uncircumcised men.
There are about 1.2 million uncircumcised men between the ages of 15 and 49 in Kenya, most of whom live in Nyanza Province, where fewer than 50 percent of men are circumcised. Since the launch of the national campaign in November 2008, an estimated 40,000 men have been circumcised and 124 sites opened and equipped with facilities and personnel to offer the service. The government has trained 700 health workers in the province to offer the services in various health facilities. "The trained health workers will ensure people who demand these services get them in a safe and timely manner and the training of others is ongoing across the various provinces within the country," Kioko added.
The government also plans to roll out mobile medical circumcision. "We do not want people to opt out simply because the services are not near them and we are making arrangements that we go to them rather than them coming to us," Kioko said. "We will, in the near future, offer infant medical circumcision; this has the potential to help people in time before their sexual debut."
The latest news comes out of Kenya, which hopes to achieve 100% foreskin-free country by 2013. Under a news article just issued by IRIN, the humanitarian news and analysis service of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the Kenyan government is doing exactly what the United States government ought to do.
The article is headlined: "The Million Man Cut." And that, of course, expresses the goal -- to circumcise one million uncircumcised males by 2013. According to this article, the circumcision rate in Kenya is good -- around 85%. But it's not high enough to provide the societal protection that circumcision gives. At least 1.2 million foreskins are still amongst them, foreskins that serve as portals for HIV, STDs, HPV, herpes, and other preventable diseases.
Here are excerpts from the news article. Don't you think it's time for the USA to learn the lesson from Africa?
"KISUMU, 17 November 2009 (PlusNews) - The Kenyan government is expanding services to meet the growing demand for voluntary medical male circumcision after the launch of a national campaign a year ago.
"We believe the launch of a rapid results initiative to scale up what we are already offering will help meet the demand; our target is an ambitious one to see to it that at least 1.1 million of the uncircumcised men in this country get the cut by the end of five years," said Jackson Kioko, director of medical services in western Nyanza Province.
Results of three random trials in South Africa, Kenya and Uganda in 2005 and 2006 demonstrated that medical male circumcision reduced the risk of HIV infection among men by up to 60 percent. According to the Kenya AIDS Indicator Survey 2007, 85 percent of Kenyan men are circumcised; HIV prevalence is higher by three-to-five times in uncircumcised men.
There are about 1.2 million uncircumcised men between the ages of 15 and 49 in Kenya, most of whom live in Nyanza Province, where fewer than 50 percent of men are circumcised. Since the launch of the national campaign in November 2008, an estimated 40,000 men have been circumcised and 124 sites opened and equipped with facilities and personnel to offer the service. The government has trained 700 health workers in the province to offer the services in various health facilities. "The trained health workers will ensure people who demand these services get them in a safe and timely manner and the training of others is ongoing across the various provinces within the country," Kioko added.
The government also plans to roll out mobile medical circumcision. "We do not want people to opt out simply because the services are not near them and we are making arrangements that we go to them rather than them coming to us," Kioko said. "We will, in the near future, offer infant medical circumcision; this has the potential to help people in time before their sexual debut."
Thursday, November 5, 2009
New Study: Circumcision Reduces Herpes & HPV in Males
How long must we wait for the Centers for Disease Control and the American Academy of Pediatrics to take account of the growing body of medical evidence that points in only one direction -- every boy should be circumcised to protect himself, his partners, and society as a whole.
This week, still another study in the New England Journal of Medicine confirms that male circumcision reduces a male's chance of getting genital herpes and HPV.
After years of such evidence, it's amazing that the CDC and AAP feel so threatened by a small group of anti-circumcision fanatics that they appear to be back-pedaling on doing what is medically right. I will never understand why the foreskin fetishists go to such extremes, but eventually even the docs at the CDC and AAP will yield to medical science and declare what most of us know is true: circumcision is good for every boy!
For more evidence of that, read the full Reuters story, as reported in the Vancouver Times Colonist:
Circumcision protects men from genital herpes and a virus that causes genital warts and cancer but it does not appear to guard against syphilis, U.S. and Ugandan researchers said on Wednesday.
The report in the New England Journal of Medicine adds to the debate over whether men — and newborn boys — should be circumcised to protect their health and perhaps the health of their future sexual partners.
The findings from two trials in Uganda build on related research showing that circumcision cuts a man's risk of HIV infection through heterosexual intercourse by more than 50 per cent, said Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health in the United States, which funded the study.
They also come at a time when circumcision rates are declining in places like the United States even as evidence mounts that the practice can provide important health benefits.
"Medically supervised adult male circumcision is a scientifically proven method for reducing a man's risk of acquiring HIV infection through heterosexual intercourse," he said.
"This new research provides compelling evidence that circumcision can provide some protection against genital herpes and human papillomavirus infections as well."
The human papillomavirus, or HPV, is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the world. It causes cervical cancer, which kills 300,000 women globally every year.
The team, which also included researchers from Johns Hopkins University in the United States and Makerere University in Uganda, conducted two parallel clinical trials to analyse the impact of male circumcision as a public health tool.
The combined results of the studies looking at more than 3,000 men showed circumcision reduced the risk of herpes by 25 per cent and of HPV by one third. HPV also causes anal and penile cancers.
Circumcision also appeared to reduce the odds of genital warts but had no effect on the incidence of syphilis, the researchers added.
The study highlights the potential of using circumcision to protect people most at risk of the infections in the developing world, especially Africa, where HIV and HPV are widespread.
"Efforts to scale-up male circumcision could have tremendous benefit," said David Serwadda of Makerere University in Uganda, who worked on the study.
Since 2007, circumcision has been promoted by the World Health Organization and the United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS as a way to reduce the risk of AIDS in areas where heterosexual transmission is high.
When done in children, the operation reduces the chance of urinary tract infections and phimosis, a problem with the foreskin.
This week, still another study in the New England Journal of Medicine confirms that male circumcision reduces a male's chance of getting genital herpes and HPV.
After years of such evidence, it's amazing that the CDC and AAP feel so threatened by a small group of anti-circumcision fanatics that they appear to be back-pedaling on doing what is medically right. I will never understand why the foreskin fetishists go to such extremes, but eventually even the docs at the CDC and AAP will yield to medical science and declare what most of us know is true: circumcision is good for every boy!
For more evidence of that, read the full Reuters story, as reported in the Vancouver Times Colonist:
Circumcision protects men from genital herpes and a virus that causes genital warts and cancer but it does not appear to guard against syphilis, U.S. and Ugandan researchers said on Wednesday.
The report in the New England Journal of Medicine adds to the debate over whether men — and newborn boys — should be circumcised to protect their health and perhaps the health of their future sexual partners.
The findings from two trials in Uganda build on related research showing that circumcision cuts a man's risk of HIV infection through heterosexual intercourse by more than 50 per cent, said Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health in the United States, which funded the study.
They also come at a time when circumcision rates are declining in places like the United States even as evidence mounts that the practice can provide important health benefits.
"Medically supervised adult male circumcision is a scientifically proven method for reducing a man's risk of acquiring HIV infection through heterosexual intercourse," he said.
"This new research provides compelling evidence that circumcision can provide some protection against genital herpes and human papillomavirus infections as well."
The human papillomavirus, or HPV, is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the world. It causes cervical cancer, which kills 300,000 women globally every year.
The team, which also included researchers from Johns Hopkins University in the United States and Makerere University in Uganda, conducted two parallel clinical trials to analyse the impact of male circumcision as a public health tool.
The combined results of the studies looking at more than 3,000 men showed circumcision reduced the risk of herpes by 25 per cent and of HPV by one third. HPV also causes anal and penile cancers.
Circumcision also appeared to reduce the odds of genital warts but had no effect on the incidence of syphilis, the researchers added.
The study highlights the potential of using circumcision to protect people most at risk of the infections in the developing world, especially Africa, where HIV and HPV are widespread.
"Efforts to scale-up male circumcision could have tremendous benefit," said David Serwadda of Makerere University in Uganda, who worked on the study.
Since 2007, circumcision has been promoted by the World Health Organization and the United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS as a way to reduce the risk of AIDS in areas where heterosexual transmission is high.
When done in children, the operation reduces the chance of urinary tract infections and phimosis, a problem with the foreskin.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Operation Abraham Coming to USA
Three cheers for Dr. Inon Schenker! A couple weeks ago, Ha'aretz News, an Israeli paper, published a story about Dr. Schenker and something called Operation Abraham. The good doctor was at the recent CDC meeting in Atlanta and proposed bringing his Operation Abraham to America. As described in the newspaper, "Operation Abraham [is] a group of Israeli doctors who gained expertise in circumcision by performing the procedure thousands of times, quickly and safely, on Russian-Jewish men who were raised outside Jewish tradition and immigrated to Israel in the 1990s. "
Knowing that America has a growing foreskin problem, not only because too many boys are left uncircumcised, but also because our fast growing immigrant population is largely foreskin afflicted, Dr. Schenker suggests: "Why not bring mass adult male circumcision to the Hispanic and African-American communities of America?" Indeed, to all Americans, I would add, because we have many whites and asians here who still are at risk to themselves and their partners because of their uncircumcised status.
Operation Abraham is not something new and novel. The altruistic doctor and his team have already perfected it in African countries. Here's what Ha'aretz reported: "The resulting abstract, which Dr. Schenker presented in Atlanta, proposes to help train American doctors in much the same way as was effective in Swaziland: by working side by side and showing them how to circumcise efficiently. The innovation creates what Schenker called an "assembly line" technique, working in a team, using only local anesthesia and perfecting a "clamp" method of foreskin removal that uses forceps. The Israeli doctors boast that they are able to perform 30 or 40 circumcisions a day."
The link between HIV, STDs, HPV, cancer, and all sorts of other pernicious diseases and the foreskin is now conclusive. Operation Abraham is a humanitarian effort to save the lives of millions of uncircumcised Americans who, through no fault of their own, were not circumcised at birth like most Americans.
So far, the U.S. government has not embraced Dr. Schenker's proposal. They should do so immediately. After all, U.S. taxpayers spend millions to circumcise Africans. Why not spend a little of that money on our own people? Readers of my blog know that I think it is hypocritical for us to circumcise the rest of the world and ignore our own. Dr. Schenker is offering a great public service.
The Ha'aretz article notes that some of the anti-circumcision foreskin lovers are trying to portray the Israeli docs as some sort of proselytizers for Judaism. That strikes me as anti-semitic. No, these docs are not mohels. No, they are not looking for Jewish converts. But, yes, they want to help restore America to its clean-cut status of the 1960s & 1970s. After all the money and support America has given Israel over the decades, I can't think of a better way for Israel to return the favor than to let its docs eliminate the foreskin from our continent.
Obviously, the expected recommendation from the Centers for Disease Control and the American Academy of Pediatrics that all newborn boys be circumcised will help in the future, but Operation Abraham could be just what the doctor ordered for American males who were not so fortunate at birth. Dr. Schenker, we need you and want you!
Knowing that America has a growing foreskin problem, not only because too many boys are left uncircumcised, but also because our fast growing immigrant population is largely foreskin afflicted, Dr. Schenker suggests: "Why not bring mass adult male circumcision to the Hispanic and African-American communities of America?" Indeed, to all Americans, I would add, because we have many whites and asians here who still are at risk to themselves and their partners because of their uncircumcised status.
Operation Abraham is not something new and novel. The altruistic doctor and his team have already perfected it in African countries. Here's what Ha'aretz reported: "The resulting abstract, which Dr. Schenker presented in Atlanta, proposes to help train American doctors in much the same way as was effective in Swaziland: by working side by side and showing them how to circumcise efficiently. The innovation creates what Schenker called an "assembly line" technique, working in a team, using only local anesthesia and perfecting a "clamp" method of foreskin removal that uses forceps. The Israeli doctors boast that they are able to perform 30 or 40 circumcisions a day."
The link between HIV, STDs, HPV, cancer, and all sorts of other pernicious diseases and the foreskin is now conclusive. Operation Abraham is a humanitarian effort to save the lives of millions of uncircumcised Americans who, through no fault of their own, were not circumcised at birth like most Americans.
So far, the U.S. government has not embraced Dr. Schenker's proposal. They should do so immediately. After all, U.S. taxpayers spend millions to circumcise Africans. Why not spend a little of that money on our own people? Readers of my blog know that I think it is hypocritical for us to circumcise the rest of the world and ignore our own. Dr. Schenker is offering a great public service.
The Ha'aretz article notes that some of the anti-circumcision foreskin lovers are trying to portray the Israeli docs as some sort of proselytizers for Judaism. That strikes me as anti-semitic. No, these docs are not mohels. No, they are not looking for Jewish converts. But, yes, they want to help restore America to its clean-cut status of the 1960s & 1970s. After all the money and support America has given Israel over the decades, I can't think of a better way for Israel to return the favor than to let its docs eliminate the foreskin from our continent.
Obviously, the expected recommendation from the Centers for Disease Control and the American Academy of Pediatrics that all newborn boys be circumcised will help in the future, but Operation Abraham could be just what the doctor ordered for American males who were not so fortunate at birth. Dr. Schenker, we need you and want you!
Friday, September 11, 2009
UN Reaffirms Value of Universal Circumcision
Maybe, just maybe, we are beginning to see government agencies (outside of Africa) embrace the goal of universal circumcision, a society where the foreskin can no longer pose a threat to a male and his partners. Experts from the World Health Organization, UNAIDS, and the South African Centre for Epidemiological Modeling applied mathematical modeling to a number of studies showing the benefits of circumcision.
Here are some of their conclusions:
* "Using a 10-y time horizon, one new HIV infection would be averted for every five to 15 men newly circumcised. For the most successful interventions, where almost all men are circumcised, HIV incidence could be reduced by ~30%–50% over the same period."
* "Women, even if not directly protected, would benefit indirectly from the introduction or expansion of male circumcision services because their probability of encountering an HIV-infected male sexual partner gradually declines with programme scale-up."
* "Circumcising men who have not started sexual activity leads to the greatest population-level benefit in the long term. . . . Of course, circumcising both adult males and neonates would maximise the short- and long-term impact of circumcision on HIV incidence."
* "The estimated costs per adult male circumcision are between $30 and $60 depending on the programme setting, with neonatal circumcision costing about one-third this amount. . . . By comparison, estimates of discounted lifetime treatment costs typically exceed $7,000 per HIV infection if only first-line treatment is provided, and twice as much if second-line treatment is available."
Put simply, universal circumcision at birth provides the best health protection at the lowest cost. Circumcising before sexual activity is best, and one HIV case can be prevented for every five males circumcised. Isn't that worth it?
Now let's hope our friends at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) are able to read this report through the fog of crap being tossed up by the anti-circ fanatics.
Here are some of their conclusions:
* "Using a 10-y time horizon, one new HIV infection would be averted for every five to 15 men newly circumcised. For the most successful interventions, where almost all men are circumcised, HIV incidence could be reduced by ~30%–50% over the same period."
* "Women, even if not directly protected, would benefit indirectly from the introduction or expansion of male circumcision services because their probability of encountering an HIV-infected male sexual partner gradually declines with programme scale-up."
* "Circumcising men who have not started sexual activity leads to the greatest population-level benefit in the long term. . . . Of course, circumcising both adult males and neonates would maximise the short- and long-term impact of circumcision on HIV incidence."
* "The estimated costs per adult male circumcision are between $30 and $60 depending on the programme setting, with neonatal circumcision costing about one-third this amount. . . . By comparison, estimates of discounted lifetime treatment costs typically exceed $7,000 per HIV infection if only first-line treatment is provided, and twice as much if second-line treatment is available."
Put simply, universal circumcision at birth provides the best health protection at the lowest cost. Circumcising before sexual activity is best, and one HIV case can be prevented for every five males circumcised. Isn't that worth it?
Now let's hope our friends at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) are able to read this report through the fog of crap being tossed up by the anti-circ fanatics.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
San Francisco Chronicle Joins Boston Globe: Circumcise All Newborns
In a Sunday editorial, the San Francisco Chronicle has joined the Boston Globe in urging the Centers for Disease Control to stick to its original position that now is the time for all American newborns to be circumcised. It comes at a time when the anti-circumcision fanatics have become almost hysterical about the medical science that points to universal male circumcision. The editorial addresses the fanatics calling them what they are -- "hysterical intactivists." The editorial is so good that I am repeating it word for word:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are weighing a proposal to recommend routine circumcision for all baby boys born in the United States to curb the spread of HIV and other infections. The CDC should ignore the cries of outrage from so-called "intactivists" and recommend the procedure. The evidence shows that the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks.
This shouldn't even be controversial. Nearly 80 percent of adult American men are already circumcised, and they seem to be getting through life just fine. Studies have shown that circumcision can reduce HIV infection rates for heterosexual men by half. Observational studies have also shown that circumcised men have lower rates of other sexually transmitted diseases (like herpes and syphilis), cancer of the penis and urinary tract infections. What's the problem, again?
Well, the problem centers on the hysterical intactivists, who believe that: A. circumcision is "mutilation"; and that B. baby boys should be able to "decide for themselves," as though families have no right to make decisions about their children's health, treatment and culture. (Not to mention the health and safety of the larger society.)
The CDC should recommend routine circumcision.
CDC should recommend routine circumcision
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Sunday, August 30, 2009
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are weighing a proposal to recommend routine circumcision for all baby boys born in the United States to curb the spread of HIV and other infections. The CDC should ignore the cries of outrage from so-called "intactivists" and recommend the procedure. The evidence shows that the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks.
This shouldn't even be controversial. Nearly 80 percent of adult American men are already circumcised, and they seem to be getting through life just fine. Studies have shown that circumcision can reduce HIV infection rates for heterosexual men by half. Observational studies have also shown that circumcised men have lower rates of other sexually transmitted diseases (like herpes and syphilis), cancer of the penis and urinary tract infections. What's the problem, again?
Well, the problem centers on the hysterical intactivists, who believe that: A. circumcision is "mutilation"; and that B. baby boys should be able to "decide for themselves," as though families have no right to make decisions about their children's health, treatment and culture. (Not to mention the health and safety of the larger society.)
The CDC should recommend routine circumcision.
CDC Appears to Backtrack on Universal Newborn Circumcision
Score one for the foreskin lovers. Their hyperbolic fanatic reaction to earlier reports that the Centers for Disease Control was about to do the sound medical thing -- recommend the universal circumcision of all male newborns in the USA -- seems to have taken a toll on some cowardly bureaucrats at the CDC.
Late last week, the CDC issued a clarification that shows all the signs of "political" intervention into the "health" decisions of this agency. If you read their most recent statement, issued last Thursday, it appears that Rush Limbaugh's accusation on radio that President Obama wants mandatory circumcision so scared political officials in the federal government that the big word now is "voluntary," to wit: "Whatever the content may include, CDC’s final circumcision recommendations will be completely voluntary."
Of course, newborn circumcision was ALWAYS going to be voluntary with the decision left, where it should be, with American parents. While it's medically desirable to have every newborn boy leave the filthy foreskin behind in the hospital, we are not a fascist state that can order that happy event, no matter how beneficial to society as a whole.
The larger question, it seems to me, is whether the CDC retreats from the sound medical evidence in the face of the anti-circumcision movement's effort to put the foreskin on a pedestal. The CDC's recent statement sounds like it was written by politicians in Washington, not Atlanta (where CDC is headquartered), to be all things to all people: "With respect to infant circumcision, it is important to recognize that many options are still being considered in this process, including simply recommending that health-care providers educate parents about the potential benefits and risks to ensure that parents have the information they need to make an informed decision."
This is a classic case of sound science & medicine versus a powerful political lobbying group, now well-funded by a multi-millionnaire, that wants to preserve the foreskin at all costs to public health. I feel sorry for CDC's medical doctors and researchers. They know that all the evidence leads to a recommendation that every male be circumcised, but their hands are being tied by political intervention from the White House and the Department of Health & Human Services and other government bureaucrats who want to keep Rush Limbaugh and the anti-circ lobby "happy."
Throughout his campaign and even into the early days of his presidency, President Obama insisted that "sound science" would not be trampled on by political ideology and expediency. The CDC's call for universal newborn circumcision will be a true test of whether Obama means it. If the CDC does the right medical thing and recommends (not mandates) that all baby boys be clean-cut, then we shall know that Obama meant what he said. Otherwise, it's the same old political interference that we've come to expect from the federal government. Let's hope the CDC doctors have the spine and fortitude to stand up to those who are politicizing an important decision that will protect the health of every male, his partners, and society as a whole.
Late last week, the CDC issued a clarification that shows all the signs of "political" intervention into the "health" decisions of this agency. If you read their most recent statement, issued last Thursday, it appears that Rush Limbaugh's accusation on radio that President Obama wants mandatory circumcision so scared political officials in the federal government that the big word now is "voluntary," to wit: "Whatever the content may include, CDC’s final circumcision recommendations will be completely voluntary."
Of course, newborn circumcision was ALWAYS going to be voluntary with the decision left, where it should be, with American parents. While it's medically desirable to have every newborn boy leave the filthy foreskin behind in the hospital, we are not a fascist state that can order that happy event, no matter how beneficial to society as a whole.
The larger question, it seems to me, is whether the CDC retreats from the sound medical evidence in the face of the anti-circumcision movement's effort to put the foreskin on a pedestal. The CDC's recent statement sounds like it was written by politicians in Washington, not Atlanta (where CDC is headquartered), to be all things to all people: "With respect to infant circumcision, it is important to recognize that many options are still being considered in this process, including simply recommending that health-care providers educate parents about the potential benefits and risks to ensure that parents have the information they need to make an informed decision."
This is a classic case of sound science & medicine versus a powerful political lobbying group, now well-funded by a multi-millionnaire, that wants to preserve the foreskin at all costs to public health. I feel sorry for CDC's medical doctors and researchers. They know that all the evidence leads to a recommendation that every male be circumcised, but their hands are being tied by political intervention from the White House and the Department of Health & Human Services and other government bureaucrats who want to keep Rush Limbaugh and the anti-circ lobby "happy."
Throughout his campaign and even into the early days of his presidency, President Obama insisted that "sound science" would not be trampled on by political ideology and expediency. The CDC's call for universal newborn circumcision will be a true test of whether Obama means it. If the CDC does the right medical thing and recommends (not mandates) that all baby boys be clean-cut, then we shall know that Obama meant what he said. Otherwise, it's the same old political interference that we've come to expect from the federal government. Let's hope the CDC doctors have the spine and fortitude to stand up to those who are politicizing an important decision that will protect the health of every male, his partners, and society as a whole.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Boston Globe Endorses Newborn Circumcision for all Males
In another dramatic sign that America may be returning to its clean-cut, foreskin-free tradition, the Boston Globe has editorialized its view that all American boys should be circumcised at birth.
Entitled "Circumcision: A Cut against HIV," the Globe hailed the Centers for Disease Control's call to circumcise all American infant boys. "Such a tactic makes sense against a virus that infects more than 50,000 Americans each year," the editors wrote.
The editorial marks another sign that the anti-circ fanatics are losing the battle because the medical evidence is just so strong in favor of universal mandatory circumcision. The hope is that more major newspapers and media organizations will follow the Globe's example and encourage the CDC. The anti-circ foreskin lovers have mounted a strong PR campaign to dissuade the CDC from its sound science approach, but most Americans dismiss the foreskin lovers as whackos.
As I have repeatedly noted, the current "neutral" government policy hurts minorities, African Americans, and Hispanics because many have been denied health coverage for newborn circumcisions. The Globe notes that rates of HIV are higher among these groups because many more of them are uncircumcised.
While the overall tone of the editorial is quite positive, the Globe's editors can't quite say what we all know is obvious. It's not enough to call for universal male circumcision -- it should be mandatory. The editorial writers stop short of that, saying, "No one should be forced to circumcise a son. But where the health benefits are clear, the CDC should be equally clear in its recommendations. Circumcision is no panacea, but it deserves the CDC’s support."
In my view, if circumcision has clear health benefits that protect the male, his partners, and society, then it ought to be required for all. That's the editorial I really want to read. But the truth is that American parents are smart enough to follow the medical advice of the CDC, so the practical impact of promoting universal newborn circumcision will be to rid the filthy foreskin from the shores of this country.
Entitled "Circumcision: A Cut against HIV," the Globe hailed the Centers for Disease Control's call to circumcise all American infant boys. "Such a tactic makes sense against a virus that infects more than 50,000 Americans each year," the editors wrote.
The editorial marks another sign that the anti-circ fanatics are losing the battle because the medical evidence is just so strong in favor of universal mandatory circumcision. The hope is that more major newspapers and media organizations will follow the Globe's example and encourage the CDC. The anti-circ foreskin lovers have mounted a strong PR campaign to dissuade the CDC from its sound science approach, but most Americans dismiss the foreskin lovers as whackos.
As I have repeatedly noted, the current "neutral" government policy hurts minorities, African Americans, and Hispanics because many have been denied health coverage for newborn circumcisions. The Globe notes that rates of HIV are higher among these groups because many more of them are uncircumcised.
While the overall tone of the editorial is quite positive, the Globe's editors can't quite say what we all know is obvious. It's not enough to call for universal male circumcision -- it should be mandatory. The editorial writers stop short of that, saying, "No one should be forced to circumcise a son. But where the health benefits are clear, the CDC should be equally clear in its recommendations. Circumcision is no panacea, but it deserves the CDC’s support."
In my view, if circumcision has clear health benefits that protect the male, his partners, and society, then it ought to be required for all. That's the editorial I really want to read. But the truth is that American parents are smart enough to follow the medical advice of the CDC, so the practical impact of promoting universal newborn circumcision will be to rid the filthy foreskin from the shores of this country.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
US Health Officials Closer to Pushing Universal Circumcision
Good news out of the NY Times today. The US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) appears closer than ever to recommending that every male in America be circumcised, preferably at birth. This, of course, is the logical outcome of all the studies over the last decade that demonstrate conclusively that circumcision has a positive health benefit on not only the circumcised male but also his partners and society as a whole.
The story published this Sunday quotes Dr. Peter Kilmarx, the CDC's chief of epidemiology, as saying, "What we’ve heard from our consultants is that there would be a benefit for infants from infant circumcision, and that the benefits outweigh the risks.” The CDC is expected to make its recommendation public by the end of the year, although anti-circ foreskin lovers are waging an all-out effort to save the foreskin through a misleading campaign of lies and innuendoes.
The Times reporter also notes that "circumcision will be discussed this week at the C.D.C.’s National H.I.V. Prevention Conference in Atlanta, which will be attended by thousands of health professionals and H.I.V. service providers."
The United States was once a truly clean-cut country but circumcision rates have fallen because the American Academy of Pediatrics abandoned its pro-circ position in favor of "neutrality." That caused some insurance companies and state Medicaid programs to abandon payment for newborn circumcision.
But as the Times reporter noted, "The academy is revising its guidelines, however, and is likely to do away with the neutral tone in favor of a more encouraging policy stating that circumcision has health benefits even beyond H.I.V. prevention, like reducing urinary tract infections for baby boys, said Dr. Michael Brady, a consultant to the American Academy of Pediatrics."
"He said the academy would probably stop short of recommending routine surgery, however. 'We do have evidence to suggest there are health benefits, and families should be given an opportunity to know what they are,' he said."
Curiously, it's the CDC that is taking the lead to return America to a fully circumcised clean-cut status, while the AAP -- if Dr. Brady is correct -- seems more reluctant to just say what most baby docs know is true: a clean circumcised penis is the healthy choice.
You can read the full NY Times article at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/health/policy/24circumcision.html?hp
The story published this Sunday quotes Dr. Peter Kilmarx, the CDC's chief of epidemiology, as saying, "What we’ve heard from our consultants is that there would be a benefit for infants from infant circumcision, and that the benefits outweigh the risks.” The CDC is expected to make its recommendation public by the end of the year, although anti-circ foreskin lovers are waging an all-out effort to save the foreskin through a misleading campaign of lies and innuendoes.
The Times reporter also notes that "circumcision will be discussed this week at the C.D.C.’s National H.I.V. Prevention Conference in Atlanta, which will be attended by thousands of health professionals and H.I.V. service providers."
The United States was once a truly clean-cut country but circumcision rates have fallen because the American Academy of Pediatrics abandoned its pro-circ position in favor of "neutrality." That caused some insurance companies and state Medicaid programs to abandon payment for newborn circumcision.
But as the Times reporter noted, "The academy is revising its guidelines, however, and is likely to do away with the neutral tone in favor of a more encouraging policy stating that circumcision has health benefits even beyond H.I.V. prevention, like reducing urinary tract infections for baby boys, said Dr. Michael Brady, a consultant to the American Academy of Pediatrics."
"He said the academy would probably stop short of recommending routine surgery, however. 'We do have evidence to suggest there are health benefits, and families should be given an opportunity to know what they are,' he said."
Curiously, it's the CDC that is taking the lead to return America to a fully circumcised clean-cut status, while the AAP -- if Dr. Brady is correct -- seems more reluctant to just say what most baby docs know is true: a clean circumcised penis is the healthy choice.
You can read the full NY Times article at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/health/policy/24circumcision.html?hp
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Universal Circumcision Reduces HIV Dramatically
Did you catch this latest gem of a story? The Phillipines, where universal circumcision is practiced and encouraged, has one of the lowest HIV rates in the world.
A story from ABS/CBN News is worth a moment:
"Dr. Catherine Hankins, chief scientific adviser to UNAIDS, has praised the Philippines for having one of the lowest HIV/AIDS prevalence rates in the Asia-Pacific, which she attributed to the country's practice of almost universal male circumcision." [my emphasis].
"One of the major reasons for the Philippines' low HIV prevalence rate is the fact that it practices almost universal male circumcision. We know that male circumcision protects against HIV partially, about a 60 percent reduction for men and eventually that means Filipino women are less likely to encounter men who are HIV positive so they have lower rates of HIV," Hankins, chief scientific adviser to UNAIDS, told abs-cbnNEWS.com.
"The Philippines, in adopting male circumcision despite the fact that it is primarily a Roman Catholic country has meant a better control of the epidemic."
"She said various studies have shown the benefits of male circumcision including lower rates of urinary tract infections in male infants who are circumcised; lower risk of penile cancer and lower prevalence of some sexually transmitted infections such as human papillomavirus (HPV) and herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2)."
Now we've known this medical evidence for some time now, but what is interesting is that the Phillipines is a perfect "case study" of what happens when every male is clean-cut. Of course, there is some HIV & STDs & HPV, but the cultural desire to be circumcised has greatly cut the rates of those awful diseases there. In the Philippines to be "supot" or "pisot" (meaning uncircumcised) is not only unhealthy but it's also socially unacceptable. Indeed, to call someone supot or pisot is a great insult, meaning not only are they uncircumcised but they are dirty, unclean, and child-like.
I hope Dr. Hankins has talked to the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) so that they, like the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNAIDS, can forcefully call for universal circumcision in America.
A story from ABS/CBN News is worth a moment:
"Dr. Catherine Hankins, chief scientific adviser to UNAIDS, has praised the Philippines for having one of the lowest HIV/AIDS prevalence rates in the Asia-Pacific, which she attributed to the country's practice of almost universal male circumcision." [my emphasis].
"One of the major reasons for the Philippines' low HIV prevalence rate is the fact that it practices almost universal male circumcision. We know that male circumcision protects against HIV partially, about a 60 percent reduction for men and eventually that means Filipino women are less likely to encounter men who are HIV positive so they have lower rates of HIV," Hankins, chief scientific adviser to UNAIDS, told abs-cbnNEWS.com.
"The Philippines, in adopting male circumcision despite the fact that it is primarily a Roman Catholic country has meant a better control of the epidemic."
"She said various studies have shown the benefits of male circumcision including lower rates of urinary tract infections in male infants who are circumcised; lower risk of penile cancer and lower prevalence of some sexually transmitted infections such as human papillomavirus (HPV) and herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2)."
Now we've known this medical evidence for some time now, but what is interesting is that the Phillipines is a perfect "case study" of what happens when every male is clean-cut. Of course, there is some HIV & STDs & HPV, but the cultural desire to be circumcised has greatly cut the rates of those awful diseases there. In the Philippines to be "supot" or "pisot" (meaning uncircumcised) is not only unhealthy but it's also socially unacceptable. Indeed, to call someone supot or pisot is a great insult, meaning not only are they uncircumcised but they are dirty, unclean, and child-like.
I hope Dr. Hankins has talked to the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) so that they, like the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNAIDS, can forcefully call for universal circumcision in America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
