People opposing circumcision: How are you more informed than all of the experts?

Read this before you comment, because I assure you every arguement against circumcision is adressed in this article.

http://www.circinfo.net/pdfs/GFParents-EN(US)2012.pdf

The American Academy of Pediatrics now acknowledges that circumcision has real advantages. So a lot of people against circumcision got hit hard by A.A.P.'s reversal of their stance and are getting a real taste of reality for the first time. I invite you to read the actual AAP guideline, specifically, the part on what lead them to their recommendations. It's important for parents to make an educated decision. For those who say it hurts the child, the AAP guideline also states male circumcision should be performed by trained and competent practitioners, by using sterile techniques and effective pain management. The risk-benefit analysis includes recommendations on how to further minimize the already minimal risk of severe complications. I should also add that the AAP guideline is not a single study; rather, it is based on a systematic review of over a 1000 studies, so they obviously know what they’re talking about when they say it’s better for the child.

But of course whenever there's a guideline release based on the most sound, high-quality, up to date evidence, people tend to bring up either anecdotes or a known risk that has already been acknowledged in the guideline. In this case I'm sure we're going to see a lot of comments like "well I didn't have it done and I turned out ok" or "I know someone that had it done and it didn't turn out so well" They are very entitled to say that, but probably haven't thought of the issue in a broader perspective. It would be nice if people understood the concepts of "risk benefit analysis" and "critical appraisal" If the facts show a decreased risk of urinary tract infections, some kinds of cancer, HPV, HIV, and other sexually transmitted diseases, AND that outweighs the risks of the procedure, than that must be acknowledged even if you are against circumcision. At the very least, read the AAP guideline and the reasoning that brought them to their recommendations and make your decision an EDUCATED one.

Medical experts hold that there are definitely health benefits while 13-year olds who have become a victim of the anti-circumcision propaganda believe there are none no matter how much evidence is shown. They probably know more about circumcision than you when they have just spent about 5 years making the policy with much of that time reading through scientific literature. The taskforce has very qualified participants unlike their equivalent in some countries. I don't think giving the best possible policy that experts can give based on a mountain of scientific research to be a dubious reason to turn pro-circumcision. In the past, medical evidence was insufficient to fully support circumcision's health benefits. Today, more advanced research has provided increasing evidence for the health benefits and advantages of circumcision and now all of the people against circumcision are in denial about it.

Most anti-circumcision sites do not cite a single study or peer-reviewed publications. The closet thing to a study is some sort of survey data of unspecified methodology. That's not even close to publication-ready and definitely not of any merit to base medical practice and education on, it is only a survey on a commercial website. And if you cannot see why some survey on a commercial site can’t compare to an industry-free, double blind, randomized control trial than I implore you to learn about critical appraisal and levels of evidence before linking to something like "CircumSerum". The high-quality randomized control trial involving thousands of men is enough evidence and critical appraisal to show circumcision isn’t as horrible as anti-circ’s makes it seem.

There are indeed a large number of anti-circumcision web sites around the internet but if you look closely you will see that they all basically mirror one another. There is a major financial contributor to the anti-Semites, anti-circumcision cause in the USA. By funding the setting up of hundreds of sites he and his cohorts think they can fool the public into thinking there is a very large anti-circumcision movement. In reality it is a very tiny movement but it makes a lot of noise. They have failed to convince people in respect of every tactic they have used (and there have been around a dozen different major lines of attack over the years) and so now they are trying to denigrate the web sites established to tell the truth about the medical benefits of circumcision. They say that all the medical evidence is flawed. They call the sites 'fetish' sites and their owners 'child abusers' and 'fetishists' despite the fact that most pro-circ sites are run by highly respected medically qualified doctors and researchers.

If anyone has a 'fetish' it must be those deluded anti-circ campaigners who will spend years hanging weights on their penis in the hope of re-creating a foreskin. Only by trying to shock and worry people with their myths, lies and half-truths can the anti-circ folk hope to win any support. If they can make a few insecure teenagers think that their lives have been ruined by an infant circumcision they hope that these males, when they become fathers, will roundly reject circumcision for their sons. Not going to happen. Being a pediatric nurse who assists with circumcisions on a daily basis, and growing up in a Circumcised Society, the reality is Medical studies are not even really needed to show and prove the benefits of male circumcision as the millions of circumcised boys and men who are on the earth already are a living testament to its beneficial outcome.

The anti-circ movement does NOT represent the truth or the facts of circumcision and they never have.

But given the ludicrous claims of the anti-circumcision movement that have been premised on circumcision not providing medical benefit it is good to get the word out there authoritatively. Spending many years consulting research is a commendable thing and all accolades to the AAP for doing so.
It sounds like the anti-circumcision movements haven't got past the HIV research from the 80s. That obviously makes a good straw man given the more recent RCTs. But of course the AAP have considered more recent and powerful research - hence their findings.

Anti-circumcision activists also still conflate removing a bit of skin from the penis with removing an entire organ and don't see the illogic of such disproportionally or irony of their argument considering the consequences of penile cancer which neonatal circumcision avoids virtually completely. I guess if they have their head in the sand with the science they probably also never read what those of us who accept science are saying.

So they keep talking about cutting off breasts and their imaginary 20, 000 nerve endings. They derive comfort from the higher incidence of deaths from breast cancer and justify torturing baby boys with UTIs and having them suffer permanent kidney damage in 50% of cases because in their minds removing some skin is the equivalent of a pre-emptive mastectomy.

For these souls doctors are conspiring to make money from circumcision and couldn't possibly be trying to protect their patients with accurate health information. No the unsubstantiated anti-circumcision websites must be infallible.

Yes anti-circumcision activists go ahead and ignore the AAP. Leave the boy unprotected until he is approaching a responsible age when he might start practicing safe sex and leave him until he has missed most of the medical benefits particularly at ages when he is most vulnerable then offer him a procedure with at least ten times the complication rate, less likelihood of a good cosmetic outcome, and six to eight times the recovery period when stitching, uncomfortable mobility, disruption of school or work, and sexual abstinence are factors. While you are at it don't let him know that circumcision improves sexual pleasure and tell him to ignore authoritative information like the AAP so that he can make an 'informed' choice. Instead direct him to websites including the surprisingly candidly titled "circumcisions" website, but really, you should believe those who have studied ALL the medical evidence that has been gathered by properly controlled studies and published in recognized scientific journals only after strict peer review. These studies show infant circumcision to have benefits which outweigh the very minor possible problems by over 100 to 1.
Like I said before, none of the 'evidence' produced by the anti-circumcision faction has ever stood up to peer review nor been corroborated by further independent studies.

The AAP is relying on evidence based research from some of the most highly rated scientific journals in the world. Unless you have a M.D. or have an education in statistics or public health, you are likely not educated to know what is and isn't good research.

I just don't understand why there are experts who have studied in to the subject saying circumcision is more hygienic and beneficial and yet you STILL deny all of the evidence shown. So please, explain to me how you're more informed than these educated professional doctors.


Here’s a good article to read up on: http://able2know.org/topic/197773-1

And I would love to see you all argue against DCGeorge76’s comments on http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/27/new-circumcision-guidelin_n_1826069.html

He has won every argument that the anti-circ‘s have brought up by using FACTS, STATISTICS, and EVIDENCE. Read all of his comments and you’ll be surprised how much information has been hidden by the anti-circumcision movement.